Monthly Archives: February 2021

Since 2019, government-sponsored initiatives around AI have proliferated across Asia Pacific. Such initiatives include the setting up of cross-domain AI ethics councils, guidelines and frameworks for the responsible use of AI, and other initiatives such as financial and technology support. The majority of these initiatives builds on the country's respective data privacy and protection acts. This is a clear sign that governments see the need to expand existing regulations when it comes to leveraging AI as a key driver for digital economies. All initiatives to date are voluntary in nature, but there are indications already that existing data privacy and protection laws will be updated and expanded to include AI. To anticipate this, data and technology governance initiatives must evolve now.

Traditionally, data governance and the governance of tech associated with data has focused on topics such as master data management, data quality, and data retention -- all primarily operational. With the rise of privacy laws and data protection acts such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) in Singapore, the scope of data governance has been expanded to include data privacy, personal data protection, and data sovereignty. This has shifted data governance out of the operational corner and into the spotlight of regulatory compliance and enforceable laws.

With AI being ready for prime time -- that means large-scale production deployments -- data and technology governance must step up again and include data and AI ethics and AI risk management.

Like cybersecurity risk before it, regulatory initiatives and consumer demand join forces to drive AI risk management to the top of the corporate agenda. Evaluate your data and technology governance initiatives now to identify gaps and maturity challenges when it comes to the responsible use of data and AI. Prepare for AI risk management to follow cybersecurity risk to the boardroom and kick off corporate collaborations and cross-functional initiatives, including governance, risk, corporate social responsibility, and ethics. Ultimately, understand how you can build trust with your customers, partners, and employees into your responsible use of data and AI -- and turn this trust into your competitive advantage!

For more business and technology trends critical for the year head, download Forrester's 2021Asia PacificPredictions Guidehere.

This post was written by Principal Analyst Achim Granzen, and it originally appearedhere.

View post:

AI drives the evolution of technology and data governance - ZDNet

Mathematical modeler and statistics. Credit: Image is provided by the Anthro Illustrated project (https://anthroillustrated.com)

Current reforms to end the rat race between scientists can help; but are they enough?

Science is societys best method for understanding the world. Yet many scientists are unhappy with the way it works, and there are growing concerns that there is something broken in current scientific practice.

Many of the rules and procedures that are meant to promote innovative research are little more than historical precedents with little reason to suppose they encourage efficient or reliable discoveries. Worse, they can have perverse side-effects that harm both science and scientists. A well-known example is the general preference for positive over negative results, which creates a publication bias giving the false impression that certain effects exist, where in reality the dissenting evidence simply fails to be released.

Arizona State University researchers Thomas Morgan and Minhua Yan, working with ASU graduate Leonid Tiokhin, now at University of Technology Eindhoven in the Netherlands, have developed a new model, published this week in Nature Human Behaviour, to better understand the challenges facing the scientific process and how we can make it better. They focused on the priority rule: the tendency for the first scientist to document a finding to be disproportionately rewarded with prestige, prizes and career opportunities while those in second place get little to no recognition.

Many scientists have sleepless nights worrying about being scooped fearing that their work wont be considered novel enough for the highest-impact scientific journals because a different group working on the same topic manages to publish first. The priority rule has been around for centuries. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz haggled over who invented calculus. And in the 19th century, Charles Darwin rushed to publish On the Origin of Species to avoid being scooped by Alfred Russel Wallace.

Rewarding priority is understandable and has some benefits. However, it comes at a cost, Tiokhin said. Rewards for priority may tempt scientists to sacrifice the quality of their research and cut corners.

The idea is that competition encourages scientists to work hard and efficiently, such that discoveries are made quickly, said Morgan, a research affiliate with theInstitute of Human Originsand associate professor with theSchool of Human Evolution and Social Change.But if everyone is working hard, and you need to come in first to be successful, then theres a temptation to cut corners to maximize your chances, even if it means the science suffers.

This is partly why some academic publishers, such as PLOS and eLife, now offer scoop protection, allowing researchers to publish findings identical to those already published within a certain timeframe. The problem is that science and publishers currently dont have a good idea about whether these reforms make sense.

To figure out how exactly the preference for priority affects science, and whether recent reforms offer any solution for its potential drawbacks, the collaborators developed an evolutionary agent-based model. This computer model simulates how a group of scientists investigate or abandon research questions, depending on their own results and the behavior of other scientists they compete against.The benefit of an evolutionary simulation is that we dont need to specify in advance how scientists behave. We just create a world in which success is rewarded, and we let selection figure out what kinds of behavior this favors, Morgan said. We can then vary what it means to successful for instance, whether or not its critical to come first and see how selection changes the behavior of scientists in response. We can also measure the benefit to society are scientists being efficient? Are their findings accurate? And so on.

The researchers found that a culture of excessive rewards for priority can have harmful effects. Among other things, it motivates scientists to conduct quick and dirty studies, so that they can be first to publish. This reduces the quality of their work and harms the reliability of science as a whole.

The model also suggests that scoop protection, as introduced by PLOS and eLife, works.

It reduces the temptation to rush the research and gives researchers more time to collect additional data, Tiokhin said. However, scoop protection is no panacea.

This is because scoop protection motivates some scientists to continue with a research line even after several results on that topic have been published, which reduces the total number of research questions the scientific community can address.

Scoop protection reforms in themselves, while helpful, are not sufficient to guarantee high-quality research or a reliable published literature. The model also shows that even with scoop protection, scientists will be tempted to run many small studies if new studies are cheap and easy to set up and the rewards for negative results are high. This suggests that measures that force scientists to invest more heavily in each study, such as asking scientists to preregister their studies or get their research plans criticized before they begin collecting data, can help.

We also learned that inefficiency in science is not always a bad thing. On the contrary inefficiencies force researchers to think twice before starting a new study, Tiokhin said.

Another option is to make large-scale data collection so straightforward that there is less incentive to skimp on data, alternatively, reviewers and journals could be more vigilant in looking out for underpowered studies with small sample sizes.

This project is an example of metascience, the use of the scientific method to study science itself.

It was a great pleasure to be part of this project. I got to use my modeling skills not only to make specific scientific discoveries, but also to shed light on how the scientific procedure itself should be designed to increase research quality and credibility. This benefits the whole scientific community and ultimately, the whole society, said Yan, a graduate student in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change.

Reference: Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help by Leonid Tiokhin, Minhua Yan and Thomas J. H. Morgan, 28 January 2021, Nature Human Behaviour.DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-01040-1

Written by Julie Russ (ASU) and H.G.P van Appeven (Eindhoven University of Technology).

See original here:

Ending the Rat Race: How Evolution Can Change Science for the Better - SciTechDaily

E! has set a premiere date for Overserved with Lisa Vanderpump, its latest entre into the pop culture reality sphere.

The new half-hour series from Evolution Media sees the British restauranteur, author and TVpersonality invite audiences into her Villa Rosa garden where she hosts two to three celebrity guests for an unforgettable night full of cocktails, games, and delicious feasts, all crafted by Vanderpump (pictured).

Fans of Evolutions Real Housewives franchise will recognize the celeb from Real Housewives of Beverly Hills before she expanded her personal brand of over the top lifestyle with Vanderpump Rulesand an appearance on ABCs Dancing With the Stars. In Overserved,Vanderpump creates themes like Diva Tea, Beverly Hills Comfort Food and Ladies who Brunch, and more alongside her trademark games of ros pongand diva croquet.

Guests for season one include Anna Camp, Cheryl Burke, Cheryl Hines, Gabriel Iglesias, Iggy Azalea, Jaleel White, James Kennedy, Jeannie Mai, Jeff Lewis, Jim Jeffries, Joel McHale, Kym Whitley, Lala Kent, Lance Bass, Loni Love, Margaret Cho, Mario Lopez, Meagan Good, Sheryl Underwood, Steve-O, Dr. Terry Dubrow and Heather Dubrow, Tori Spelling, Trixie Mattel, and Vivica A. Fox.

Overserved with Lisa Vanderpump is produced by Evolution Media with Douglas Ross, Alex Baskin, Lisa Vanderpump, Aliyah Silverstein, Bill Langworthy and Brian McCarthyserving as executive producers.

E! will broadcast the series debut on March 18 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. A trailer for Overserved with Lisa Vanderpumpcan be found below:

Original post:

E! sets the table with Evolution Media's Overserved with Lisa Vanderpump - Realscreen

NuOrder is a wholesale e-commerce platform digitising the buying and selling process for leading global brands and retailers. Hosting more than 3,000 labels, such as Tom Ford, Ermenegildo Zegna, Acne Studios and Shiseido, and 500,000+ retailers, including Nordstrom, Bloomingdales and Saks Fifth Avenue, the B2B platform supports thousands of market appointments and processes over $38 billion in orders globally across more than 100 currencies.

As business moved online overnight in 2020 to account for pandemic restrictions and non-advisable travel, NuOrders digital solutions buoyed many of fashions grounded physical events, partnering with the likes of Milan, Copenhagen and New York fashion weeks and American trade show group Informa Markets Fashion, which owns industry stalwarts Coterie, Magic and Micam requiring just an internet connection and login for event attendance.

NuOrder Co-Founder and Co-CEO Heath Wells. NuOrder.

Keen to learn from their community of users during the disruption of 2020, NuOrder conducted multiple surveys to gather the concerns and strategies of an industry in flux. In its report, The Future of Wholesale, NuOrder found 87 percent do not plan to move away from wholesale into DTC. Forty-three percent of respondents hold a positive outlook for the future of wholesale distribution, while some 21 percent hold a negative outlook a view predominantly held by smaller companies with $5 million or less in revenue.

Now, BoF sits down with co-founder and co-CEO Heath Wells to discuss the future of wholesale and what NuOrder has learnt about what to expect in 2021.

How do you expect wholesale to evolve in 2021?

The pandemic has forced everyone to adopt a technology platform. Before, you had buyers flying around the world, collecting samples or taking photos on iPhones and then trying to marry that with Excel sheets. You dont get any visualisation of a total assortment on a spreadsheet. It was ineffective, meaning retailers were doing their best, but really had one arm tied behind their back simply put wholesale was broken. Putting NuOrder aside, new technologies are just good for the industry because its going to be a win-win for everyone.

According to our Future of Wholesale report, nearly every respondent reported using a B2B software solution in 2020. We think about B2B e-commerce for both the brand and the retailer. On one side, a brand needs selling tools, visual line sheets, virtual showrooms, inventory, et cetera. On the other side, retail needs a cross-brand buying experience and an easy way to view the total assortment online.

Our USP is about how we pull both sides together into a single platform, and how we allow a brand to sell more effectively to unlock all the value for the retailer. For example, we ran an industry survey when Covid-19 hit to ask retailers questions like, How many orders are you going to cancel? We can then communicate to our customers findings on what we were anticipating from the retail community.

How is digital buying evolving as it becomes better embedded in the industry?

Our solution enables real-time collaboration, mimicking the virtual showroom experience. As a buyer, I could put together a live assortment with a counterpart in another city and even with the brand itself. It facilitates a back and forth, which is a key function of success for us. And the technology behind that sounds simple, but its damn hard.

New technologies are good for the industry.

We expose all of our data findings to buyers through pivot tables and visual components, which allows buyers to get back to what they are really great at selecting awesome product. We then have algorithms that work out the allocation of where those should go by region.

To pick the right product requires art and science, and buyers are really good at the art part. It is our job to help them with the data and science part.

How are you evolving the forecasting capabilities you offer?

Forecast and planning is also a pain point for people its a finger-in-the-wind type of thing. But we have the aggregate and standardised product data to inform our partners buying decisions, which we currently leverage on the retail side in terms of optimising size and allocation models. We help them make those decisions. Solutions around forecasting and planning is the area that the Future of Wholesale survey respondents reported as holding the highest value in the B2B market.

A view of the NuOrder platform. NuOrder.

We want to do the same thing with brands, which is to say, Heres what were seeing on the retail side, heres what you should be thinking about. For example, youre just about to place this order of military jackets NuOrder shows that they are trending so maybe you want to overcut that by 20 percent? or Youve only sold a hundred units in three weeks, maybe its time to retire it or cancel a future order.

How will the evolution in the marketplace impact smaller brands?

When Covid unfolded, we knew smaller brands had no other choice than to sign up to platforms like NuOrder, despite the challenge they have to afford a service like ours. Indeed, 37 percent of surveyed respondents not using a B2B solution said it was due to budget restraints. We felt it was our duty to help as best we can, so we started NuOrder Now. It is a free service that allows smaller companies to create and share product catalogues and line sheets, with up to 3 brand users and unlimited access for retailers, as well as learning guides and webinars.

We now have a full-time employee who handles education. They run webinars and teach people not just the basics but also how to set up your range and go to market. Tommy [Fazio], our fashion director, has been a strong advocate with New York Fashion Week and Informa Markets Fashion about helping smaller brands and being an advisor to them.

How did your experiences in 2020 inform your strategy?

Last year was a bit of a sprint. We launched a digital trade show in September, which generated a lot of traction, connections and leads after all, 36 percent of the Future of Wholesale respondents said they rely heavily on tradeshows to secure retail accounts. From that event, we learnt that buyers want curation.

For example, the keywords that buyers searched for the most during Informa Markets digital trade shows were sustainability and dropship when the brand will ship inventory directly to the customer on behalf of the retailer. The great thing about digital is that you dont need to set up a new trade show to implement findings. We are taking these mass experiences and curating them for specific segments.

The luxury industry is looking for an upgraded solution.

Then, with the fashion weeks, were moving to a more commerce-based model. From your seat on the runway, how do you now start shopping? We threw a lot of things at the wall last year and learned a lot. It looks again like we may not be able to see collections and events in-person for another six months or so, which is disappointing, but we are here.

What are your main priorities for 2021?

The luxury market is a big focus for us. That industry is looking for an upgraded solution. Theyve got so many big business problems, and we offer assistance from merchandising to virtual showrooming to collecting an order. Weve seen a lot of pickup demand from brands seeking a deeper and integrated company solution.

As a sidestep to luxury, Europe follows. Weve got 200 people in the company and were growing as quick as we can in Europe. Theres a decent-sized team in Milan, London and Paris, but Id say that would probably triple in the next year or 18 months. So, the next biggest priority is people. The growth that were experiencing is so large and were trying to hire as quickly as possible, but what you want to ensure is that you are hiring with culture in mind, with all the specific skillsets in mind, to make sure that the team is A+.

Finally, we are also building some cool stuff in product. Were soon to be supporting a full 3D CAD. You can move it; you can turn it upside down. Then, youll be able to put it in situ to see what it looks like on the shop floor, for example. Were also rolling out a Shop by Look feature and taking our digital trade show 365 into an advanced marketplace.

This is a sponsored feature paid for by NuOrder as part of a BoF partnership.

Read more:

At NuOrder, the Evolution of the Wholesale Industry | Sponsored Feature | BoF - The Business of Fashion

Photo: Skull fragment, Homo erectus, by Commie cretan (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Yesterday I discussed an academic article in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach that cites me and others in the ID movement, with the authors not seeming to realize that scientists who doubt Darwin do so because of the evidence. All of this was eyebrow-raising, but what about the articles citation of my work? I found it in a section where they discuss misconceptions about evolution that are promoted by what they call detractors of evolutionary theory:

The misconception that human beings came from the ape and not from a common ancestor and the idea claimed by the intelligent design movement that God participated in human origin (Luskin 2005).

The citation is to one of my earliest writings on the topic of human origins, an article I published in an old ID journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design back in 2005. Because I wrote this article many years ago, its hardly what I would consider my best or most current writing on the subject. But its still available on the Internet, and I suppose I appreciate the citation, even if theyre ignoring my more recent work. What I dont appreciate much is the authors misrepresenting my 2005 paper as if it promoted misconceptions about evolution.

The authors attribute two misconceptions to my article. The first is The misconception that human beings came from the ape and not from a common ancestor. If my paper did state this then it would indeed be promoting a misconception about standard evolutionary thinking. So I reread my paper and nowhere does it claim evolutionary biology holds that human beings came from the ape, or anything close to that. Quite the opposite, my paper accurately represents evolutionary theory as proposing that humans share a common ancestor with living apes. Heres the relevant quote:

The chance-law hypothesis, neo-Darwinism, states that humans, apes, and monkeys are related through common ancestry.

Now lets be clear: I understand full well that modern evolutionary biology holds that humans share a common ancestor with apes, not that we evolved from the ape (although it would be fair to say that many paleoanthropologists would agree that we evolved from apelike species). This is nothing new, and my article accurately represents evolutionary thinking.

What about the second misconception? They claim that it is a misconception to teach that that God participated in human origin [sic]. Dont fail to appreciate what you just read, and recall that the full quote is above. This journal Evolution: Education and Outreach affiliated with the NCSE, which claims to be a religion-friendly activist group just published a paper that directly claimed that if you believe God participated in human origin then that is wrong, a misconception. Thats not very religion-friendly!

And yet in this same article, a few pages later, they launch into standard evolutionary apologetics talking points about how religion and evolution are fully compatible:

In this way, religious precepts can be accommodated in the face of scientific knowledge, since conflict is unnecessary and counterproductive, and there is no need to abandon religious conceptions in order to understand and accept biological evolution, something already perceived by Charles Darwin himself in one of his last letters.

So which is it? In one breath were told that there is no need to abandon religious conceptions when we accept biological evolution. But in another breath were told that its a misconception to claim that God participated in human origin. So much for the articles clumsy posturing that conflict between evolution and religion is unnecessary.

It seems clear enough that the article is using double-speak to pretend that evolution has no conflicts with religion. But does my article even argue that God is responsible for human origins? No. Search the paper: the word God is not there. The article does propose that intelligent design might be a better explanation than neo-Darwinian evolution for human origins:

The abrupt appearance of Homo as a novel and distinct form, significantly different from earlier fossil forms and without links to previous fossil forms, implicates intelligent design as a cause involved in the origin of Homo.

But nowhere does the article attribute human origins to God. Just as the Evolution: Education and Outreach article accuses me of promoting common misconceptions about evolution, one might equally (and more accurately) say that article is promoting common misconceptions about intelligent design.

Now the immediate reaction we often hear says, Well, you ID proponents believe that the designer is God, so were not misrepresenting you. No, they are indeed misrepresenting us. I do believe that the designer is God and Ive always been open about that fact. But my belief that the designer is God is my personal religious belief not something that I have claimed to infer from biology alone via the scientific methods that I use to detect design. Ive discussed this many times before, such as here. Scientifically, all I can infer from the biological data is an intelligent cause, and because my paper takes a scientific approach, thats all it proposes.

For example, although I probably wouldnt frame some of my arguments for design in this old paper in exactly the same way today, I do still very much agree with this quote I provide from Stephen Meyer:

As Meyer et al. note:

[I]ntelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational configurations of matter.

This infusion of information could be revealed in the fossil record as a quantum or discontinuous increase in specified complexity or information.

My paper thus argues that the abrupt appearance of Homo in the fossil record is the precise kind of rapid input of information that could reflect design by intelligence. But this is an argument for an intelligent cause, and although that intelligent cause could be a divine being, the scientific data alone did not allow me to take the argument that far. Indeed, there are some atheist or agnostic ID-sympathizers who agree that there is evidence for design in nature, but they dont attribute that design specifically to God. When the Evolution: Education and Outreach article claims that I am arguing for God in the paper, it is simply misstating what I wrote. Tomorrow I will consider why the critics misrepresent intelligent design.

Read more here:

Misconceptions about Misconceptions: Examining a Citation of My Work - Discovery Institute

"To think of where we started and where we are now, it's kind of hard to believe we got so big so fast," junior Kylie Doty said.

Wrestling practice at Colfax-Mingo High School looks like many others. The wrestlers file in, tape some ankles, warm up and practice. Except, there is one difference.

"Here at Colfax-Mingo, it's the norm to have girls involved in wrestling," Head Coach Erin Hume told Local 5.

To be fair though, it is slowly becoming the norm across the state.

Back in January, 476 girls competed at the IWCOA Girls High School State Championship.

"To think of where we started and where we are now, it's kind of hard to believe we got so big so fast," junior Kylie Doty said.

That weekend showed more than just how far girls wrestling has come.

"It's only going to help the sport here in Iowa and across the United States," Hume said. "To see more people involved, and female wrestlers is one way to grow it."

But at Colfax-Mingo, it is about more than just growing a sport.

"The more options we give them the more likely they are to be involved and feel connected to the school," Hume said.

It also provides a connection to the generations of girls that follow.

"I remember when I was just a small little girl here and there was no one else that was a girl," Doty said. "Having a role model is the best thing you can have."

"If they want to leave the program in a better place, and have it be a part of them and see it grow once they're done, then it's up to them to be the role model to the younger girls on the team," Hume said.

The 15 girls on last year's Tigerhawk team and the 10 this year are trying to provide a foundation for a sport and future girls to grow from.

View original post here:

'It's the norm': Colfax-Mingo part of Iowa wrestling evolution - Local 5 - weareiowa.com

All things being equal, large, long-lived animals should have the highest risk of cancer.

The calculation is simple: Tumors grow when genetic mutations cause individual cells to reproduce too quickly. A long life creates more opportunities for those cancerous mutations to arise. So, too, does a massive body: Big creatures -- which have many more cells -- should develop tumors more frequently.

Why, then, does cancer rarely afflict elephants, with their long lifespans and gargantuan bodies? They are some of the world's largest land animals.

A new study delves into this sizeable mystery, showing that elephants possess extra copies of a wide variety of genes associated with tumor suppression.

But this phenomenon is not unique to elephants, scientists say: The research concluded that duplication of tumor suppressor genes is quite common among elephants' living and extinct relatives, including in small ones like Cape golden moles (a burrowing animal) and elephant shrews (a long-nosed insectivore). The data suggest that tumor suppression capabilities preceded or coincided with the evolution of exceptionally big bodies, facilitating this development.

The study was published on Jan. 29 in the journaleLifeby biologists Vincent Lynch at the University at Buffalo and Juan Manuel Vazquez at the University of California, Berkeley.

"One of the expectations is that as you get a really big body, your burden of cancer should increase because things with big bodies have more cells," says Lynch, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Biological Sciences in the UB College of Arts and Sciences. "The fact that this isn't true across species -- a long-standing paradox in evolutionary medicine and cancer biology -- indicates that evolution found a way to reduce cancer risk."

In the new study, "We explored how elephants and their living and extinct relatives evolved to be cancer-resistant," Lynch says. "We have past research looking at TP53, a well-known tumor suppressor. This time, we said, 'Let's just look at whether the entire elephant genome includes more copies of tumor suppressors than what you'd expect.' Is the trend general? Or is the trend specific to one gene? We found that it was general: Elephants have lots and lots and lots of extra copies of tumor suppressor genes, and they all contribute probably a little bit to cancer resistance."

Elephants do have enhanced cancer protections, compared with relatives

Though many elephant relatives harbor extra copies of tumor suppressor genes, the scientists found that elephant genomes possess some unique duplications that may contribute to tumor suppression through genes involved in DNA repair; resistance to oxidative stress; and cellular growth, aging and death.

"By determining how big, long-lived species evolved better ways to suppress cancer, we can learn something new about how evolution works and hopefully find ways to use that knowledge to inspire new cancer treatments," says Vazquez, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley who completed much of the project while earning his PhD at the University of Chicago.

A related mystery: How did giant sloths and ancient mega-armadillos get so big?

Elephants are a great case study for understanding the evolution of cancer protection because they belong to a group of mammals -- the Afrotherians -- that are mostly small-bodied.

The study searched for extra copies of tumor suppressor genes in the DNA of Asian, African savanna and African forest elephants, as well as in the genomes of a number of fellow Afrotherians, such as Cape golden moles, elephant shrews, rock hyraxes, manatees, extinct woolly mammoths, extinct mastodons and more. The team also studied certain species belonging to a group of mammals called Xenarthra that is closely related to Afrotherians, and found some extra copies of tumor suppressors in those animals' genomes as well.

Given the findings, Lynch wonders whether the duplication of tumor suppressors may have aided the evolution of other ancient large bodies within these groups.

"If you pick a weird mammal, there's a good chance that it will be in these groups, the Afrotherians and Xenarthrans: armadillos, aardvarks, sloths, anteaters, all of these weird mammals," Lynch says. "We found that within these groups of organisms, the ones we studied all seem to have extra copies of tumor suppressor genes. That may be why in the last Ice Age, there were giant sloths and ancient mega-armadillos. There's even an extinct species of manatee relative called the Steller's sea cow that was elephant-big. Extra copies of tumor suppressors may have helped all of these animals get really, really big."

Reference:Vazquez JM, Lynch VJ. Pervasive duplication of tumor suppressors in Afrotherians during the evolution of large bodies and reduced cancer risk. Rokas A, ed. eLife. 2021;10:e65041. doi:10.7554/eLife.65041This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

Read more:

Investigating How Elephants Evolved To Become Resistant to Cancer - Technology Networks

The General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-9, proposed as a way to facilitate communications in the late 1990s, really caught on as a way for the U.S. to track insurgents during its so-called war on terrorism.

Since then, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles has revolutionized warfare, but will its future hold? Aviation Week editors discuss potential changes for the platform in the U.S. and abroad.

Don't miss a single episode.Subscribe to Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast iniTunes,Stitcher,SpotifyandGoogle Play.Please leave us a review.

Rush transcript:

Jen DiMascio:

Hi, and welcome to the Check 6 Podcast. I'm Jen DiMascio, and I'm here with Defense Editor Steve Trimble, and London Bureau Chief Tony Osborne. We're here to discuss a milestone that occurred just a few days ago, the 20th anniversary of the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-9 Reaper. Steve, you've been following this story for probably its entire history, or nearly so why don't you bring us up to speed on the program?

Steve Trimble:

Sure. Well, so I thought this was a really interesting time to look at the MQ-9 and where it's going, because my perceptions of it have really evolved in the last few years. If you go back just a few years to 2017, 2018, General Atomics was trying to win the MQ-25 competition, and they ultimately lost that competition after Boeing came in with a very low bid. This is for the US Navy's carrier base refueling system for an unmanned aircraft. And at the time it looked like the MQ-9 was going to really struggle to stay relevant. As the national defense strategy came out and created this pivot from counter-terrorism operations to grade power conflict, what was going to be the role for an aircraft that was really, it sort of defined the counter-terrorism, and even was criticized quite a bit at one point for being the poster child of the CIA assassination and drone strike program. Maybe assassinations a strong term for that, but just that entire thing that still goes on, actually.

And even this year, or in the past 12 months, there's been this debate about really where the MQ-9 fits in production going forward for the US Air Force, and internationally. On the US Air Force side, they've submitted a budget request last February that said that they wanted to eliminate MQ-9 production early. The next 20 or 30 aircraft that they were planning to buy, they wanted to shut down at the end of the last fiscal year. But Congress disagreed with that. And reinserted the funding for 16 more. And it looks like that could happen again this year, at least the debate.

On the other side is the international part of the program. And so we saw a lot of activity in the last year of the Trump administration especially, on authorizing export deals for the MQ-9 to new customers. We saw authorizations for the UAE, for Morocco, for India, for Taiwan. And the question is now, with the Biden administration in charge, how many of those deals will actually get signed? And that's going to be a very interesting discussion that we'll see within the Biden administration, and with Congress over the next year. And really what our cover story for the MQ-9 is, is it's sort of quietly carving out a role for itself beyond the counter-terrorism mission that has defined its legacy, and even in a great power conflict, that it has certain capabilities that may be very relevant in that new kind of operating picture.

And the key thing what General Atomics is saying is, you don't need penetrating stealth for every mission. There's going to be a lot of work for an aircraft that can stay in the sky for a long time, that doesn't cost too much to buy or to operate, and is very flexible in what you can put into it. Now there are a lot of concerns, questions about exactly how they could apply that, but a lot of the demos we've been seeing over the last several months show you a role, things like a self-protection pod, laser communications, even the ability to control an MQ-9 beyond line of sight without using a satellite, by taking a new technique with VHF comms, where you could actually pilot an MQ-9 from the ground, beyond line of sight, without a satellite link. So very interesting things going on.

Jen DiMascio:

So where do you think the Air Force is headed in terms of its advanced battle management systems plan to replace the JSTARS mission? How might the MQ-9 fit into that role?

Steve Trimble:

See, that's the really interesting thing that's developed, is the evolution of the advanced battle management system concept and how the MQ-9 fits into it. The key thing to remember is Joint STARS was going to be replaced by a business jet class aircraft that would basically be exactly what JSTARS is today, but instead of on a Boeing 707, on a business jet class aircraft. Which actually could include a Boeing 737. But the Air Force decided not to go forward with that approach because they thought that that kind of aircraft is just too vulnerable to perform the mission as it's defined today in that great power conflict where you'd have China and Russia armed with very long range anti-radiation missiles, and of course JSTARS has a big radar on it, which makes it a big target.

So the idea is that you take that JSTARS mission, there's actually two missions, there's the synthetic aperture radar on ground moving target indication to keep track of moving targets on the ground, also helicopters and low flying cruise missiles. And then there's the battle management function, which is basically an office suite in the back of the aircraft where you've got multiple people, I think up to 19 people on the JSTARS, managing, okay, here's a target, now I've got to figure out what weapon can address it. Do I need an airplane? Do I need an attack EMS missile from the army? And they're figuring all that out in real time onboard the aircraft. So ABMS distributes that entire package of sensors and battle management functions, and it automates it. At least that's part of the plan today.

And so what they need is a bunch of processors in the sky, and data links, and create this mesh airborne network with various platforms, possibly including the U-2, possibly including tankers that will also be up there in the sky as well. And aircraft like the MQ-9, which have the ability to stay in the air for 24 hours, 30 hours at a time, maybe even longer, and just flying circles, creating this network, creating a cloud-based data library. And as new sensor feeds and information comes in, these boxes on the aircraft are going to be able to identify the right targets and automatically pair those targets with the right weapons. So there's no human involved in the chain.

And that communication that has to take place when, say, JSTARS radar operator sees a target, and then he communicates that to the battle manager. The battle manager looks at all the different options for hitting that target, and then has to communicate with the human operator who has that weapon. If you think about it, that entire kill chain can take several minutes, even longer to do it. And the way the advanced battle management system works is this would all be done automatically and within seconds. And the Reaper could be a big part of that, but all that's still being worked out, but right now the Reaper is being positioned to take on at least part of that mission.

Jen DiMascio:

That's fascinating. Tony, I wanted to come back to you with something that Steve had touched on, which is the massive export push of General Atomics on its predator platforms. How has that manifested in Europe?

Tony Osborne:

It's a very good point that's made by Steve. I mean, Afghanistan conflict where the Reaper really came to its fore really prompted a lot of European countries to start looking at the medium altitude, long endurance platforms. And given that there were no real options available in Europe, a lot of countries went down the route of buying the Reaper. So the UK was pretty much full-steam with a [Foreign Military Sale], and it was also the first non-US country, obviously, then to go down the route of arming. They was followed by Italy, and subsequently we've seen The Netherlands, France, and Spain buying the Reaper. And then of course we're now seeing more and more countries access the platform. So it's proved immensely popular, and now we're seeing the next generation of Reaper come along, that's the MQ-9B, the Sky Guardian, and that's being adopted by Belgium, the UK in the form of the protector platform, which is a enlarged much more capable aircraft that's certified so it'd be on the fly in non-segregated air space. And then we've also seeing the aircraft selected by Australia too.

Certainly in Europe this has created some concern for European industry, because they have never been able to get a foot in the door. They've always seen this market share taken either by the Reaper or by the Israeli Heron, and so that's frustrated them, that's prompted them to go and develop the Eurodrone, which has these big twin engine, 11 ton platform, which they are hoping will take back some of that market and at least get a European platform into the hands of European armed forces. But we've also seen some heavy lobbying from General Atomics as well to try and keep the Reaper going in Europe. So yeah, that export thing, that success, the export success has create a few enemies for the Reaper, I think it's fair to say.

Steve Trimble:

Yeah, and not just the Chinese and Russians.

Tony Osborne:

Oh yes, we forget that the inability to be able to export across the world has then prompted a lot of Middle Eastern countries to go and buy Chinese so-called knockoffs, I think is what the state department officials called them last year, and has then prompted the US to try and create changes in the [Missile Technology Control Regime] (MTCR) regulations. Which could then lead to more [crosstalk 00:11:40].

Jen DiMascio:

Go ahead, Steve.

Steve Trimble:

The MTCR is a good point. So General Atomics is ramping up production of Guardians, Sea Guardian, and protectors, of course, for the UK now. And part of this is enabled by the fact that over the summer the Trump administration... So the Trump administration tried to change the terms of the missile technology control regime, which is actually a voluntary non-binding pact between 35 countries. It's not a treaty, it's not a law, but you're supposed to abide by it, and the point was to prevent the proliferation of cruise missiles back in the 1980s, when that was a concern. But it also got applied to unmanned air vehicles, because if they go on a one-way mission, they look a lot like a cruise missile, in fact.

But the MTCR category one definition has a presumed denial for any UAS that is in the Reaper size class, and it's defined by, I think it's 600 kilograms for the payload and 300 kilometers for the range. Could be wrong about that, but it's in that category. Ostensibly that meant that General Atomics couldn't export the MQ-9 to anybody, but the US government decided to make an exception for the NATO plus six countries, which is the NATO plus six countries that get treated for arms export control purposes, like NATO partners. And that includes Australia, South Korea, Japan, Israel, Jordan, actually. And there's another country I'm forgetting, but yeah, Canada, of course. So that's the... no, Canada's part of NATO. We'll figure it out.

But anyway, so the MQ-9 did get exported through that mechanism, but the question is, how do you get it beyond those? The Trump administration unilaterally decided to change the definition of category one. So even though the other MTCR members haven't changed the definition, the US now interprets the category one and MTCR as a speed definition. Anything faster than 800 kilometers per hour now is considered, to the US government, a category one UAS under the MTCR. That is, of course, the Trump administration decision, and the Biden administration will have to either uphold that, or decide to go back to the original definition as it states in the MTCR. And it's not clear where they're going to go with that. The UAE certainly thinks that it's going to get not only the MQ-9's, but also the F35's that were part of that.

Jen DiMascio:

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. I'm also interested in knowing a little bit more about how Europe has responded in terms of its industrial base, or in terms of its plans to develop drones, Tony.

Tony Osborne:

Sure. So I briefly alluded to it earlier, but certainly European industry was getting, it's fair to say, pretty miffed back in around 2015 when all it saw was NATO countries adopting, NATO's European countries that is, adopting the MQ-9 and the Heron. It basically saw country after country, and literally you saw like three nations adopted within 18 months, countries like the Netherlands, Spain, France, and Germany was on the cusp of making a decision. Would it be a new Heron, or would it be Reaper? And of course ultimately went for Heron, Heron TP, in fact, as a sort of intermediate step. So you saw Dassault Airbus in Germany and Spain, and Leonardo in Italy, they all clubbed together and approach European governments, said, "Look, we are deeply concerned that Europe is basically losing its market share," which it didn't really have.

These companies have spent billions. In fact, if you total across the board on developing UAV technology, but it never found a real mission, or never found a true role. We saw BAE Systems in the UK developing things like Mantis, but they never actually found a customer. So they clubbed together, went to the European government, said, "Look, we can develop you or UAV, please don't keep buying Herons and Reapers." And that process has taken five years to the point where we are literally on the cusp, should be in the next few weeks, that Eurodrone contract gets signed.

The problem is that Eurodrone is sort of seen as a bit of a, I hate to say the word, white elephant. Certainly the French law makers have criticized it because it has two engines, whereas France is using the Reaper with its one. Eurodrone is very big, it's 11 tons, twin engine, and there are some big questions about whether that can really at least act as a competitor to the Reaper in the export market. It does seem like the countries, those four countries, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France, will buy the Eurodrone, probably around, I think it's about 40 to 70 aircraft in total is on their various brand control systems.

But that's, I guess, a sort of steppingstone into getting a foot into that MALE market. Obviously Leonardo has done its own thing, it's got a new version of its of its Falco platform, which is sort of seen as a mini MALE aircraft. So Europe is taking tentative steps. Eurodrone has taken a long time to get going, there are questions about whether it can succeed in the market beyond its four initial customers.

Steve Trimble:

It's an enormous airplane.

Tony Osborne:

It is.

Steve Trimble:

It's twice the size of a Reaper, of an MQ-9 Block 5 Reaper.

Tony Osborne:

Part of that is due to Germany's want for an aircraft that can fly over its cities.

Steve Trimble:

So you need triple redundant avionics and blade controls.

Tony Osborne:

Exactly. And so I think French lawmakers said, "Why are we developing an aircraft with all these issues thrown into it?" And all these additional complications were prompted by Germany, who probably won't really fly it over their country anyway. So there is that. And of course General Atomics, coming back to the Reaper, have been lobbying very, very hard to try and get funds diverted into what they've called the Euro Guardian.

Tony Osborne:

So for a long time, if you want to go and buy a Reaper, you buy it through the FMS system, the foreign military sales system. They are trying to offer essentially a direct commercial sale of Reaper, and then be able to fit European avionics and sensors to it. And some of that is already happening in Spain, we've seen development of a pod that you'll be able to put European sensors into. But the Euro Guardian would actually have European sensors fitted directly onto it, rather than the existing General Atomics synthetic aperture radar or their electrical optical camera system. So far that hasn't had a great deal of traction because of that pressure to build European, but that could still move forward, and certainly the protector program in the UK will have several European developed senses developed by Leonardo on it, for example. And we've just seen that General Atomics are putting the Leonardo Osprey radar on it, for example, for the Sea Guardian mission.

Jen DiMascio:

Thanks Tony. Well unfortunately that's about all we have time for today, so I just wanted to thank all of our listeners and remind them to tune in again next week for another edition of Check 6, which is available for download on Stitcher, iTunes, Spotify, and Google Play. And if you have some good feedback, please share it with us. Thanks again.

Read more:

Podcast: The Evolution of the Reaper - Aviation Week

The conservative evolution of America continues. Democrats admitted they're an insignificant minority when they resorted to cheating.

Millions of Make America Great Again voters saw, believe and wont forget the evidence mainstream media tried to hide.

Patriots are identifying Republican in Name Only Republicans and socialist Democrats to eliminate in the 2022 primaries. China Joes attacks on American values, jobs and economy will grow the patriot army.

Mainstream media is losing viewers and commercial value to conservative media. Higher taxes, higher cost energy, illegal immigration, attacks on police and gun owners are growing the patriot party.

"We the people" will not tolerate rule by a corrupt minority.

Gary Miller

Texas City

Read the rest here:

The conservative evolution of America continues | Letters to the Editor | The Daily News - Galveston County Daily News

The new Suzuki Hayabusa has been the subject of many rumors and much speculation. The hype didnt slow down when Suzuki posted a teaser of the new supersport motorcycle. Suzuki finally revealed the new Hayabusa, and it turns out that the new bike is more evolutionary than revolutionary.

The 2022 Suzuki Hayabusa named after the speedy Peregrine falcon debuted early this morning. I expect some riders to have mixed feelings. When Suzuki promised the new motorcycle was all new, I was expecting a Kawasaki Ninja H2-killer of some type. But the new Hayabusa isnt straying out of its lane.

Suzuki maintained the Hayabusas distinctive looks so closely that I initially had trouble picking out the 2022 model from the lineup in the release video:

Despite what my eyes couldnt find, the new Hayabusa does sport new bodywork. Its a bit of a slimmer machine now, and I especially like it in the side profile. Suzuki says this new design gives the Hayabusa one of the lowest drag coefficients of street legal motorcycles, promising excellent top speed potential and stability.

G/O Media may get a commission

Maybe the changes under the skin are what really count.

The DOHC inline-four retains the same 1,340cc displacement as the last generation and the same bore and stroke, too.

This new engine did leave some ponies in the stable; its 188 horsepower is six fewer than the previous generation. Thankfully, torque loss was also minimal, as the new Hayabusa kicks out a still healthy 111 lb-ft, three fewer than before. Suzuki says the new bike accelerates faster than ever before so the power loss didnt make it any slower.

The biggest change to the engine is that this new motorcycle is Euro 5 compliant, allowing it back onto European roads.

Holding it all together is a twin-spar aluminum frame that looks largely unchanged.

Suzuki says its been enhanced for a more stable ride, and the bike can carry more weight as well. The Hayabusa is down four pounds to 582 pounds and has a 50:50 weight distribution.

Keeping the Hayabusa on the road is a 43 mm KYB inverted fork at the front and a KYB monoshock at the back, bolted up to 17-inch, seven-spoke wheels wearing Bridgestone Battlax Hypersport S22 tires. Nothing too surprising or amazing there.

The new Hayabusa did see a big kick in the technology front.

Lighting is now all-LED, front to back, and the motorcycle comes equipped with the Suzuki Intelligent Ride System (S.I.R.S.) system of electronic rider aids. That system has really nice features like cruise control and a bidirectional quick shifter to enable shifting without the clutch.

Suzuki didnt stop there, as the bike carries over the Drive Mode Selector Alpha (SDMS-a) engine-management system. This system lets riders choose engine mapping and power delivery for the riding conditions. In addition, it has a slope and hill control, 10-mode motion track control, launch control and an engine braking control.

The fancy tech comes wrapped up in a combination digital TFT LCD and analog display. It may look outdated, but call me old-school because I still think its beautiful.

These evolutionary upgrades dont come cheaply: $18,599. Thats nearly $4,000 more than the outgoing model. Color schemes are Glass Sparkle Black and Candy Burnt Gold; Metallic Matte Sword Silver and Candy Daring Red; and finally, Pearl Brilliant White and Metallic Matte Stellar Blue. Suzuki has not confirmed availability at this time.

Honestly, while Im happy the Kawasaki KLR650 only slightly evolved, I was hoping Suzuki had more tricks for the new Hayabusa.

More:

The 2022 Suzuki Hayabusa Is More Evolution Than Revolution - Jalopnik