Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Biotech Medicine Power

'The 10 Most Promising Breakthrough Innovations of 2022' (theatlantic.com) 60

Posted by EditorDavid from the happy-new-years dept.
This week the Atlantic published its list of "the 10 Most Promising Breakthrough Innovations of 2022."

"We didn't just get one 'unheard-of' cancer breakthrough; we got several in one year...." Is death reversible? It was this year for several pigs (or, at least, for their organs). By pumping an experimental substance into the veins and arteries of animals that had been lying deceased for an hour, Yale researchers got their hearts to start beating again. The technology is "very far away from use in humans," Stephen Latham, a bioethicist at Yale University, told The New York Times. In the short term, scientists said, they hope that their research could help doctors preserve the organs of the recently deceased for use in transplants. But the longer-term implications of the experiment can't be ignored: If we have the power to reanimate the heart or other organs of the recently deceased, at what point might we be able to reverse sudden deaths? Could we revive soldiers who bleed out on the battlefield? Could we stock hospitals and nursing homes with buckets of the stuff to resuscitate patients? Should every future American household keep some on hand in the event of a terrible accident?

These questions thrust us into the ethical realm and invoke spooky references to "The Monkey's Paw," Pet Sematary, and any number of stories about the dark side of trying to design an escape hatch from mortality. Perhaps, as this technology improves, that debate is on its way. But for millions of people who have lost loved ones to, say, a sudden heart attack or stroke, it's not remotely dystopian to imagine an injection that could reverse tragedies long considered irreversible....

The Power to Synthesize Life (Kind Of)
This summer, scientists grew an embryo in a lab without the use of sperm, or eggs, or a womb. It happened to be that of a mouse. But the species is of secondary importance.... Some scientists I consulted for this project said that the results, which were published this year in the science journal Cell, were the most important scientific breakthrough of 2022.

Scientists are not close to turning stem cells into human babies that make their first gasping cries in antiseptic laboratories. But this work does suggest a major leap forward in our ability to grow synthetic organs and more closely research the relationship between embryonic mutations and developmental diseases. As Paul Tesar, a developmental biologist at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, told Stat, "As soon as the science starts to move into a place where it's feasible to go from a stem cell population in a Petri dish all the way through to organ development, it's a pretty wild and remarkable time."
The article also notes that NuScale's small nuclear reactors received approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and "could be running by the end of the decade." Meanwhile, the start-up Quaise is working on drilling technology "that can vaporize granite with a highly concentrated beam of radio-frequency power. If such a technology became widely available, deep drilling would be commonplace and geothermal energy would be accessible on just about any patch of land. It would be as though humankind conceived of a magic wand that, waved across the Earth, makes any square mile as energy-rich as an oil-gushing stretch of Texas or Saudi Arabia."

The article also suggests one more possibility for the future. "Decades from now, millions of people may actually prefer the consistency and taste of meat that didn't come from an animal, because they'll know what they're buying when a cultivated rib eye is as consistent as an electrical gadget."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'The 10 Most Promising Breakthrough Innovations of 2022' More

'The 10 Most Promising Breakthrough Innovations of 2022'

Comments Filter:

  • Tahiti is nice this time of year.....

  • ... now "a jab to cure death".

    Hades and his people will be concerned.

    • I doubt death is curable. Once the brain cells don't receive oxygen for a long enough period of time they're gone. Eventually they decompose where even some serum that can restart everything isn't going to bring the person everyone knew and loved back. At best you get something that vaguely looks like them which is either in a vegetative state (what happens today when we bring people back from death after too much time has passed) or we wind up with person who's essentially suffered some degree of brain dam

  • Advances such as human life extension and its very creation in a lab (without sperm, eggs or a womb) may not actually be viewed as breakthroughs in the rear view mirror.

    Technology "that can vaporize granite with a highly concentrated beam of radio-frequency power" would indeed be revolutionary for geothermal energy, yet might also be co-opted for some hateful military purpose.

    I would like some healthy cultivated Ribeye, and I assume it'll be about like most food... if you don't like it right now, just come

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      "Breakthrough" is not a judgement about good or bad, it's a judgement about how different it makes (in these cases) capabilities.

      That said, lots of these are really incremental changes. Most (all?) of them are still lab curiosities. Perhaps one or two of them can be picked as "breakthroughs" in retrospect, but I don't think one can reasonably do so now. (And, truthfully, most "breakthroughs" picked after the fact are arbitrary points on a net of incremental changes.)

    • Technology "that can vaporize granite with a highly concentrated beam of radio-frequency power" would indeed be revolutionary for geothermal energy, yet might also be co-opted for some hateful military purpose.

      Umm... they have already developed a "Tactical Ultrashort Pulsed Laser" which is far more sophisticated than a mere maser. Also, unless you think they are going to start melting mountains then using some a similar device on enemy combatants is already illegal under the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. [wikipedia.org]

      So yeah, cool your jets because nobody is about to develop a weapon they can't use.

  • It's called "slashvertisement" (Score:3)

    by fbobraga ( 1612783 ) on Sunday December 11, 2022 @10:23AM (#63121376) Homepage
    'The 10 Most Promising Breakthrough Innovations of 2022'...

  • NuScale isn't the only player in SMRs (Score:3)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Sunday December 11, 2022 @11:07AM (#63121440)

    GE-Hitachi is working with TVA and OPG to deploy BWRX-300 smrs:

    https://www.powermag.com/tva-u... [powermag.com]

    • GE-Hitachi is working with TVA and OPG to deploy BWRX-300 smrs:

      No, they are planning to do that... and the first one is expected to be constructed by the mid-2030s. I thought building SMRs was supposed to be fast? NuScale hasn't proven their design yet either.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Nothing nuclear is fast. The stuff is not only death on humans, it is also death on common building materials. Hence a lot has to be invented, tested longer term and then often scrapped again. The first BWRX-300 will _not_ be a series model. Instead it will need to run for 5-10 years so it can be found out what is wrong with the design and how it can be fixed. With a lot of luck, it can go in series mid-2045, but it may also be much later or it may well prove unworkable or too expensive. Much too late, inci

        • Nothing nuclear is fast.

          China has built 40 modern new reactors since 2011, and are planning at least 150 more in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35. Only Westerners whine that it is too slow. We can't build anything big here anymore.

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]

          • The CCP can override their own bureaucracy on a whim and redirect resources however they like. Such an oppressive system has its advantages.

            • The CCP can override their own bureaucracy on a whim and redirect resources however they like. Such an oppressive system has its advantages.

              Yes, but I don't think you have to be oppressive to be efficient. You have to be focused though. We have done grand things in the past, but sadly I don't think any of those past achievements could ever be done today.

      • That is fast, and they already have the regulatory approval to build. NuScale just got approval.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The NuScale ones aren't very impressive. Lots of waste, refuelling every two years, still need a lot of support like a cooling pool and near indestructible building to protect it all.

        All they did was mass produce the same old problems, and they haven't even demonstrated they can do that yet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Nope. They work on having a _prototype_ mid around 2035. Time to actual deployment will be at the very least 10 years later and may well be 20 or 30 years later, given the usual delays in anything nuclear and how difficult the task actually is. It may also be "never" if the design cannot be made to be cost effective and run reliably. Given the always dropping cost of renewables and storage, it likely will be an economic failure anyways. In any case, it will be too late to the game. But yes, the nuclear fana

      • Guess we'll find out by 2030 or so if they're on time?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Sure. Maybe we will see something that actually works commercially manufactured at scale by 2040 (best case). But with the history of the nuclear industry where _known_ designs overrun by decades and get multiple times as expensive as projected, it seems a fool's hope.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        Nope. They work on having a _prototype_ mid around 2026.

        Fixed that for you. Please at least make an attempt to keep your FUD semi up to date. Thank you.

  • The biggest achievement is poaching articles written in the future!

  • French majors.

  • They listed Wegovy as a great breakthrough. It's $1400/month and not covered by insurance, but 41% of Americans and 13% of the global population are technically obese. It's quite frustrating that the drug companies are exploiting the market by charging an unreasonable amount for what is arguably the most destructive "disease" facing developed nations. And in many cases, people are obese due to factors outside their lifestyle and choices.

    While I understand drugs are expensive to produce, the story we've

    • They listed Wegovy as a great breakthrough. It's $1400/month and not covered by insurance, but 41% of Americans and 13% of the global population are technically obese. It's quite frustrating that the drug companies are exploiting the market by charging an unreasonable amount for what is arguably the most destructive "disease" facing developed nations. And in many cases, people are obese due to factors outside their lifestyle and choices.

      There's no pill for won't-power (the opposite of will-power). Stick them in a war zone with almost no food, they'll lose the weight. You could tell who the collaborators were in the Nazi prison camps - they didn't look like they were starving to death.

      • It's very ignorant to think that what works for you works the same for anyone else. If you know fat people, you've known a few that are constantly dieting. You never see them fucking up. You see them eating carefully portioned salads at lunch. You hear them refuse carbs and alcohol. So what's the deal? They've certainly lost SOME weight, but they're still way fatter than you and are way more responsible. The old notion of "eat less" is really stupid. Really fucking stupid.

        Sadly, that level of ign

        • Metabolism IS deterministic. Energy in less than energy out, you lose weight. Energy in greater than energy out, you gain weight. Humans cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise we wouldn't need to eat.

          Unless you have an intestinal parasite - in which case that tapeworm will gobble up everything you feed it. But on the good side, at least you'll be able to use the "Royal we [wikipedia.org]."

          • I know you want to believe in your simplistic analysis, but it's incorrect on the most basic level. Eat 1000 calories one day and you may lose a half pound. Eat it another you won't. It's not deterministic. Output based on input will vary widely. Your body has many mechanisms to adjust based on energy in. It can grab energy from fat stores or break down muscle or organs or initiate thermogenesis...among many outcomes. Sometimes it's not digested and expelled prematurely from your body. If you've l

            • And yet eat zero calories for 3 months, you WILL lose fat. And muscle, as your body burns it off to survive.

              Just because individual responses are different, and different scenarios produce slight differences (no kidding - people aren't homogenous, news at 11) doesn't mean that people can break the basic laws of thermodynamics.

              Eat less than you burn off, lose weight. Eat more than you burn off, gain weight. Which is VERY deterministic.

              There's no magic pill or whatever that can change that.

              You're foc

              • And yet eat zero calories for 3 months, you WILL lose fat. And muscle, as your body burns it off to survive.

                Just because individual responses are different, and different scenarios produce slight differences (no kidding - people aren't homogenous, news at 11) doesn't mean that people can break the basic laws of thermodynamics.

                Eat less than you burn off, lose weight. Eat more than you burn off, gain weight. Which is VERY deterministic.

                There's no magic pill or whatever that can change that.

                You're focusing on individual variations as an excuse to ignore the overall picture, and the obvious solution - that obese people need to eat less. Check out their shopping carts next time you're doing your groceries for a real WTF ARE YOU SHITTING ME moment.

                First of all, there are many pills that change how much you burn and many biological factors that determine how much you burn. From a physics standpoint, weight loss occurs when calories in is less than calories out, but the calories out is far from deterministic and wildly varies, so it's not reasonable to say a system is deterministic...just because from a core physics standpoint, it is. It not only varies from person to person, but it varies from day to day based on insulin response, brown-fat ratios,

                • but the calories out is far from deterministic and wildly varies,

                  Among individuals. However, in EVERY individual, cut off the food supply for a month and they will lose weight. Eat more than you need, you gain weight. Eat less than you need, you lose weight. That's VERY deterministic.

                  It applies to every human on the planet.

                  Individual variance doesn't change this fact.

                  As for fat shaming, we need MORE of it. Shaming people was the only effective solution to reducing smoking. Education didn't work. Sin taxes didn't work. Shaming did.

                  It's the same for obesity. It's

      • There's no pill for won't-power (the opposite of will-power).

        There are a number of pills which suppress the appetite, and the pleasure of eating, and some people do lose a lot of weight on them. Some not so much. Some of them it's because they still ate, but not others. So not only are you wrong, but it's also more complicated than that anyway.

        • There's no pill for won't-power (the opposite of will-power).

          There are a number of pills which suppress the appetite, and the pleasure of eating, and some people do lose a lot of weight on them. Some not so much. Some of them it's because they still ate, but not others. So not only are you wrong, but it's also more complicated than that anyway.

          Actually, what you wrote backs me up 100%.

          The people who take pills to suppress the appetite lose weight because they consume fewer calories. Not because the pills magically made the fat disappear.

          Individual weight loss is complicated, but not THAT complicated. Don't eat for a month, you'll lose weight - enough so that the fat cells that accumulate water when you first diet then shrink, dumping that water (which is why people can gain weight while dieting - those fat cells don't immediately shrink, and

          • There's no pill for won't-power (the opposite of will-power).

            There are a number of pills which suppress the appetite, and the pleasure of eating, and some people do lose a lot of weight on them. Some not so much. Some of them it's because they still ate, but not others. So not only are you wrong, but it's also more complicated than that anyway.

            Actually, what you wrote backs me up 100%.

            The people who take pills to suppress the appetite lose weight because they consume fewer calories. Not because the pills magically made the fat disappear.

            Individual weight loss is complicated, but not THAT complicated. Don't eat for a month, you'll lose weight - enough so that the fat cells that accumulate water when you first diet then shrink, dumping that water (which is why people can gain weight while dieting - those fat cells don't immediately shrink, and water weighs more than fat - the weight loss then becomes a saw-toothed graph, with rises as fat is burned off and replaced by water, then drops when the fat cell finally gives up the water and shrinks).

            Cameras that monitored people who claimed not to have followed their diet and still gained 20 pounds show they're lying to themselves - they're eating a LOT. They just don't count it. Same as smokers who claim they quit smoking, because that pack a day they're still puffing on somehow doesn't count because it's less than the 3 pack a day habit they had before.

            You're incorrect again...at some point in your life you've eaten some amount of calories one day, had a similar amount of activity, and had different results. Eat 1000 surplus calories one day and you put on some fat. Eat the same amount and you don't....despite the same amount of activity. Your body varies how it handles caloric input. That's why fat people have an easy time losing the first few pounds and a really tough time losing the last.

            Drugs can manipulate what your body does with calories or

            • Again, you're ignoring basic physics by focusing on individual variances - even day-to-day variances.

              And again, you admit that how much you eat plays a part:

              . Many fat people have endocrine differences in which hormones make it difficult to tell them when to stop eating

              So it's because they eat too much, duh!

              As additional proof, the number of people who are overweight has grown immensely in the last 40 years. That alone shows that it's not due to individual metabolic differences, but to changed eating habits.

              Some people can be healthy with a high BMI, some can't. Again, it depends on the individual. But that ha

    • At least in this case, Novo-Nordisk will soon have competition from Eli Lilly, and soon after that Amgen. Prices for a drug usually don't drop much when the first competitor shows up, but the second competitor starts the price war.
  • I for one look forward to these exciting developments. - Dr. Froderich Fronkenstein

  • Wasn't there a sci-fi horror movie about a geothermal project that got out of hand?

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close