‘Grey’s Anatomy’: April’s Crisis of Faith Would Have Been Even Better If She’d Stayed – Showbiz Cheat Sheet

Greys Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes has a tendency to drag fans in with her captivating plot lines and amazingly complex character webs, but over time that same chaotic nature of her shows that makes fans excited in the first place can also be their downfall.

Notorious for killing off characters with very few regrets, Rhimes has trained her fans to expect the unexpected and to wait on the edge of their seats to see what twist will come out of nowhere next.

This makes for thrilling television, but sometimes the abrupt exits through death or other departure can be disruptive to the larger narrative and the connection fans feel to the show as a whole.

Some fans believe thatGreys Anatomy took a serious turn for the worse when April exited the show.

Greys Anatomy premiered in 2005 and has been on the air for an impressive sixteen seasons with a 17th season premiering soon. After a long and, frankly, uncharacteristic stretch without any major character deaths, fans are bracing themselves for impact, expecting Season 17 to bring some heartbreak and tears.

They definitely have reason to be suspicious because if theres one thingGreys Anatomy has shown, its that no character is safe.

This includes Dr. Derek McDreamy Shepherd who was shockingly offed in an unceremonious car accident while trying to be a Good Samaritan and provide aid to people in need.

Fans were furious at the death of this major character who had been a core part of the story since the very beginning, and it proved that no one was safe. That certainly wasnt the only death that left fans reeling, but it was definitely among the most shocking.

RELATED: Greys Anatomy: Sarah Drews Recent Instagram Post About Jackson and April Has Fans Itching for a Reunion

April Kepner (portrayed by Sarah Drew)first appeared in Season 6 ofGreys Anatomy and had an endearing story that helped captivate fans over the years. After she was forced at gunpoint to tell her life story in order to avoid being killed in the tragic hospital shooting, fans learned about her humble origins from a farm in Ohio and her lifelong desire to be a doctor.

The surgeon was found responsible for an early death in an overcrowded ER and fired before being rehired by Derek Shepherd when he became Chief of Surgery.

In addition to her professional ups and downs, April captivated fans with her personal story of love and parenting. Going through a divorce just as she found out she was pregnant had left April in a vulnerable position, and viewers saw her handle it with grace and compassion.

April also leaned heavily against her devout Christian faith to get through the most difficult times in her story.

Aprils story hit a crisis point in Season 14. She was struggling with her faith and lashing out angrily at everyone around her. It was a rocky road, but she eventually found her way forward and into a rekindled relationship with Matthew Taylor.

Fans were definitely rooting for April, but after a life-threatening accident, she made the abrupt decision to quit her job and provide health care for the homeless community. With that, her characters nearly decade-long run on the show came to an end.

Fans took to Reddit to discuss the shows decline in quality, and many pinpointed Aprils departure as a piece of that descent. One fan wrote, the dismissal of April and Arizona left a bad taste in my mouth. I will never rewatch anything after S14.

Another agreed by adding, the cliff just fell out from under them after season 14 and then pointing to Aprils crisis of faith as great television.

Aprils descent is probably my favorite storyline ever. We got to see her completely change and grow. I just wish that she had stayed around for us to see her be the Badass that I always knew she was, another added.

Its clear that Aprils departure was a hard blow for fans and that it spoiled what could have been an amazing story arc for a favorite character.

Read the rest here:
'Grey's Anatomy': April's Crisis of Faith Would Have Been Even Better If She'd Stayed - Showbiz Cheat Sheet

New immunology study of UM employees seeks answers on coronavirus reinfections – University of Michigan Health System News

In ancient Greece, people who were sick would seek the help of IASO, the goddess of cures, remedies and modes of healing. Now, University of Michigan researchers are counting on a different IASOthe Immunity Associated with SARS-CoV-2 studyto provide a path to recovery from COVID-19.

The IASO study will investigate the level and duration of protection afforded by natural infection with the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 among U-M employees, including first responders, essential workers and anyone regularly working on campus.

Researchers hope to learn details about the level and duration of protection afforded by natural infection with the novel coronavirus, and examine immunological risk factors for infection outcome and the immune response to infection across the disease spectrum.

This will include exploring potential correlates of protection as well as examining the duration of detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 following infection.

"Basically we want to answer the question of if you've had SARS-COV-2 or been exposed to before, can you get it again? And if you can get it again, what does that infection look like?" said Aubree Gordon, associate professor of epidemiology at U-M's School of Public Health, who is leading the project along with pathologist Riccardo Valdez from Michigan Medicine.

"Maybe you can get infected again, but you don't really get sick and you don't shed virus. Maybe you don't get sick but can transmit the virus. And then, of course, there's the possibility that it doesn't protect or that the protection period is limited."

The study also aims to look at correlates of protection, measurable signs that someone is immune. While typical correlates of protection against viruses are antibodies, the study will also examine T-cells, an important cell of the immune system.

Correlates of protection are important for vaccine development and production, Gordon says. They are used to evaluate whether a new vaccine will likely be effective and can help prioritize vaccine candidates. For influenza, for example, because the virus changes every year, a correlate of protection is used on a yearly basis to license the vaccine.

"Thus, it is very important that we identify correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection to aid in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and monitoring," Gordon said.

For the study, researchers hope to enroll 5,000 U-M workers who regularly work on campus or at U-M facilities, including health care providers and essential workers. They will be followed for at least a year. Researchers will collect a blood sample every other month to be tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Since the study will use U-M pathology labs for the main serological testing, results will be returned to participants throughout the study.

"Our clinical laboratories are excited to provide the testing and lab medicine expertise for this study aimed to help answer important outstanding questions about the durability of our immune response to COVID-19 infection," Valdez said. "The studies we performed while validating our clinical serology tests showed that people do produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after infection, and this study will now provide information on the longevity of that response in a much larger cohort of individuals."

The study is funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in cooperation with the National Cancer Institute through Mount Sinai (federal contract 75N93019C00051). It also received $452,409 from the U-M Biosciences Initiative and Office of the Vice President for Research.

For more information: IASOstudy@med.umich.edu

Read more:
New immunology study of UM employees seeks answers on coronavirus reinfections - University of Michigan Health System News

Immunology and Infectious Disease Seminar Series – Gazette

Immunology and Infectious Disease Seminar Series

Thursday, Oct. 1, 12-1 p.m.

Online

Self-amplifying RNA SARS-CoV-2 lipid nanoparticle vaccine candidate induces high neutralizing antibody titers in mice presented by Joseph Duncan (Dr. Ken Hirasawas Lab)

https://mun.webex.com/mun/j.php?MTID=m1c6fe8fb181d44946dd6948e790448b6

Presented by Division of BioMedical Sciences

View original post here:
Immunology and Infectious Disease Seminar Series - Gazette

UConn Funds Five COVID-19 Research Projects, Announces Additional Funding – UConn Today

The Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) recently announced a new internal funding program to support researchers at all of UConns campuses who are using their expertise in fields as diverse as wastewater and chemosensory testing to find novel solutions to help the nation and the world address this crisis. The program will award up to $50,000 to recipients.

The OVPR awarded five awards to researchers from UConn and UConn Health:

James Cole, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, Departments of Molecular and Cell Biology, $43,439Targeting the Endoribonuclease of CoronavirusesCo-PIs: Mark Peczuh, Chemistry

Bahram Javidi, School of Engineering, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, $49,999Compact Field Portable Biophotonics Instrument for Real-Time Automated Analysis and Identification of Blood Cells Impacted by COVID-19

Changchun Liu, Schools of Engineering and Dental Medicine, Department of Biomedical Engineering, $49,149Rapid and Ultrasensitive SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Wastewater by SmartphoneCo-PIs: Maroun Sfeir, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Rachel ONeill, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, $50,000An integrated surveillance program for improved detection, containment and mitigation of COVID-19Co-PIs: Kendra Maas, UConn MARS; Joel Salisbury, Digital Media and Design; Michael Vertefeuille, UConn Digital Media and Design; Suzanne Onorato, UConn Student Health and Wellness; Mike Jednak, Facilities Operations; Jessica Healthcote, Information Technology Services; Emily Wilson, Center for Land Use Education and Research; Dan Schwartz, COR2E

Penghua Wang, School of Medicine, Department of Immunology, $50,000Elucidation of E3 ligases in SARS-CoV2 pathogenesisCo-PIs: Anthony Vella, Immunology; Tingting Geng, Immunology; Duomeng Yang, Immunology

In addition to these five awards, the OVPR has decided to rapidly launch a second funding cycle to provide additional support for promising projects.

This second funding cycle is expanded in scope. Researchers with proposals for earlier-stage COVID-19 seed projects, small scale pilot projects, projects related to the social and medical impact of COVID-19, and other relevant topics are encouraged to apply. The OVPR anticipates funding an additional 10 awards of up to $10,000 each.

Many researchers at UConn and UConn Health came forward with promising ideas to tackle this virus, says UConn Vice President for Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Radenka Maric, PhD. We are hopeful that these two cycles of UConn COVID-RSF will help advance as many research projects as possible to help address this crisis and support citizens in our state and the nation.

The UConn COVID-19 Rapid Start Funding Program (COVID-RSF) follows the example of several federal funding agencies that are providing emergency support to address key scientific problems related to the detection, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19.

The program aims to fund high-impact projects that will be ready to launch in a short period of time in areas that have been identified by funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health as high priority. These include, but are not limited to, wastewater detection of SARS-COV-2, novel biosensing from skin and mouth, surveillance methods for high risk populations, automatic detection and tracing, use of artificial intelligence, and data management.

The UConn COVID-RSF program has an expedited submission schedule to quickly address this urgent societal need. Researchers interested in applying should submit proposals no later than Friday October 16, 2020 at 12PM EST. Award notices are expected to be issued by October 30, 2020 and awards will be issued by November 1, 2020, upon completion of compliance review.

To learn more, visit the UConn COVID-RSF website.

Follow UConn Research on Twitter & LinkedIn.

Here is the original post:
UConn Funds Five COVID-19 Research Projects, Announces Additional Funding - UConn Today

Researchers Identify Key Biomarker That Predicts Who Will Have Severe COVID-19 – SciTechDaily

Low glucocorticoid receptor (GR) expression led to excessive inflammation and lung damage by neutrophils through enhancing the expression of CXCL8 and other cytokines. Credit: Professor Heung Kyu Lee, KAIST. Created with Biorender.com

Airway cell analyses showing an activated immune axis could pinpoint the COVID-19 patients who will most benefit from targeted therapies.

KAIST researchers have identified key markers that could help pinpoint patients who are bound to get a severe reaction to COVID-19 infection. This would help doctors provide the right treatments at the right time, potentially saving lives. The findings were published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology.

Peoples immune systems react differently to infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, ranging from mild to severe, life-threatening responses.

To understand the differences in responses, Professor Heung Kyu Lee and PhD candidate Jang Hyun Park from the Graduate School of Medical Science and Engineering at KAIST analysed ribonucleic acid (RNA) sequencing data extracted from individual airway cells of healthy controls and of mildly and severely ill patients with COVID-19. The data was available in a public database previously published by a group of Chinese researchers.

Our analyses identified an association between immune cells called neutrophils and special cell receptors that bind to the steroid hormone glucocorticoid, Professor Lee explained. This finding could be used as a biomarker for predicting disease severity in patients and thus selecting a targeted therapy that can help treat them at an appropriate time, he added.

Severe illness in COVID-19 is associated with an exaggerated immune response that leads to excessive airway-damaging inflammation. This condition, known as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), accounts for 70% of deaths in fatal COVID-19 infections.

Scientists already know that this excessive inflammation involves heightened neutrophil recruitment to the airways, but the detailed mechanisms of this reaction are still unclear.

Lee and Parks analyses found that a group of immune cells called myeloid cells produced excess amounts of neutrophil-recruiting chemicals in severely ill patients, including a cytokine called tumour necrosis factor (TNF) and a chemokine called CXCL8.

Further RNA analyses of neutrophils in severely ill patients showed they were less able to recruit very important T cells needed for attacking the virus. At the same time, the neutrophils produced too many extracellular molecules that normally trap pathogens, but damage airway cells when produced in excess.

The researchers additionally found that the airway cells in severely ill patients were not expressing enough glucocorticoid receptors. This was correlated with increased CXCL8 expression and neutrophil recruitment.

Glucocorticoids, like the well-known drug dexamethasone, are anti-inflammatory agents that could play a role in treating COVID-19. However, using them in early or mild forms of the infection could suppress the necessary immune reactions to combat the virus. But if airway damage has already happened in more severe cases, glucocorticoid treatment would be ineffective.

Knowing who to give this treatment to and when is really important. COVID-19 patients showing reduced glucocorticoid receptor expression, increased CXCL8 expression, and excess neutrophil recruitment to the airways could benefit from treatment with glucocorticoids to prevent airway damage. Further research is needed, however, to confirm the relationship between glucocorticoids and neutrophil inflammation at the protein level.

Our study could serve as a springboard towards more accurate and reliable COVID-19 treatments, Professor Lee said.

Reference: Re-analysis of Single Cell Transcriptome Reveals That the NR3C1-CXCL8-Neutrophil Axis Determines the Severity of COVID-19 by Jang Hyun Park and Heung Kyu Lee, 28 August 2020, Frontiers in Immunology.DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02145

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea, and Mobile Clinic Module Project funded by KAIST.

Continued here:
Researchers Identify Key Biomarker That Predicts Who Will Have Severe COVID-19 - SciTechDaily

Cancer Immunotherapy ‘Uniquely Suppressed’ by Liver Tumors – UCSF News Services

Though cancer immunotherapy has become a promising standard-of-care treatment and in some cases, perhaps a cure for a wide variety of different cancers, it doesnt work for everyone, and researchers have increasingly turned their attention to understanding why.

For example, doctors have noticed that patients who initially respond well to the immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors, such as those that target a protein called PD-1, can develop resistance to these therapies if their cancer has metastasized from its initial location to form additional tumors in the liver even if their primary cancer is quite distant from the liver.

In a new study published Oct. 2 in Science Immunology, a UC San Francisco research team led by Hematology and Oncology Clinical Fellow James Lee, MD, MHS, used a unique mouse model to figure out how this happens.

Then, the researchers, including senior author Jeffrey Bluestone, PhD, adjunct professor of microbiology and immunology and the A.W. and Mary Margaret Clausen Distinguished Professor of Metabolism and Endocrinology, showed that adding a second type of checkpoint inhibitor in a combination therapy can overcome this resistance, and might significantly increase the effectiveness of immunotherapy in patients with liver metastases.

The liver actually triggers differences in immune cells at distant sites, Lee said. And whats more, he added, the liver can choose its enemy what it wants to protect or not protect.

Cancers are sometimes able to avoid detection within the body by cloaking themselves from the immune system. They can produce large quantities of proteins like PD-L1, which switch off cells called regulatory T cells (Tregs; pronounced tee-regs), in turn tamping down the immune response of other T cells that attack cancer. Some checkpoint inhibitors counteract this cloaking process by preventing PD-L1 from binding to the PD-1 off-switches on T cells, allowing a normal defensive immune response against cancer cells.

The liver, which is tasked with filtering large quantities of blood directly from the digestive system and the rest of the body, plays an unexpectedly large role in regulating the immune system specifically, by signaling which of the scavenged proteins it encounters as it does its job are from hostile invaders and which should be ignored.

In work supported by the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, the scientists simulated metastasis by implanting mice with cancer cells in two separate locations, first under the skin and in then either the liver or the lung. They found evidence that when cancer takes hold in the liver it is uniquely suppressive, said Lee able to harness the livers powers to retrain the immune system and exert its influence on the immune response to related cancers that are distant in the body.

Compared to mice with secondary cancers implanted in the lung, survival rates were significantly worse in mice with secondary liver cancers after anti-PD-1 treatment: the immune system did not learn to recognize the liver tumor or, notably, the related tumor implanted under the skin.

That level of immune-system discernment clued the team in on a possible mechanism, because only a few types of cells can be that specific in regulating the immune system, Lee said, including Tregs. Bluestone has spent decades studying these cells, and thats where the researchers looked for an explanation. Could a liver tumor change the response of Tregs, and thus other T cells, to a separate, but related, tumor?

Using single-cell analyses, the team showed that, in mice with liver tumors, T cells associated with the related primary tumor were not as highly activated. Finally, the researchers showed that liver tumors change which genes are expressed in Tregs and, through those cells, a host of other immune-system cells as well. It turned out that there wasnt a difference in the quantity of Tregs between the skin tumors of mice with liver cancers and the mice without liver cancers. It was a difference in quality, Lee said.

Since liver tumors caused Tregs to suppress the T cell response against tumors, the researchers tested two drugs to see if they could override the effect of the Tregs. The first was a drug that blocks the T cell checkpoint inhibitor CTLA-4, which unleashes these cells to attack cancer; in the 1990s, Bluestone did pioneering research on CTLA-4 that helped lay the foundations for cancer immunotherapy. The second drug, another anti-CTLA-4 compound, targets Tregs directly and depletes their numbers. Both restored the effectiveness of anti-PD-1 therapy, though the anti-CTLA-4 drug that depletes Tregs was more effective.

The researchers hope to apply this combination therapy in the future to patients whom they know ahead of time are less likely to respond to treatment.

Weve never had this kind of precision in immunotherapy in the past, Lee said. What if, right from the start, you could use a drug that depletes Tregs as a complement to immunotherapy in patients with liver metastasis?

Authors: Joining Lee and Bluestone, all from UCSF, were Sadaf Mehdizadeh, Jennifer Smith, PhD, Arabella Young, PhD, Ilgiz A. Mufazalov, PhD, Cody Mowery, and Adil Daud, MD.

Funding: In addition to the Parker Institute, support for this research came from an A.P. Giannini Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Award to Lee, and from the National Institutes for Health/NIAID (T32 5T32AI007334-28).

The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is exclusively focused on the health sciences and is dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care.UCSF Health, which serves as UCSFs primary academic medical center, includes top-ranked specialty hospitals and other clinical programs, and has affiliations throughout the Bay Area.

Go here to read the rest:
Cancer Immunotherapy 'Uniquely Suppressed' by Liver Tumors - UCSF News Services

Figures reveal rise in baby vaccination rates for MMR across the East Riding – Bridlington Free Press

The East Riding had one of the highest vaccination rates in the country. Photo: PA Images

Despite an increase in MMR vaccination rates across England, the British Society for Immunology warned that the national level was still below target and could mean diseases such as measles spreading to vulnerable, unvaccinated people.

Figures from NHS Digital show 95.9% of babies in the East Riding received the first dose of the MMR vaccination by their second birthday in 2019-20 one of the highest rates in the country.

This was an increase on the 94.1% of two-year-olds who were vaccinated the year before, but means 115 babies were not inoculated this year.

Across England, the proportion of children having their first dose of the jab increased from 90.3% in 2018-19 to 90.6% in 2019-20 though it is still well below the 95% needed for herd immunity.

Dr Doug Brown, chief executive of the British Society for Immunology, welcomed the small increase in uptake for most routine vaccinations but said none of them have reached the necessary uptake level of 95% at the correct timepoint.

He added: The slight rise in uptake of routine childhood vaccinations in England is a step in the right direction but we must still take urgent action to overcome the ongoing trend of missing the 95% target set out by the World Health Organisation.

Low levels of vaccination coverage matter as it means diseases such as measles have the potential to spread within our communities, infecting unvaccinated people, including vulnerable individuals unable to have vaccinations such as young babies or people with cancer.

In the East Riding, 93% of children had received both doses of the MMR vaccine before the age of five in 2019-20 compared to 86.8% across England.

Separate national figures from Public Health England show the number of vaccinations for the first MMR vaccine dipped in the weeks after the coronavirus lockdown was introduced.

See original here:
Figures reveal rise in baby vaccination rates for MMR across the East Riding - Bridlington Free Press

The 100 Series Finale Completely Misses the Point of the Show – tor.com

After seven years (give or take a century) of deciding whether or not to pull the lever on various threats for the sake of protecting those they loved, humanity as represented by The 100 finally faced its own test. Yet for all that the series finale purported to grapple with the shows themes, its outcome didnt actually satisfy the moral arguments posed by Clarke Griffin and her fellow juvenile-delinquents-turned-survivors. Nor did it even fulfill season 7s messy storytelling, opting instead for bringing back some fan favorite characters within the context of humanitys Last Test in a way that rang hollow.

Ultimately,The 1oos series finale felt like another television casualty, a series that lost sight of its original, dynamic premise and scrambled to throw together something adequate. It wasnt quite Game of Thrones-level fumbling, but the final product is just as narratively sloppy.

Spoilers forThe 100 716 The Last War

To be fair, season 7 should never have happened the way it did. Bringing back Bill Cadogan and retroactively introducing the Disciples was simply too much new worldbuilding when our heroes had barely finished reckoning with Sanctum and its god-like Primes. At least Russell Lightbourne and his technologically-immortal kin were an extension of established mythology around the Flame (storing the minds of past Grounder commanders) and engaged each of the core characters in ways that augmented their characters arcs. The 100 breaking its own rules about death last season was a fantastic example of how a long-running series could still look within itself and find something fresh to say.

Instead, all of the mishigas about the Last War reads like someone skimmed the CliffsNotes for this series and decided, Hey yeah, lets make it all aboutthem being the ones who are judged worthy of survival for once! By omnipotent, ascended, alien beings, no lessdespite the series never once engaging with the presence of extraterrestrials. While the characters fit naturally into season 6s plot, almost all of the arcs this season felt shoehorned in: the time dilation skewing everyones relative senses of time, Bellamy going full sheep and Clarke killing him to save Madi, last weeks ableist outcome in which Clarke almost killed a locked-in Madi without her consent. The only character who really benefited from this seasons wacky wormholes and time loops was Octavia (more on that later).

The reveal that Cadogan and his ilk had mistranslated Last War from Last Test wasnt even much of a twist, because (a) of course its a test, after years of Clarke and co. deciding who deserved to die so they could find a new home and (b) the violent, self-preserving tendencies that these humans have always demonstrated left very little doubt that there would be some sort of fight as part of the test.

That Clarke opens the episode by remorselessly gunning down nameless Disciples is a mockery of the consideration and anguish with which she has approached past genocides. That she murders Cadogan before he can answer the first question of the test should make it clear to the celestial judges how the exam is going to go. While Bill Cadogan has absolutely no business speaking on behalf of the human race, Clarke Griffin isnt a much better pick.

Photo: Diyah Pera/The CW

The problem with the Last Test, and with transcendence, is that the rules are never made clear until were in the moment. We know nothing about these ascended beings other than that they have the power to invite other civilizations to become infinite with them, or to annihilate them by way of reforming them into crystal statues as a testament to their failure. The beings seem to be so far beyond any human emotion or experienceyet they are supposed to possess the nuance to judge human behaviorso their solution is to appear as a crucial figure to the test-taker.

Thus, it is a brief joy to see the return of Lexa (Alycia Debnam-Carey), even though it is immediately apparent that this is Lexa in form only. On the one hand, going by the judges explanation, it reinforces that Lexa was both Clarkes greatest teacher and her greatest love. Yet that means very little if its just a comforting mask mouthing familiar Trigedasleng mantras without the personality or perspective to accompany her counsel.

In the early seasons, Clarke represented the best and worst of humanity: She was the one willing to make impossible decisions, to pull the literal lever that places humanity permanently on the other side of a devastating choice. More than once she sentenced herself to death or exile or isolation so that she could bear that pain while others could prosper. But this final season has warped her character into a shrill, single-minded maternal figure who is so short-sighted she cant consider anything beyond her adoptive teenage daughters safety, treating Madi like a helpless infant instead of someone the same age that she, as a juvenile delinquent, was sent to Earth to fend for herself.

The Last Test sees Clarke self-righteously describing her pain to an elevated creature who might be able to feel it but cannot actually fathom it; who responds by saying that Clarke has just passed on more suffering to others, that she is unable to follow a slogan other than the Grounders jus drein jus daun, or blood must have blood.

So of course, when judged through Clarke-as-proxy, humanity is found wanting. But she was never meant to represent humanity as a whole; she embodies its worst impulses and gravest decisions. Yet by the judges rules, humanity is deemed undeserving of transcendence.

The thing is, our heroes had no interest in transcending their existence before they came across the Disciples. Even though their every encounter with another civilization ended in competition and bloodshed, they never gave up on the hope that the next time they would be able to co-exist with another set of humans. Remember that Clarke chose to destroy the City of Light and its weird digital afterlife, knowing that Praimfaya was on its way, because that sterile approximation of existence was not the way humanity was meant to continue on.

So for them to suddenly be faced with this ultimatumtranscend or become extinctputs them in an impossible position. Thank goodness, then, for Raven Reyes, who never met an impossibility she couldnt take apart.

Photo: Shane Harvey/The CW

In this case, its treating the Last Test as a relay race. Raven demands the chance to retake it, prompting the judgeas Abby!to teleport them to Bardo in real time to see that the Last War is indeed happening, between the surviving Grounders and the indoctrinated Disciples. Both sides entire cultures are built around fighting as the immediate and reflexive choice; whether theyre shouting jus drein, jus daun or for all mankind, its the same self-preserving violence. So even if the judge were willing to consider the whole of humanity (which at this point is a couple hundred people, tops), theyre modeling the same behavior as Clarke.

The only thing they can do, then, is decide that their fight is overnot because they die, but because they stop fighting.

Raven, as some weird ghostly observer, cant interfere with the action. So its especially heartening to see Octavia and Indra come to the realization on their own that this isnt the Last War in the sense of a final, winner-take-all fight, but the Last War meaning that they have to break the cycle of violence. Indra finally gets rid of Sheidheda (several episodes too late!), while Octavia gives everyone a pep talk about being Wonkru. (Hmm, maybe they should have tried for that at the start??)

This is what good character growth looks like: Octavia Blake, the girl in the floor, Blodreina, had to put all of her anger aside, had to grapple with her bloodthirst, in order to break her own ingrained cycle of killing-as-control. Yet even her big speech has shades of Tyrion Lannisters whats most important is a good story spiel in the Game of Thrones series finale; it all feels too on-the-nose.

We can change, Raven tells the Abby-judge, we just need more time. Apparently those few minutes are all thats required, because the judges reverse their decision and allow humanity to transcend: some combination of the Doctors golden regeneration and The Good Places final visual, with all of the humans inexplicably joyful at this mass exodus from their corporeal forms.

All except Clarke, who once again is cast as the martyr and pariah, intended to live out the rest of her mortal existence alone. To be honest, the Lexa-judge makes a good point that Clarke was the only test subject to commit murderduring the test, so it makes sense that there would be a consequenceyet its not as if the Last Test had any clear rules.

Photo: Diyah Pera/The CW

And then the final scene undoes everything in this episode and in the series as a whole, all due to another twist of new information not previously available: Transcendence is achoice, and all of Clarkes friends have chosen to reject it in favor of joining her back on Earth.

That means Murphy, Emori, Niylah, Jackson, Miller, Octavia, Levitt, Hope, and Jordan all chose mortality over some City of Light-esque infinite existence, just so Clarke wouldnt spend the rest of her days talking into a radio with no one to listen on the other end. (No Madi, because she knew Clarke wouldnt want a future with no peers or love interests for her, and thats fair, give the poor girl a break already.) Frankly, this makes sense; as I said above, these characters never even wanted transcendence; they just didnt want to be annihilated. So they came back to try again

Its all very heartwarming, yet the whole time I felt more emotionally manipulated than anything else. It also raisesso many questions:

Is Earth just fine? Was Monty completely wrong about Earth recovering from theEligius IV nuke, and they could have just stayed in cryosleep a bit longer? If the Disciples knew that Earth was fine, why not just send our heroes through it at the start and let them live out the rest of their brief lives in ignorance, rather than risk them messing up the Disciples plan? Yes, that would have led to humanity going extinct, but thats a hell of a convoluted way of getting back to Earth.

But the most disturbing fallout of this narrative choice is thatThe 100, a series about humanitys constant struggles to co-exist, ends on the message that everything is fine when theres no one you have to put aside differences with. Paradise for Clarke and co. is being with each other and not having to worry about invading anyones land, or assimilating with anyone elses culture, or being tempted to wipe out any supposed enemies for their own survival. Its one thing for them to have realized its possible not to fight when faced with an opposing army, but to reward them with a lifetime in which they will never have to fight with another conflicting force doesnt feel like they actually learned anything valuable.

Thematically, the final visual of them setting up shelter on the shore does swing back around to the Arks prayer of may we meet again: In peace, may you leave the shore. In love, may you find the next. Safe passage on your travels until our final journey to the ground. May we meet again.They always spoke it over their dying, which is ironic considering that transcendence did not allow for the dead to join. Instead, the mantra describes Clarke and her friends.

So,The 100 managed to weave in new meanings for bothyour fight is over andmay we meet again. That, at least, is poetically done, though I wish that everything leading up to it had been so different.

Final Thoughts

Well, that was certainly an episode of television. What did you think of The 100s series finale?

Natalie Zutter will someday rewatchThe 100, but will probably stop at cryosleep and call it a day. Share your thoughts on the series with her on Twitter!

Continue reading here:
The 100 Series Finale Completely Misses the Point of the Show - tor.com

Archaeologists determined the step-by-step path taken by the first people to settle the Caribbean islands – The Conversation US

For the millions of people around the world who live on islands today, a plane or boat can easily enough carry them to the mainland or other islands.

But how did people in the ancient past first make it to distant islands they couldnt even see from home? Many islands around the world can be reached only by traveling hundreds or even thousands of miles across open water, yet nearly all islands that people live on were settled by between 800 to 1,000 years ago.

Archaeologists like us want to understand why people would risk their lives to reach these far-off places, what kinds of boat and navigational methods they used, and what other technologies they invented to make it. Islands are important places to study because they hold clues about human endurance and survival in different kinds of environments.

One of the most interesting places to study these processes is the Caribbean, the only region of the Americas where people settled an archipelago with some islands not visible from surrounding areas. Despite more than a century of research, there are still many questions about the origins of the first Caribbean people, when they migrated and what routes they took. My colleagues and I recently reanalyzed archaeological data collected over 60 years to answer these fundamental questions.

Based on the discovery of unique stone tools and food remains such as shells and bones, archaeologists have a general understanding that people first spread throughout the Caribbean in a series of migrations that probably began at least 7,000 years ago and likely originated from northern South America.

Amerindians paddled between islands in dugout canoes and were remarkably adept at open-water travel. Archaeologists dont know what inspired people to first colonize the Caribbean islands, but we do know they brought plants and animals from the mainland, like manioc and oppossum, to help ensure their survival.

There are two main ideas about what happened. For decades, the prevailing notion was that people migrated from South America into the Antilles in a south-to-north stepping-stone pattern. Because the islands stretch in a gentle arc from Grenada all the way up to Cuba in the northwest with many largely visible from one to the next this would seem to provide a convenient path for early settlers.

This hypothesis, however, has been challenged by evidence that some of the earliest sites are in the northern islands. Analyses of wind and ocean currents suggest that it was actually easier to travel directly between South America and the northern Caribbean before moving in a southerly direction. Researchers call this proposal of a north-to-south migration the southward route hypothesis.

Figuring out which model for settling the Caribbean best fits the evidence depends on being able to assign accurate dates to human activity preserved in the archaeological record. To do this, researchers need a lot of reliable dates from many different sites throughout the islands to establish how, when and from where people landed.

Archaeologists typically use a technique called radiocarbon dating to figure out how old an artifact is. When an organism dies, it stops producing carbon and its remaining carbon decays at a fixed rate of time archaeologists say death starts the clock. By measuring the amount of carbon left in the organism and then performing a few additional calculations, scientists are left with a probable age range for when that organism died.

Archaeologists often date things like food remains, charcoal from cooking hearths or wood in the building where they are found. If archaeologists date shells found in a trash heap, they can tell, usually within a range of 25 to 50 years or so, when that shellfish was harvested for a meal.

We recently reevaluated about 2,500 radiocarbon dates from hundreds of archaeological sites on more than 50 Caribbean islands.

Archaeologists have been radiocarbon dating findings in the Caribbean since the 1950s when the radiocarbon technique was first discovered. But dating methods and the standards scientists follow have improved dramatically since then. Part of our job was to see if each of the 2,500 radiocarbon dates available would meet todays standards. Dates that did not meet those standards were thrown out, leaving us with a smaller database of only the most reliable times for human activity.

By statistically analyzing these remaining dates, we confirmed that Trinidad was the first Caribbean island settled by humans, at least 7,000 years ago. However, Trinidad is so close to South America that only simple or even no boats were needed to get there.

After Trinidad, the oldest settlements occurred between 6,000 and 5,000 years ago in the northern Caribbean on the large islands of the Greater Antilles: Cuba, Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. Reaching them would have required crossing passages of water where no islands were visible to the naked eye, although navigators rely on other wayfinding techniques like current, cloud patterns, seeing birds fly in a certain direction to know if land is out there. By around 2,500 years ago, people had spread out to settle other islands in the northern Lesser Antilles, including Antigua and Barbuda.

Based on these data, the patterns of initial settlement of the Caribbean are most consistent with the southward route hypothesis.

Around 1,800 years ago, a new wave of people also moved from South America into the Lesser Antilles, colonizing many of the remaining uninhabited islands. About 1,000 years later, their descendants moved into the smaller islands of the Greater Antilles and Bahamian archipelago. This is when Jamaica and the Bahamas were settled for the first time.

Our research findings also support the widely held view that environment played a significant role in how and when islands were settled.

Archaeologists know that once people settled islands, they frequently moved between them. Not all islands are the same, and some offered more or better resources than others. For example, in the Bahamas and the Grenadines, the primary way to access freshwater is by digging wells; there are no streams or springs. Some islands lacked clay for making pottery, which was important for cooking and storing food. People may have also traveled to different islands to access preferred fishing or hunting spots or seek out marriage partners.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Strong seasonal winds and currents facilitated travel between islands. Thats also probably one of the reasons why Caribbean people never developed the sail or other seafaring technologies that were used in the Pacific, Mediterranean and North Atlantic around the same time. Dugout canoes crossed between South America and the islands just fine.

Interpretations of past human behavior at archaeological sites are anchored by radiocarbon dates to study change over time. For archaeologists, its important to periodically take another look at the data to make sure that the narratives built on those data are reliable. Our review of the radiocarbon record for the Caribbean allowed us to show with increased accuracy the ways in which the region was first colonized by people, how they interacted and moved between islands, and how their societies developed following initial colonization.

Go here to read the rest:
Archaeologists determined the step-by-step path taken by the first people to settle the Caribbean islands - The Conversation US

GUEST VIEW: Darwins theory is true and consistent with religion – Utica Observer Dispatch

Frank Price| Observer-Dispatch

A Sept. 4 letter to the editor denigrating evolution contains numerous errors and misunderstandings which perpetuate the myth that science and religion are incompatible.

Darwins theory of evolution doesn't contribute to "lawlessness and godlessness." Millions of people here and in other countries who accept the reality of evolution live exemplary lives. (And many God-fearing people commit crimes.)

Science, in general, and evolution, in particular, do not deny God's existence. Science deals only with natural phenomenal involving space, time, matter and energy. God exists outside space and time, so science cannot say anything about Gods existence or nonexistence. Science is not an atheist religion. True, some scientists are atheists but so are many businessmen, plumbers and farmers.

Like many businessmen, plumbers and farmers, many scientists are religious. One example is Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian who directed the Human Genome Project and is currently director of the National Institutes of Health.

Collins is one of many scientific consultants to The Clergy Letter Project (TheClergyLetterProject.org). The project aims to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible and to elevate the quality of the debate of this issue." It contains separate letters signed by more than 17,000 Christian, Jewish, Unitarian and other clergy members.

The Christian Clergy Letter, signed by more than 15,000 clergy, reads in part,

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among Gods good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.

For the last 15 years, the project has sponsored Evolution Weekends near Darwin's Feb. 12 birthday. Congregations address issues on a theme related to science and religion through sermons, discussion groups, conversations and seminars.

This year, 232 congregations in 42 states, D.C., and six countries participated. More than 1,000 scientists from all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and 31 countries have signed on to serve as technical consultants to congregations.

All of the above demonstrates that the author of the 9/4 letter is clearly out of step with modern scientists and clergy. The supposed incompatibility of science and religion is actually a continuation of the age-old theological debate over whether particular sacred texts should be interpreted literally. For one example, St. Augustines 4th century A.D. book, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis was not written in response to either the scientific revolution or Darwin's theory.

Theology aside, the letters author is also wrong about evidence for evolution. We have found numerous fossils intermediate between groups such as fish and amphibians[1] and other major life forms. In addition, we have observed the origin of new species in both nature[2] and in the lab[3].

Evolution is consistent with all known scientific laws. The writer cited the second law of thermodynamics. It states that in isolated systems matter goes from order to disorder. Anti-evolutionists mistakenly claim that abiogenesis and evolution represent increases in order and contradict the second law. However, living things are not isolated systems. Growth of human beings from fertilized egg to adult shows that order and complexity can increase.[4] Antievolutionists cannot deny the facts of embryology and human development, but blindly deny evolution.

In conclusion, the writer of the Sept. 4 letter is grossly mistaken about both science and religion. He is trying to push his religion into public school science classes, to unconstitutionally indoctrinate the children of those of us who dont subscribe to his narrow, distorted and false views.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#Discovery

[2]https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_experiments_of_speciation

[4]https://www.learnreligions.com/second-law-of-thermodynamics-and-evolution-3994654

Frank Price is aretired Hamilton College professorwho lives in Clinton.

Excerpt from:
GUEST VIEW: Darwins theory is true and consistent with religion - Utica Observer Dispatch