From Antarctica To Brussels, Hunting Climate Clues In Old Ice
In a small, refrigerated room at a Brussels university, parka-wearing scientists chop up Antarctic ice cores tens of thousands of years old in search of clues to our planet's changing climate.
Trapped inside the cylindrical icicles are tiny air bubbles that can provide a snapshot of what the earth's atmosphere looked like back then.
"We want to know a lot about the climates of the past because we can use it as an analogy for what can happen in the future," said Harry Zekollari, a glaciologist at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB).
Zekollari was part of a team of four that headed to the white continent in November on a mission to find some of the world's oldest ice -- without breaking the bank.
Ice dating back millions of years can be found deep inside Antarctica, close to the South Pole, buried under kilometres of fresher ice and snow.
But that's hard to reach and expeditions to drill it out are expensive.
A recent EU-funded mission that brought back some 1.2-million-year-old samples came with a total price tag of around 11 million euros (around $12.8 million).
To cut costs, the team from VUB and the nearby Universite Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) used satellite data and other clues to find areas where ancient ice might be more accessible.
Blue ice
Just like the water it is made of, ice flows towards the coast -- albeit slowly, explained Maaike Izeboud, a remote sensing specialist at VUB.
And when the flow hits an obstacle, say a ridge or mountain, bottom layers can be pushed up closer to the surface.
In a few rare spots, weather conditions like heavy winds prevent the formation of snow cover -- leaving thick layers of ice exposed.
Named after their colouration, which contrasts with the whiteness of the rest of the continent, these account for only about one percent of Antarctica territory.
"Blue ice areas are very special," said Izeboud.
Her team zeroed in on a blue ice stretch lying about 2,300 meters (7,500 feet) above sea level, around 60 kilometres (37 miles) from Belgium's Princess Elisabeth Antarctica Research Station.
Some old meteorites had been previously found there -- a hint that the surrounding ice is also old, the researchers explained.
A container camp was set up and after a few weeks of measurements, drilling, and frozen meals, in January the team came back with 15 ice cores totalling about 60 meters in length.
These were then shipped from South Africa to Belgium, where they arrived in late June.
Inside a stocky cement ULB building in the Belgian capital, they are now being cut into smaller pieces to then be shipped to specialised labs in France and China for dating.
Zekollari said the team hopes some of the samples, which were taken at shallow depths of about 10 meters, will be confirmed to be about 100,000 years old.
Climate 'treasure hunt'
This would allow them to go back and dig a few hundred meters deeper in the same spot for the big prize.
"It's like a treasure hunt," Zekollari, 36, said, comparing their work to drawing a map for "Indiana Jones".
"We're trying to cross the good spot on the map... and in one and a half years, we'll go back and we'll drill there," he said.
"We're dreaming a bit, but we hope to get maybe three, four, five-million-year-old ice."
Such ice could provide crucial input to climatologists studying the effects of global warming.
Climate projections and models are calibrated using existing data on past temperatures and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- but the puzzle has some missing pieces.
By the end of the century temperatures could reach levels similar to those the planet last experienced between 2.6 and 3.3 million years ago, said Etienne Legrain, 29, a paleo-climatologist at ULB.
But currently there is little data on what CO2 levels were back then -- a key metric to understand how much further warming we could expect.
"We don't know the link between CO2 concentration and temperature in a climate warmer than that of today," Legrain said.
His team hopes to find it trapped inside some very old ice. "The air bubbles are the atmosphere of the past," he said. "It's really like magic when you feel it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
19 hours ago
- NDTV
While Shubhanshu Shukla Was Away, Another Astronaut Simulated Space On Earth
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has announced that in a pioneering step for India's space programme, it enabled a 10-day Space Analogue Mission named ANUGAMI at the Institute for Aerospace Medicine (IAM) in Bengaluru under the Indian Council of Medical Research's (ICMR) Space Psychology Centre. The simulated space environment but in Earth's gravity was "led by IAF astronaut Group Captain Angad Pratap, [and] the crew of three tackled terra farming, resilience, mindfulness and medical emergencies in a high-fidelity space environment." Analogue space missions are an important way to simulate everything from encountering claustrophobia to loneliness, and to consume food that is suitable for astronauts. NASA says "analogue missions help its test systems, protocols, and scenarios on Earth before crews are sent to space. They enhance our capabilities on missions to low Earth orbit, and will help guide future journeys to the Moon, Mars, and beyond." Analogue missions take place in locations that have natural or engineered physical similarities to extreme space environments. They provide NASA with data about strengths and limitations of current and planned human exploration operations. Topics actively researched in analogues include how isolation affects human health, how low gravity affects the human body, and how spacewalk safety can be improved. Test locations include the Antarctic and simulated environments such as motion disorientation machines, spaceflight vehicles, and planetary habitats. The ICMR has said that "as part of Mission Anugami by ICMR's Centre for Advanced Research - Space Psychology, Dr Rajiv Bahl, Director General, ICMR and Air Vice Marshal Anupam Agarwal of Indian Air Force interacted with analogue astronauts of the 10-day Space Analogue Experiment." The unique experiment, a collaborative effort between IAF, ICMR and ISRO, was launched by DK Singh, Director, Human Space Flight Centre of ISRO, on July 7. The mission culminated on July 17, with Air Marshal Sandeep Thareja, DGMS (Air), seeing the final simulation. The mission ensures a leap forward in IAF's contribution to the Indian space programme. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visited the Bengaluru-based Institute of Aerospace Medicine (IAM) on March 9, becoming the first Defence Minister to visit the institute. He was briefed about the unique role of IAM in pilot training, their medical evaluation and aeromedical research. Mr Singh also inspected the Dynamic Flight Simulator and High Performance Human Centrifuge used for high-G training of fighter pilots and the spatial disorientation simulator for training pilots of the armed forces to avert the risk of spatial disorientation in flight. He also launched the Indian Council of Medical Research Extramural Research Project: Centre for Advanced Research at the institute. The title of the project is 'Space Psychology: Selection and Behavioural Health Training of Astronauts and Astronaut Designates for Indian Space Missions'. During the inauguration in March, Mr Singh underscored the importance of aerospace medicine, terming it as critical for dealing with challenges such as micro-gravity, radiation, and isolation faced by a human being in space, while also addressing physical and mental changes. "Whether it is an issue related to neurons, bone loss or mental problems, it is the responsibility of aerospace and space medicine to tackle these challenges. The field must prepare itself for bigger responsibilities in the future," he said. In his inaugural address, Mr Singh highlighted the growing need for expertise in aerospace medicine in view of the continuous increase in air and space traffic. "From a defence perspective, space has emerged as a major domain in warfare. We have taken a step forward in this direction and mastered the most-advanced technologies such as anti-satellite. India has also become the fastest-growing aviation market in the world. As we are touching new heights in space, we need to explore more possibilities in aerospace medicine. There is a need for increased R&D as research in any high-end complex technology provides benefits to many fields," the Defence Minister said.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Science retracts NASA arsenic bacteria paper after years of controversy
In 2010, in the waters of Mono Lake in California, NASA-funded scientists claimed to have found a microbe called GFAJ-1 they said rewrote biology. It had allegedly replaced the phosphorus in its DNA with the toxic element arsenic. The announcement, made at a high-profile press conference on December 2 that year, stunned the world. The findings, soon published in the journal Science, hinted that life could rely on a radically different chemistry. Lead author and microbial geobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon declared, 'Life as we know it may be due for a revision.' Speculation surged: had NASA stumbled onto alien biology? Set the ball rolling On July 24 this year, Science announced that it would be retracting the GFAJ-1 paper, nearly 15 years after its splashy debut, citing shifting editorial standards and lingering public confusion. 'It's important to have any groundbreaking work independently evaluated before drawing far-reaching conclusions,' University of Minnesota synthetic biologist Kate Adamala said. 'We want the public to be excited, but the message must match the strength of the data.' Mainstream media amplified the drama. One headline read: 'NASA Discovers Life Not As We Know It'. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site that tracks withdrawn papers and promotes research transparency, and executive director of The Centre for Scientific Integrity, saw the media blitz as pivotal. 'Without the hype, this paper might never have been retracted.' He pointed to NASA's style of communication as a key factor in the storm that followed in 2010. 'Historically, NASA hasn't always had a respectful relationship with journalists,' he said. 'They're great at promoting themselves, and sometimes at overselling.' Peer review in public To the people at large, the prospect of arsenic life hinted at alien biochemistry. But for many scientists, the GFAJ-1 paper raised more questions than answers. Critics began pointing out that arsenate is unstable in water, so its role in DNA seemed chemically implausible. 'If true, this would have overturned nearly a century of data, but nothing in the chemistry suggested it was possible,' Steven Benner, an early critic and chemistry professor at University of Florida said. Others were initially intrigued. 'I was very excited and impressed. It was a big deal in the origins community,' Adamala, then a graduate student, said. But like many, her enthusiasm waned as flaws emerged. Microbiologist Rosemary Redfield became a leading critic and one of the first replicators to disprove the findings. 'It's a fine example of how easy it is for scientists to be misled by an attractive hypothesis and of why we need both formal peer review and informal outside scrutiny.' By late December, the backlash gained traction. Blogs and Twitter (now turned the paper into a case study on post-publication peer review. Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and technology studies at Harvard, noted that while such public spaces can foster valuable crowd-sourced peer review, they also risk overreach. 'These days science, like true crime, has spilled outside the constraints of officially authorised review. However, like all forms of democratisation, such informal policing can run out of control if it is driven by a mob mentality that is out to shame or undermine a researcher or a research program.' The original team stood by their findings — but by now the tone had shifted. Evidence falls apart Over the next 18 months, multiple labs tested the paper's core assertion. In 2012, Science published two studies that refuted it. Redfield's team found no arsenate in GFAJ-1's DNA. Tobias Erb's group confirmed the microbe still needed phosphorus to grow, i.e. it hadn't rewritten biology, just tolerated low-phosphate conditions. Wolfe-Simon maintained that her team's methods showed arsenic was incorporated into DNA and were robust enough to rebut Benner's contamination claims. Science didn't retract or flag the paper, saying claims should be resolved by further research, not editorial action. And since no fraud was alleged, the rebuttals sufficed. 'The whole debate ends up circling around the semantics of words like 'error', 'fraud', 'misconduct,'' Oransky said. 'But this paper, let's be honest, has been understood as unreliable since at least 2012, if not earlier.' Why science took so long For Benner, the GFAJ-1 paper reflected differences in scientific perspectives. Biologists saw phosphorus as essential, chemists knew arsenate's instability, geologists accepted mineral substitutions, and astrobiologists embraced radical possibilities. 'It wasn't that reviewers were incompetent,' Benner said. 'They just didn't all speak the same scientific language.' He saw another deeper flaw. NASA's astrobiology community often relies on consensus panels that falter when no one challenges ideas outside their domain. 'Multidisciplinary science is essential,' he said, 'but when it's superficial, weak claims slip through. This wasn't peer review breaking down: it was different communities assuming they shared standards while working from very different assumptions.' Adamala echoed this concern: 'Young scientists in interdisciplinary fields should embrace continuous peer review, as reliance on collaborators' expertise can miss flaws that later scrutiny might catch.' Correction sans closure 'They're right to retract a paper whose high-profile conclusions were entirely wrong,' Redfield said. One senior researcher noted that the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, which many journals have adopted as a measure to improve research integrity, justify a retraction if the findings are unreliable. Here, multiple labs found phosphate in the arsenate medium, undermining the paper's core claim that the microbe grew by substituting arsenic for phosphorus. 'The growth experiments at the heart of the paper were flawed,' the researchers said. 'Even if it was an honest mistake, the core conclusions didn't hold up.' Adamala said that it's a good example of self-regulation in science. 'Slowly but surely, mistakes do get corrected.' Oransky was more measured: 'Science is now acting on an expanded definition of retraction that's consistent with what's been possible for a long time, but rarely used.' Not everyone sees it as black and white. Jasanoff warned that retractions can erase the very messiness that makes science work. 'Rather than draw hard lines between truth and error, science advances through open debate,' she said. 'It's better to preserve a record that shows how scientists test, challenge, and refine their ideas, even when plausible claims later prove wrong.' Benner, for his part, expressed worry that broadening retraction policies could weaken the informal scrutiny that exposed the paper's flaws, raising questions about balancing error correction with preserving the scientific process. Today, the whole saga has transformed into a cautionary tale. Adamala said the controversy may have cast a shadow over exotic chemistry research in astrobiology, making scientists more cautious about bold claims. Who pays the price? Wolfe-Simon's rise and fall was swift. In 2010, she was hailed for a potential revolution in biology. Two years later, she quietly exited both NASA and mainstream science, her research career derailed by controversy and lack of funding. 'Good scientists would have responded by getting back into the lab and doing the necessary follow-up work. But these authors still don't admit mistakes,' Redfield said, pointing to their rebuttal letter in response to the retraction. Ariel Anbar, a coauthor of the now retracted paper, said, 'Science cited no misconduct or specific mistake. We stand firmly by the integrity of our data.' He also criticised the journal for not sharing a blog post it published regarding the retraction with the authors, calling it a breach of COPE guidelines. Oransky disagreed: 'What guideline is this referring to? Furthermore, standing by your data doesn't mean there aren't errors in it.' Anbar also said the team rejected 'the alleged error' and that it was raised in 2011 and rebutted in a peer-reviewed exchange. 'They may reject it,' Oransky replied, 'but that seems to be the rationale for the retraction.' Nonetheless, Oransky also said Science's retraction notice could have been clearer. He explained that retractions often imply misconduct, so when Science called the paper unreliable but not unethical, it still put the authors on the defensive. 'You can see that here, they're saying: 'But there was no misconduct. No clear error.'' Jasanoff said she doesn't see it completely as an individual failure. She argued that the unusually long delay until retraction may reflect less a concern with scientific uncertainty and more with a broader institutional tendency to manage reputation, especially in an era of heightened fears over misinformation. Wolfe-Simon's arc underscored a stark truth: high-risk discoveries bring both acclaim and vulnerability. When science goes public, its failures play out just as visibly as its triumphs, leaving lasting questions about how to correct course without crushing the people behind the work. A slow machine Peer-reviewers cleared GFAJ-1 and media hype propelled it, but shifting editorial norms more than new data undid it 15 years later. Oransky singled out Science's editor-in-chief, Holden Thorp, for leading that shift. 'Other journals have done it, but he's been consistently engaged in a way that encourages open conversation, no matter whether people agree with specific decisions or not.' That kind of editorial openness, he added, may be the real legacy of the arsenic life saga. Jasanoff, however, cautioned that every retraction risks erasing the visible, iterative debate that builds trust. 'It is better for people to understand that science moves through trial and error, and gradual self-correction. It is not a binary. All science is provisional.' Benner drew a parallel to the 1976 Viking missions, where a premature 'no organics, no life' verdict in Science stifled debate. 'Calling the ballgame early had an unfortunate result. It prevented the dialectic the scientific process needs.' The arsenic life case endures not because of its flawed claim, but for what it revealed about the pressures shaping modern science: how spectacular findings — especially from institutions like NASA — can short-circuit scrutiny, and how correcting course means confronting the very systems that made such claims irresistible in the first place. Anirban Mukhopadhyay is a geneticist by training and science communicator from Delhi.
News18
2 days ago
- News18
Planning To Study In Germany? Know Top 5 Scholarships For International Students
Last Updated: From DAAD scholarship to Bayer fellowship, discover the top 5 scholarships for international students planning to study at German universities. Germany offers some of the most generous scholarships through government and organisation-funded programmes, greatly increasing the accessibility of higher education for international students. These are the most popular scholarships: Expatrio Scholarship This scholarship is open to international students from any country who plan to start their studies in Germany in the Winter Semester 2025. The first prize is €15,000, the second prize is €12,000, and the third prize is €9,000. Awards for fourth to tenth place include rent payments for six months (up to €3,000), a new laptop, German language lessons, and semester contribution fees. DAAD Scholarships DAAD scholarships are primarily targeted at graduates, doctoral students, and postdocs for study and research visits at universities and non-university research institutions in Germany. These fully-funded scholarships include monthly stipends (€992 for graduates and €1,300 for doctoral/Ph.D. students), travel allowances, health insurance payments, and annual study/research allowances. Heinrich Böll Foundation Scholarships The Heinrich Böll Foundation awards scholarships to approximately 1500 undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral students of all subjects and nationalities annually. Recipients pursue their degrees at universities, universities of applied sciences, or universities of the arts. Non-EU nationals/refugees educated outside Germany receive €992 per month plus health insurance and other allowances. Doctoral students receive €1,400 per month plus additional allowances. Friedrich Ebert Foundation Scholarships FES supports students from public or state-approved universities and polytechnical colleges across all academic subjects and postgraduate programmes. Non-German students can also apply for this scholarship programme, provided they are studying in Germany at the time of application. Monthly stipends include €992 for students and €1,400 for doctoral students, for up to three years. Bayer Foundation Fellowships Open to medical students and those pursuing master's or PhD degrees in scientific disciplines such as Agricultural Science, Medical Sciences, Drug Discovery Sciences, and Climate and Health. Coverage includes up to €10,000 per applicant for international research projects, internships, and other activities up to six months. Additional funding is available for travel, visa, living, and exceptional project costs. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
