A new book investigating the maths in The Simpsons has revealed something ridiculously awesome and completely unexpected – in the 1998 episode “The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace”, Homer comes up with a mathematical equation that predicts the mass of the Higgs boson more than a decade before physicists at CERN discovered it.

“If you work it out, you get the mass of a Higgs boson that’s only a bit larger than the nano-mass of [what] a Higgs boson actually is,” Singh told Nick Clark at The Independent. “It’s kind of amazing as Homer makes this prediction 14 years before it was discovered.”

Turns out a lot of the writers on The Simpsons are mathematicians, Singh telling The Independent that it’s “the most mathematical TV show on prime-time television in history.” The mathematician who happened to write that formula for Homer is David X. Cohen, who went on to be the head writer and executive producer of Futurama. According to Richard Gray at The Daily Mail, Cohen contacted one of his high school friends, David Schiminovich, who is an astronomer at Columbia University, and worked with him on the equation.

“The equation is a playful combination of various fundamental parameters, namely the Planck constant, the gravitational constant, and the speed of light,” Singh told him.

The Simpsons has ended up being a real treasure trove of fascinating little tidbits for scientists to mull over. Just last month, astronomer Phil Plait made the rather unsettling discovery that Springfield might just be set in the Southern Hemisphere, thanks to THIS MOON. And late last year, the most mathematical show on prime-time television, plus someone called ‘Kim Jong Fun’, helped prove the very important point that some journals will publish literally anything. How lucky are we to have had Homer and co. in our lives for almost 30 years?

Source

Unearthed 1997 Wired Article Predicted The 21st Century With Insane Accuracy

In 1997, predictions for the future ranged from technological optimism for a “Long Boom” to concerns about increasing economic inequality and cyberwarfare. The internet was a dominant theme, though it was still in its early days, with most users on dial-up connections. 

• The continued acceleration of Moore’s law and its impact on technological progress.
• The growth of handheld computing devices and mobile internet access.
• The expansion of the World Wide Web past 1 million websites.
• The eventual obsolescence of traditional advertising due to adaptation and dominance of new digital media.
• A miscalculation on how long it would take for computers to beat humans at the game of Go; one expert predicted it would take a century. 

Key Predictions That Came True:

• Digital Currencies: The authors anticipated the rise of private, decentralized forms of money that would bypass governments — remarkably similar to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
• Decline of Nation-States: They predicted that as wealth and information moved online, traditional governments would lose control over money, taxation, and citizens who could operate globally through digital systems.
• Cybercrime & Cyber Warfare: They foresaw new forms of conflict in cyberspace, where power would shift from physical to digital battlegrounds.
• Remote Work & Digital Nomadism: The authors envisioned a future where highly skilled individuals could live and work anywhere, leveraging technology to achieve independence from centralized systems.
• Wealth Disparity & Political Polarization: They warned that technology would create new elites — “sovereign individuals” — while destabilizing traditional economic and political structures.
• Another 1997 warning came from Wired magazine’s July 1997 cover story, which predicted enormous technological progress but also flagged potential crises that could derail it — including pandemics, climate change, and soaring energy costs.
• Together, these 1997 insights painted a surprisingly accurate picture of the 21st century — an age of digital power, decentralization, and disruption that defines our world today.

Predictions from Wired magazine

• Widespread economic expansion for 25 years.
• Increased prosperity and unprecedented opportunity.
• An improved environment.
• Opportunities for social justice. 

• A new Cold War between the U.S. and China.
• Technological busts that fail to deliver on promises.
• Russia’s descent into a kleptocracy or threatening nationalism.
• The breakdown of European integration.
• A major ecological crisis leading to climate change and food supply disruptions.
• A major rise in crime and terrorism causing society to retract.
• The overwhelming of health systems by dramatic increases in cancer due to pollution.
• Soaring energy prices.
• An uncontrollable plague that kills millions.
• A cultural backlash that halts progress. 

In 1997, Wired Magazine Predicts 10 Things That Could Go Wrong in the 21st Century: “An Uncontrollable Plague,” Climate Crisis, Russia Becomes a Kleptocracy & More

in the same year A BOOK DID THE SAME!

The Sovereign Future: How a 1997 Book Accurately Predicted 2025

Predictions from The Sovereign Individual

• The decline of the nation-state: Governments were predicted to lose control as individuals and businesses adopted decentralized, digital systems.
• The rise of digital currencies: The authors foresaw private, decentralized money, an idea that aligns with modern cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
• The online economy and cybercrime: The book accurately predicted the growth of the online economy as well as the increase in cybercrime and cyber warfare.
• Social stratification: The authors predicted the internet would widen the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”.
• The emergence of remote work and a “digital nomad” lifestyle.
• Disruption of traditional jobs: The book predicted that automation, AI, and global competition would make many traditional jobs obsolete.
• Changes in education: Digital content and online education were predicted to transform how learning is delivered. 

source

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the author of the original USA PATRIOT Act, disagrees.

In a amicus brief filed in support of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit against the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of U.S. phone records, Sensenbrenner argues that the government has gone far beyond what the legislation authorizes.

Section 215, known as the business records provision, authorizes intelligence agencies to apply for information if “the records are relevant to an ongoing foreign intelligence investigation.”

In practice, the NSA uses section 215 to collect data pertaining to every phone call to, from, and within the U.S. in the name of combating terrorism.

Sensenbrenner and the other members of Congress who enacted Section 215 “did not intend to authorize the program at issue in this lawsuit or any program of a comparable scope,” according to the brief.

The brief goes on to propose this question (emphasis ours):

The NSA is gathering on a daily basis the details of every call that every American makes, as well as every call made by foreigners to or from the United States. How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?“

Filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the brief notes that Sensenbrenner “was not aware of the full scope of the program when he voted to reauthorize Section 215” and would have voted against it if he had known.

In Sensenbrenner’s words: “The suggestion that the administration can violate the law because Congress failed to object is outrageous. But let them be on notice: I am objecting right now.”  source

Further evidence supports controversial claim that SARS-CoV-2 genes can integrate with human DNA

After being challenged, research team provides more data to back its controversial hypothesis but the relevance to human health is unclear

Science‘s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Heising-Simons Foundation.

A team of prominent scientists has doubled down on its controversial hypothesis that genetic bits of the pandemic coronavirus can integrate into our chromosomes and stick around long after the infection is over. If they are right—skeptics have argued that their results are likely lab artifacts—the insertions could explain the rare finding that people can recover from COVID-19 but then test positive for SARS-CoV-2 again months later.

Stem cell biologist Rudolf Jaenisch and gene regulation specialist Richard Young of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who led the work, triggered a Twitter storm in December 2020, when their team first presented the idea in a preprint on bioRxiv. The researchers emphasized that viral integration did not mean people who recovered from COVID-19 remain infectious. But critics charged them with stoking unfounded fears that COVID-19 vaccines based on messenger RNA (mRNA) might somehow alter human DNA. (Janesich and Young stress that their results, both original and new, in no way imply that those vaccines integrate their sequences into our DNA.)

Researchers also presented a brace of scientific criticisms, some of which the team addresses in a paper released online today by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). “We now have unambiguous evidence that coronavirus sequences can integrate into the genome,” Jaenisch says.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has genes composed of RNA, and Jaenisch, Young, and co-authors contend that on rare occasions an enzyme in human cells may copy the viral sequences into DNA and slip them into our chromosomes. The enzyme, reverse transcriptase, is encoded by LINE-1 elements, sequences that litter 17% of the human genome and represent artifacts of ancient infections by retroviruses. In their original preprint, the researchers presented test tube evidence that when human cells spiked with extra LINE-1 elements were infected with the coronavirus, DNA versions of SARS-CoV-2’s sequences nestled into the cells’ chromosomes.

Many researchers who specialize in LINE-1 elements and other “retrotransposons” thought the data were too thin to support the claim. “If I would have had this data, I would have not submitted to any publication at that point,” says Cornell University’s Cedric Feschotte, who studies endogenous retrovirus chunks in the human genome. He and others also said they expected higher quality work coming from scientists of the caliber of Jaenisch and Young. In two subsequent studies, both posted on bioRxiv, critics presented evidence that the supposed chimeras of human and viral DNA traces are routinely created by the very technique the group used to scan for them in chromosomes. As one report concluded, the human-virus sequences “are more likely to be a methodological product, [sic] than the result of genuine reverse transcription, integration and expression.”

In their new paper, Jaenisch, Young, and colleagues acknowledge that the technique they used accidentally creates human-viral chimeras. “I think it’s a valid point,” Jaenisch says. He adds that when they first submitted the paper to a journal, they knew it needed stronger data, which they hoped to add during the review process. But the journal, like many, requires authors to immediately post all COVID-19 results to a preprint server. “I probably should have said screw you, I won’t put it on bioRxiv. It was a misjudgment,” Jaenisch says.

In the new PNAS paper, the team provides evidence that artifacts alone can’t explain the detected levels of virus-human chimeric DNA. The scientists also show that portions of LINE-1 elements flank the integrated viral genetic sequence, further supporting their hypothesis. And they have collaborated with one of the original skeptics, Stephen Hughes of the National Cancer Institute, who suggested an experiment to clarify whether the integration was real or noise, based on the orientation of the integrated viral sequences relative to the human ones. The results support the original hypothesis, says Hughes, a co-author of the new paper. “That analysis has turned out to be important,” he says.

“The integration data in cell culture is much more convincing than what was presented in the preprint, but it’s still not totally clean,” says Feschotte, who now calls Jaenisch’s and Young’s hypothesis “plausible.” (SARS-CoV-2, he notes, can also persist in a person for months without integrating its genes.)

The real question is whether the cell culture data have any relevance to human health or diagnostics. “In the absence of evidence of integration in patients, the most I can take away from these data is that it is possible to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA retroposition events in infected cell lines where L1 is overexpressed,” Feschotte says. “The clinical or biological significance of these observations, if any, is a matter of pure speculation at this point.”

Jaenisch’s and Young’s team do report hints of SARS-CoV-2 integration in tissue from living and autopsied COVID-19 patients. Specifically, the researchers found high levels of a type of RNA that is only produced by integrated viral DNA as the cell reads its sequence to make proteins. But, Young acknowledges, “We do not have direct evidence for that yet.”

Harmit Malik, a specialist in ancient viruses in the human genome at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, says it’s a “legitimate question” to ask why people who should have cleared the virus sometimes have positive polymerase chain Reaction tests for its sequences. But he also remains unconvinced that the explanation is integrated virus. “Under normal circumstances, there is so little reverse transcription machinery available” in human cells, Malik says.

The controversy has grown decidedly more civil since December. Both Young and Jaenisch say they received more intense criticism for their preprint than any studies in their careers, in part because some researchers worried it played into the hands of vaccine skeptics spreading false claims about the newly authorized mRNA vaccines. “If there ever was a preprint that should be deleted, it is this one! It was irresponsible to even put it up as a preprint, considering the complete lack of relevant evidence. This is now being used by some to spread doubts about the new vaccines,” Marie-Louise Hammarskjöld, a microbiologist at the University of Virginia, posted in a comment on bioRxiv at the time.

And what of the original journal submission? “They rejected it,” Jaenisch says. source

The Rosenhan experiment was conducted by a psychologist named David Rosenhan, and it’s been considered to be one of the most striking studies in the field since then.

Rosenhan experiment

In 1973 a bombshell study appeared in the premier scientific journal Science. It was called “On Being Sane in Insane Places.” Its author, a Stanford psychology professor named David Rosenhan, claimed that by faking their way into psychiatric hospitals, he and eight other pseudo-patients had proven that psychiatrists were unable to diagnose mental illness accurately.

Psychiatrists panicked, and, as a result, re-wrote what’s known as “psychiatry’s bible”—the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM. The study and the subsequent overhaul of the DSM changed the field forever. So it was a surprise when, decades later, a journalist reopened Rosenhan’s files and discovered that the study was full of inconsistencies and even blatant fraud. So should we throw out everything it revealed? Or can something based on a lie still contain any truths?

On being sane in insane places – Rosenhan, D.L. (1973)

A terrarium is a self-sustaining miniature ecosystem, capturing a slice of nature within glass. With the right conditions, terrariums can last for years, creating a thriving environment for plants to grow with minimal maintenance. But just how long can a terrarium live? Some have been known to survive for decades, even over a century, without intervention. The longest-living terrarium on record has been growing strong for more than 60 years, proving that with the right balance of water, light, and airflow, a terrarium can thrive indefinitely.

In 1960, David Latimer planted a tiny garden inside of a large glass bottle and sealed it shut. He opened the bottle 12 years later in 1972 to add some water and then sealed it for good. The self contained ecosystem has flourished for nearly 60 years.
For those who are wondering how this is even possible: the garden is a perfectly balanced and self-sufficient ecosystem. The bacteria in the compost eats the dead plants and breaks down the oxygen that is released by the plants, turning it into carbon dioxide, which is needed for photosynthesis. The bottle is essentially a microcosm of earth.

the plant used in this long experiement is tradescantia

The World’s Oldest Terrarium

The longest-living closed terrarium was planted by David Latimer in 1960. He sealed the glass container in 1972, and since then, it has remained almost completely untouched. Despite being watered only twice in over 50 years, the terrarium has continued to thrive. The plants inside recycle nutrients through a self-sustaining water and air cycle, proving how resilient a closed ecosystem can be.

The Glass Container and Initial Setup

Latimer used a 10-gallon glass carboy, a large, globular glass jug originally intended for storing liquids. On Easter Sunday in 1960, he carefully placed composted soil at the base of the carboy, along with a small amount of water. To plant the cuttings inside, he used a piece of wire to lower them through the narrow opening. The jar was sealed with a greased cork stopper, ensuring an airtight environment. Twelve years later, in 1972, Latimer decided to open the bottle just once to add a bit more water. Since then, the terrarium has remained sealed, functioning entirely as a self-sustaining ecosystem without any outside interference.

The Self-Sustaining Ecosystem

Inside the carboy, the spiderwort plant (Tradescantia) has thrived by cycling water, nutrients, and air. The plant’s leaves release moisture through transpiration, which condenses on the inside walls of the glass and falls back into the soil creating a miniature water cycle. The fallen leaves decompose naturally, providing essential nutrients for continued growth.

Despite being completely sealed, the ecosystem continues to regulate itself. During the day, the spiderwort undergoes photosynthesis, producing oxygen, while at night, it consumes oxygen and releases carbon dioxide. The balance of gases, along with decomposing organic matter, has allowed the terrarium to sustain itself for over 60 years.

David Latimer’s Perspective

Latimer originally created the terrarium as an experiment, inspired by the bottle garden craze of the 1960s. He never expected it to last for decades but was fascinated by its self-sustaining nature. The terrarium has been kept in the same spot in his home, about six feet from a window, where it receives only indirect sunlight. Occasionally, he rotates the bottle to ensure even light exposure, but otherwise, it requires no care. Over the years, the terrarium has drawn interest from scientists and gardening enthusiasts alike. It has been cited as an example of how plants could sustain themselves in closed environments, similar to the concept of self-sustaining life support systems in space exploration.

Latimer’s Own Reflections and Statements

David Latimer has shared his personal impressions of the terrarium in various interviews, especially after the story caught public attention around 2013. For many years, the bottle garden quietly sat in his home (in the hallway under the stairs) without fanfare. Latimer eventually sent a photograph of the flourishing sealed garden to the BBC Radio program “Gardener’s Question Time” in the early 2010s, asking the panel of experts if his bottle garden was of any scientific or horticultural interest. This sparked media interest in his experiment – soon reporters and scientists were inquiring about the 50-year-old terrarium. The story was covered in major outlets like The Daily Mail and The Times, and Latimer, then about 80 years old, gave interviews describing the history of his unique houseplant.

It’s true that Latimer created a self-sustaining ecosystem inside a sealed bottle in 1960 that survived for more than half a century.

In speaking about his sealed terrarium, Latimer has emphasized how effortless its care really is. He has called it “the definition of low-maintenance,” noting that he’s “never pruned it” and essentially does nothing beyond occasional turning of the bottle. The plant seems to have self-regulated its growth once it filled the space, so there’s little for a gardener to do. In fact, Latimer humbly admitted that the bottled garden is “incredibly dull and doesn’t really do anything” on a day-to-day basis there are no dramatic changes to observe in a given week or month. However, he remains deeply proud and fascinated by its long-term survival. Latimer has expressed excitement to see “just how long it will last,” keeping the experiment going for as long as possible.

Now in his old age, he has even joked about the terrarium outliving him. He hopes to pass on this living bottle garden to his children in the future – and if his family isn’t interested in keeping it, Latimer has said he would like to donate the terrarium to the Royal Horticultural Society so that it can continue to be cared for and studied by others. Through his interviews and statements, David Latimer comes across as a pleasantly surprised caretaker: he started the project out of simple curiosity, and decades later he is as amazed as anyone that his sealed bottle terrarium is still green and thriving. It stands as a testament to nature’s resilience and the elegance of closed ecosystems, all born from one man’s idle experiment back in 1960.

Latimer, a retired electrical engineer from Surrey, England, created his bottle garden in 1960.

“At the time the chemical industry had changed to transporting things in plastic bottles so there were a lot of glass ones on the market,” Latimer told the Daily Mail in 2013. “Bottle gardens were a bit of a craze and I wanted to see what happened if you bunged the thing up.”

The concept was simple: He planted a spiderwort plant (tradescantia) inside a 10-gallon glass carboy and sealed it off from the outside world with a cork. He watered the plant once in 1972, and since then, the ecosystem has been entirely self-sustaining, requiring no further intervention.

The garden’s longevity testified to the principles of a closed ecological system. Inside the sealed bottle, the spiderwort plant undergoes photosynthesis — the process by which plants convert light energy into chemical energy to produce food and release oxygen — which sustains its own growth and the survival of microorganisms within the ecosystem. The water cycle is also self-contained, with moisture released by the plant condensing and returning to the soil. This self-sustaining cycle continued for more than 50 years.

“It’s 6ft from a window so gets a bit of sunlight. It grows towards the light so it gets turned round every so often so it grows evenly,” Latimer told the Daily Mail. “Otherwise, it’s the definition of low-maintenance. I’ve never pruned it, it just seems to have grown to the limits of the bottle.”

Latimer’s sealed bottle garden has sparked discussions about the potential applications of closed ecological systems in various fields, including space exploration and environmental conservation.

NASA’s research has shown that plants not only produce oxygen through photosynthesis but also help regulate carbon dioxide levels with their so-called air-scrubbing qualities, provide fresh food and even purify water, making long-duration space missions more sustainable and self-sufficient.

The Weather Channel’s story in 2016 was the last public update on the garden that Snopes could find; its status in 2024 was unclear. The Daily Mail reported that Latimer hoped to leave his bottle garden to his children, and if they didn’t want it he planned to donate it to the U.K.’s Royal Horticultural Society.

How Does a Terrarium Live for Decades?

The longevity of a terrarium depends on several key factors. When carefully designed, a terrarium can function like a miniature rainforest, where moisture, air, and nutrients continuously cycle through the system. Here’s how:

1. The Water Cycle A closed terrarium creates its own rain cycle. Water evaporates, condenses on the glass, and then drips back down to nourish the plants. This process prevents the need for frequent watering and ensures a steady supply of moisture.

2. Photosynthesis and Oxygen Exchange Plants in a sealed terrarium generate oxygen during the day through photosynthesis. At night, they release carbon dioxide. This natural cycle allows the terrarium to regulate itself without outside interference.

3. Decomposers Keep the Ecosystem Clean Fallen leaves and organic matter break down naturally, thanks to beneficial bacteria and microorganisms. These act as decomposers, recycling nutrients back into the soil, just as they would in a real forest.

4. Balanced Light and Temperature Terrariums need indirect light to keep the plants healthy without overheating the system. Excess heat or direct sunlight can cause condensation to build up too quickly, potentially leading to mould or plant stress.

Can Your Terrarium Live Forever?

In theory, a well-maintained terrarium could last indefinitely. If the balance of light, water, and nutrients remains stable, the ecosystem will continue cycling without the need for human intervention. However, external factors like overwatering, insufficient light, or an imbalance in plant life can shorten its lifespan.

To give your terrarium the best chance at longevity:

Choose hardy plants that thrive in humid environments, such as moss, ferns, and fittonia. Avoid overwatering – a single watering when setting up the terrarium is often enough for months or even years. Provide indirect light to encourage healthy photosynthesis. Monitor for mould and remove any decaying plant matter to maintain a healthy balance.

The longest-living terrariums prove that a well-balanced, closed ecosystem can last for decades with little to no care. Whether you’re starting your first terrarium or looking to improve your current one, focusing on the right conditions can help it thrive for years to come.

Thinking about making your own long-lasting terrarium? Explore our shop for DIY terrarium kits, beautiful glass containers, and everything you need to create a self-sustaining world of your own. source

Laika was a Soviet space dog, and the first animal to orbit Earth. Launched on November 3, 1957, aboard Sputnik 2, her mission aimed to test the feasibility of sending a living organism into space and gather data on space travel’s effects. While she successfully reached orbit, the technology to return her to Earth safely did not exist at the time, and she perished during the flight. 

Tragic final moments on Earth of first space dog Laika ‘knowing she’d never come back’

The Soviet Union space dog died afraid and alone, 940km from Earth

The first animal to orbit the Earth had a bittersweet final moment on land before essentially being blasted off to her death.

Tissues at the ready, because the story of Laika the Soviet space dog is a heartbreaking one.

While there’s no doubt that space exploration is an incredible feat, it’s taken decades of work to get humans safely into orbit.

And in 1957, stray terrier mix Laika was plucked off the streets of Moscow to be sent one a one-way mission that would help inform the future of space travel.

Gentle in nature, the three-year-old canine – originally named Kudryavka, meaning little curly – died alone and terrified, some 940km away from Earth.

Tiny Laika was the first animal to orbit Earth (Sovfoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

But she provided scientists with some of the first data on the biological effects of spaceflight, helping us to better understand what launch and microgravity could do to a human body.

After months of living in confined spaces and being spun on a centrifuge, Laika was strapped into Russia’s Sputnik 2 container for the first and last time.

In the middle of the day before launch, Laika was placed into its holding container and it was lifted to the top of the rocket around one hour after midnight on November 3, 1957.

It was a cold night so technicians extended a hose from the ground air-conditioning unit toward the cabin to keep her warm.

The poor, innocent animal was absolutely clueless as to what would happen next.

Engineer Yevgeniy Shabarov recalled the dog’s final moments on Earth, saying: “After placing Laika in the container and before closing the hatch, we kissed her nose and wished her bon voyage, knowing that she would not survive the flight.”

Laika was launched into space on Sputnik 2 (Encyclopaedia Britannica/UIG Via Getty Images)

She was blasted into space and Sputnik successfully reached orbit, becoming the second ever spacecraft to do so.

Laika made history as the first ever animal to orbit space, but it’s thought she was only alive for the first five to seven hours of the mission.

The tiny dog’s pulse rate tripled during takeoff and only began to come down during weightlessness.

The Soviet Union gave conflicting causes of death for years, from her suffocating to battery failure of equipment.

But in October 2002, one of the scientists behind the Sputnik 2 mission confirmed the real reason.

Dimitri Malashenkov revealed that Laika had died from overheating and panic by the flight’s fourth orbit.

Laika died in orbit (Keystone/Getty Images)

“It turned out that it was practically impossible to create a reliable temperature control system in such limited time constraints,” Malashenkov explained in a paper presented to the World Space Congress.

Scientists knew Laika would have died either way around 10 days in due to lack of oxygen.

Still, Sputnik 2 marked a major win for the Soviet Union, providing some of the earliest scientific data from above the Earth’s atmosphere for an extended period. It also moved the country closer to winning the Space Race against the US.

After 162 days in orbit, on April 14 1958, Sputnik 2 – and Laika’s remains – disintegrated as it re-entered Earth’s atmosphere.

Featured Image Credit: Sovfoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images/MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP via Getty Images

Laika the ‘Space Dog’: Why Her Story Still Matters 60+ Years Later

Laika weighed just over 10 pounds, and life as a stray dog in bustling 1950s Moscow likely terrified her. The city streets were packed with cars, sidewalks were constantly full of fast-moving human feet, and the temperature dropped far below freezing during winter. When a group of experimenters scooped up the little dog on a brisk October day in 1957, she had no way of knowing her life was about to get much worse. Over the next few weeks, Laika went from a stray dog to a “Space Dog” in training. Learn who Laika was and why even the experimenters who sentenced her to death eventually regretted their decision.

What Was Laika’s Space Mission?

Just one month after experimenters picked her up off the streets of Moscow, they sent Laika on a one-way mission to space, to become the first living being to orbit the Earth. However, Laika would not survive for long. From the outset, the experimenters intended for Laika to die aboard Sputnik 2, terrified and alone in space.

Why Was Laika Sent Into Space?

Much like beagles who suffer in laboratories today, Laika was chosen for her small size, gentle demeanor, and because she was considered expendable by the experimenters. According to federal statistics, approximately 48,000 dogs are used in experimentation each year in U.S. laboratories. Many of these dogs endure painful, debilitating, and pointless procedures. Their gentle and trusting nature is met not with kindness but with torment.

Prepped for Death: Laika and Other ‘Space Dogs’ Forced Through Space Training

Laika and other “space dogs” in training, Albina and Mushka, were forced through harsh “training” methods so experimenters could choose the dog they would send into orbit. Experimenters kept the dogs in extreme confinement for days to accustom them to the cramped space capsule. This imprisonment reportedly caused the dogs to stop urinating and defecating—even when given laxatives—and their mental condition allegedly deteriorated. The dogs were also forced through centrifuge simulations that mimicked a space launch and exposed to loud, continuous noises, which reportedly caused their pulse rates to double and their blood pressure to spike, seemingly causing extreme terror for the dogs.

Eventually, the experimenters narrowed their search down to Laika and Albina. They forced both dogs to endure surgery, during which a device was implanted to monitor their vital signs in space.

Just over a week before launch, physician Vladimir Yazdovsky officially chose Laika as the flight dog, sentencing her to a terrifying and lonely death in outer space. Before the launch, Yazdovsky brought Laika home to play with his children.

“Laika was quiet and charming … I wanted to do something nice for her: She had so little time left to live.” –Vladimir Yazdovsky

The experimenters placed Laika in Sputnik 2’s capsule three days before launch. It was so cold at the launch site that a heater had to be connected to keep her container warm. Before the final lift-off on November 3, one of the technicians claimed, “After placing Laika in the container and before closing the hatch, we kissed her nose and wished her bon voyage, knowing that she would not survive the flight.”

ARCHIVIO GBB / Alamy Stock Photo

What Happened to Laika in Outer Space: Did Laika Survive?

Laika was fitted with a harness and chains to restrict her movements aboard to sitting, standing, or lying down. The capsule was so tiny that even 11-pound Laika could not turn around. When Sputnik 2 hit peak acceleration, the sensors surgically implanted into her body revealed that Laika’s breathing rate was more than three times her normal pre-launch respiration rate, and her heart was pumping at 240 beats per minute, more than double her usual heart rate.

Pictorial Press Ltd / Alamy Stock Photo

The experimenters behind the Sputnik 2 launch never planned for Laika to survive the journey into orbit. They organized a dose of poisoned food to kill Laika after a few days of orbiting Earth, but Laika only survived a few hours aboard the Sputnik 2. Initial reports from Russia claimed she lived several days in space, but in 2002, an experimenter from the Sputnik 2 mission officially revealed that Laika cooked to death within hours of launch, because the satellite’s cooling system failed to operate.

Is Laika’s Body Still in Orbit?

Although Laika died just hours into the flight, her body circled Earth 2,570 times aboard the Sputnik 2. Five months after her death, the Sputnik 2 disintegrated during re-entry, officially ending the mission.

An Experimenter’s Regret: Why Laika’s Story Still Matters Today

One of the mission’s leading experimenters, Oleg Gazenko, later regretted sending Laika into orbit.

“The more time passes, the more I’m sorry about it. We shouldn’t have done it.” –Oleg Gazenko

Laika’s heartbreaking story is part of a larger pattern of cruelty where humans treat other animals as disposable tools instead of individuals. Her entire life, from the streets of Moscow as a stray to dying terrified and alone in outer space, was full of abuse and neglect. Humanity failed her—and millions of other animals—but we are learning from our mistakes.

In 1996, PETA successfully campaigned to get NASA to pull out of Bion—a joint U.S., French, and Russian experiment in which experimenters forced monkeys into straitjackets and implanted electrodes in their bodies before launching them into space. And we got NASA’s plan to irradiate monkeys scrapped.

The National Institutes of Health’s landmark decision to shift funding away from cruel and outdated experiments on animals and instead prioritize non-animal research methods is a huge step forward for animals. Its new plan incorporates steps from PETA’s Research Modernization NOW—a detailed roadmap for replacing experiments on animals with superior, human-relevant methods. But animals still need your help! In memory of Laika, take action to help other animals suffering in experiments. source

• Immunoglobulin Y (IgY): This type of antibody found in egg yolks can be generated in hens by immunizing them with a vaccine containing the virus or its proteins, according to the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Studies have shown that these anti-Spike-S1 IgYs can block the binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to the human ACE2 receptor, the main entry point for the virus into cells. They also demonstrate neutralizing activity against various SARS-CoV-2 spike protein mutants and even SARS-CoV in vitro. IgY offers advantages as a potential prophylactic or therapeutic option due to its relatively low production cost, ease of generation in large quantities, and favorable safety profile.
• Modified Ovalbumin: A modified version of ovalbumin, a major egg white protein, called 3-hydroxyphthalic anhydride-modified chicken ovalbumin (HP-OVA), has been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection by disrupting the interaction of the spike protein with the host ACE2 receptor.
• Other Egg Proteins: Other egg proteins like ovomucin, ovotransferrin, lysozyme, cystatin, and sialic acid derivatives have also been reported to have antiviral properties, including against influenza and gastroenteritis viruses. Some of these may exert antiviral activity by interacting with viral proteins like the spike protein, though further research is needed to fully elucidate their mechanisms. 

• These findings are based on laboratory studies, and further research is needed to confirm their efficacy and safety in humans.
• Naturally occurring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are not found in eggs unless hens are specifically immunized with the virus or its proteins.
• The use of IgY-based therapeutics would likely involve specific formulations and administration methods (e.g., intranasal or oral sprays) rather than simply consuming eggs. 

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1

Luminescence inhibition rate curve of…

Fig. 2

Competitive inhibition of the eight…

source

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Holly Rebecca | Holistic Detox & Parasite Cleanse Mentor (@thedetoxdarling)