via MIT Technology Review https://ift.tt/3MJqc7k

This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here. 

This week, I wrote about an external stimulator that delivers electrical pulses to the spine to help improve hand and arm function in people who are paralyzed. This isn’t a cure. In many cases the gains were relatively modest. One participant said it increased his typing speed from 23 words a minute to 35. Another participant was newly able to use scissors with his right hand. A third used her left hand to release a seatbelt.

The study didn’t garner as much media attention as previous, much smaller studies that focused on helping people with paralysis walk. Tech that allows people to type slightly faster or put their hair in a ponytail unaided just doesn’t have the same allure. “The image of a paralyzed person getting up and walking is almost biblical,” Charles Liu, director of the Neurorestoration Center at the University of Southern California, once told a reporter. 

For the people who have spinal cord injuries, however, incremental gains can have a huge impact on quality of life. 

So today in The Checkup, let’s talk about this tech and who it serves.

In 2004, Kim Anderson-Erisman, a researcher at Case Western Reserve University, who also happens to be paralyzed, surveyed more than 600 people with spinal cord injuries. Wanting to better understand their priorities, she asked them to consider seven different functions—everything from hand and arm mobility to bowel and bladder function to sexual function. She asked respondents to rank these functions according to how big an impact recovery would have on their quality of life. 

Walking was one of the functions, but it wasn’t the top priority for most people. Most quadriplegics put hand and arm function at the top of the list. For paraplegics, meanwhile, the top priority was sexual function. I interviewed Anderson-Erisman for a story I wrote in 2019 about research on implantable stimulators as a way to help people with spinal cord injuries walk. For many people, “not being able to walk is the easy part of spinal cord injury,” she told me. “[If] you don’t have enough upper-extremity strength or ability to take care of yourself independently, that’s a bigger problem than not being able to walk.” 

One of the research groups I focused on was at the University of Louisville. When I visited in 2019, the team had recently made the news because two people with spinal cord injuries in one of their studies had regained the ability to walk, thanks to an implanted stimulator. “Experimental device helps paralyzed man walk the length of four football fields,” one headline had trumpeted.

But when I visited one of those participants, Jeff Marquis, in his condo in Louisville, I learned that walking was something he could only do in the lab. To walk he needed to hold onto parallel bars supported by other people and wear a harness to catch him if he fell. Even if he had extra help at home, there wasn’t enough room for the apparatus. Instead, he gets around his condo the same way he gets around outside his condo: in a wheelchair. Marquis does stand at home, but even that requires a bulky frame. And the standing he does is only for therapy. “I mostly just watch TV while I’m doing that,” he said.  

That’s not to say the tech has been useless. The implant helped Marquis gain some balance, stamina, and trunk stability. “Trunk stability is kind of underrated in how much easier that makes every other activity I do,” he told me. “That’s the biggest thing that stays with me when I have [the stimulator] turned off.”  

What’s exciting to me about this latest study is that the tech gave the participants skills they could use beyond the lab. And because the stimulator is external, it is likely to be more accessible and vastly cheaper. Yes, the newly enabled movements are small, but if you listen to the palpable excitement of one study participant as he demonstrates how he can move a small ball into a cup, you’ll appreciate that incremental gains are far from insignificant. That’s according to Melanie Reid, one of the participants in the latest trial, who spoke at a press conference last week. “There [are] no miracles in spinal injury, but tiny gains can be life-changing.”

---

Now read the rest of The Checkup

Read more from MIT Technology Review’s archive

In 2017, we hailed as a breakthrough technology electronic interfaces designed to reverse paralysis by reconnecting the brain and body. Antonio Regalado has the story. 

An implanted stimulator changed John Mumford’s life, allowing him to once again grasp objects after a spinal cord injury left him paralyzed. But when the company that made the device folded, Mumford was left with few options for keeping the device running. “Limp limbs can be reanimated by technology, but they can be quieted again by basic market economics,” wrote Brian Bergstein in 2015. 

In 2014, Courtney Humphries covered some of the rat research that laid the foundation for the technological developments that have allowed paralyzed people to walk. 

From around the web

Lots of bird flu news this week. A second person in the US has tested positive for the illness after working with infected livestock. (NBC)

The livestock industry, which depends on shipping tens of millions of live animals, provides some ideal conditions for the spread of pathogens, including bird flu. (NYT)

Long read: How the death of a nine-year-old boy in Cambodia triggered a global H5N1 alert. (NYT)

You’ve heard about tracking viruses via wastewater. H5N1 is the first one we’re tracking via store-bought milk. (STAT) 

The first organ transplants from pigs to humans have not ended well, but scientists are learning valuable lessons about what they need to do better. (Nature) 

Another long read that’s worth your time: an inside look at just how long 3M knew about the pervasiveness of “forever chemicals.” (New Yorker) 

via TechSpot https://ift.tt/IGkr7tE
The latest annual survey of corporate images by the Harris Poll and Axios surveyed 16,500 Americans about the reputations of companies. Participants were first asked to name two companies with the best reputations and two with the worst, determining the 100 most visible firms. Later, they were asked to pick...

Read Entire Article

via MIT Technology Review https://ift.tt/tnz0moA

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Tech companies keep finding new ways to bring AI into every facet of our lives. AI has taken over my search engine results, and new virtual assistants from Google and OpenAI announced last week are bringing the world eerily close to the 2013 film Her (in more ways than one).

As AI has become more integrated into our world, I’ve gotten a lot of questions about the technology’s rising electricity demand. You may have seen the headlines proclaiming that AI uses as much electricity as small countries, that it’ll usher in a fossil-fuel resurgence, and that it’s already challenging the grid.  

So how worried should we be about AI’s electricity demands? Well, it’s complicated. 

Using AI for certain tasks can come with a significant energy price tag. With some powerful AI models, generating an image can require as much energy as charging up your phone, as my colleague Melissa Heikkilä explained in a story from December. Create 1,000 images with a model like Stable Diffusion XL, and you’ve produced as much carbon dioxide as driving just over four miles in a gas-powered car, according to the researchers Melissa spoke to. 

But while generated images are splashy, there are plenty of AI tasks that don’t use as much energy. For example, creating images is thousands of times more energy-intensive than generating text. And using a smaller model that’s tailored to a specific task, rather than a massive, all-purpose generative model, can be dozens of times more efficient. In any case, generative AI models require energy, and we’re using them a lot. 

Electricity consumption from data centers, AI, and cryptocurrency could reach double 2022 levels by 2026, according to projections from the International Energy Agency. Those technologies together made up roughly 2% of global electricity demand in 2022. Note that these numbers aren’t just for AI—it’s tricky to nail down AI’s specific contribution, so keep that in mind when you see predictions about electricity demand from data centers. 

There’s a wide range of uncertainty in the IEA’s projections, depending on factors like how quickly deployment increases and how efficient computing processes get. On the low end, the sector could require about 160 terawatt-hours of additional electricity by 2026. On the higher end, that number might be 590 TWh. As the report puts it, AI, data centers, and cryptocurrency together are likely adding “at least one Sweden or at most one Germany” to global electricity demand. 

In total, the IEA projects, the world will add about 3,500 TWh of electricity demand over that same period—so while computing is certainly part of the demand crunch, it’s far from the whole story. Electric vehicles and the industrial sector will both be bigger sources of growth in electricity demand than data centers in the European Union, for example. 

Still, some big tech companies are suggesting that AI could get in the way of their climate goals. Microsoft pledged four years ago to bring its greenhouse-gas emissions to zero (or even lower) by the end of the decade. But the company’s recent sustainability report shows that instead, emissions are still ticking up, and some executives point to AI as a reason. “In 2020, we unveiled what we called our carbon moonshot. That was before the explosion in artificial intelligence,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president, told Bloomberg Green.

What I found interesting, though, is that it’s not AI’s electricity demand that’s contributing to Microsoft’s rising emissions, at least on paper. The company has agreements in place and buys renewable-energy credits so that electricity needs for all its functions (including AI) are met with renewables. (How much these credits actually help is questionable, but that’s a story for another day.) 

Instead, infrastructure growth could be adding to the uptick in emissions. Microsoft plans to spend $50 billion between July 2023 and June 2024 on expanding data centers to meet demand for AI products, according to the Bloomberg story. Building those data centers requires materials that can be carbon intensive, like steel, cement, and of course chips. 

Some important context to consider in the panic over AI’s energy demand is that while the technology is new, this sort of concern isn’t, as Robinson Meyer laid out in an April story in Heatmap.

Meyer points to estimates from 1999 that information technologies were already accounting for up to 13% of US power demand, and that personal computers and the internet could eat up half the grid’s capacity within the decade. That didn’t end up happening, and even at the time, computing was actually accounting for something like 3% of electricity demand. 

We’ll have to wait and see if doomsday predictions about AI’s energy demand play out. The way I see it, though, AI is probably going to be a small piece of a much bigger story. Ultimately, rising electricity demand from AI is in some ways no different from rising demand from EVs, heat pumps, or factory growth. It’s really how we meet that demand that matters. 

If we build more fossil-fuel plants to meet our growing electricity demand, it’ll come with negative consequences for the climate. But if we use rising electricity demand as a catalyst to lean harder into renewable energy and other low-carbon power sources, and push AI to get more efficient, doing more with less energy, then we can continue to slowly clean up the grid, even as AI continues to expand its reach in our lives. 

---

Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Check out my colleague Melissa’s story on the carbon footprint of AI from December here. 

For a closer look at Microsoft’s new sustainability report and the effects of AI, give this Bloomberg Green story from reporters Akshat Rathi and Dina Bass a read. 

Robinson Meyer at Heatmap dug into the context around the AI energy demand in this April piece. 

Another thing

Missed our event last week on thermal batteries? Good news—the recording is now available for subscribers!

For the latest in our Roundtables series, I spoke with Amy Nordrum, MIT Technology Review executive editor, about how the technology works, who the crucial players are, and what I’m watching for next. Check it out here. 

Keeping up with climate  

Changing how we generate heat in industry will be crucial to cleaning up that sector in China, according to a new report. Thermal batteries and heat pumps could meet most of the demand. (Axios)

Form Energy is known for its iron-air batteries, which could help unlock cheap energy storage on the grid. Now, the company is working on research to produce green iron. (Canary Media)

The NET Power pilot in Texas is working to generate electricity with natural gas while capturing the vast majority of emissions. But carbon capture technology in power plants is far from proven. (Cipher News)

MIT spinoff Electrified Thermal Solutions is working to bring its thermal battery technology to commercial use. The company’s product is roughly the size of an elevator and can reach temperatures up to 1,800 °C. (Inside Climate News)

Mexico City has seen constant struggles over water. Now groundwater is drying up, and a system of dams and canals may soon be unable to provide water to the city. (New York Times)

Sodium-ion batteries could offer cheap energy storage while avoiding material crunches for metals like lithium, nickel, and cobalt. China has a massive head start, leaving other countries scrambling to catch up. (Latitude Media)

→ Here’s how this abundant material could unlock cheaper energy storage. (MIT Technology Review)

Biochar is made by heating up biomass like wood and plants in low-oxygen environments. It’s a simple approach to carbon removal, but it doesn’t always get as much attention as other carbon removal technologies. (Heatmap)

This startup wants ships to capture their own emissions by bubbling exhaust through seawater and limestone and dumping it into the ocean. Experts caution that some components of the exhaust could harm sea life if they’re not handled properly. (New Scientist)