Category: Story

Home / Category: Story

This New Robot Will Help Keep Hearts Pumping

March 20, 2019 | Story | No Comments

You don’t want to be among the first human cyborgs. Because doctors won’t be replacing all your limbs with super-strong robotic ones, and they won’t be giving you cameras for eyes. More than likely, they’ll be saving your life by wrapping your heart in a robot.

Today in the journal Science Robotics, researchers introduced a new kind of device to keep a heart pumping: It cradles the organ and uses a probe to anchor to the wall that separates the heart’s lower chambers. The robot can precisely manipulate a particular chamber, and that could lead to devices that let doctors assist a heart in its normal function instead of relying on a transplant. (Another sort of robotic heart announced earlier this year envelops the organ like a sleeve, but this new robot can work on a single diseased chamber.)

These days, doctors keep a heart pumping blood with something called a ventricular assist device. This is a pump external to the body that helps ferry blood around when the heart just can’t manage on its own. Problem is, because blood is flowing through machinery, the patient has to take blood thinners to make sure the works don’t get gummed up. And doctors don’t like putting people on blood thinners if they can avoid it.

This new robot is incorporated right into the heart, and acts to encourage the organ’s normal function. The bit that rests on the heart is a soft robot made of polymers, meaning it’s, well, soft, so it better conforms to the organ and doesn’t irritate the flesh. But it’s also soft in its operation: Instead of using traditional motors that are complicated and bulky, it’s pneumatically activated, which is a gentler way to manipulate the heart.

    More robots

  • Matt Simon

    What Is a Robot?

  • Matt Simon

    This Robot Tractor Is Ready to Disrupt Construction

  • Matt Simon

    Inside SynTouch, the Mad Lab Giving Robots the Power to Feel

The second bit of the robot is a rod that actually enters the heart and anchors to the wall that separates one ventricle from the other, known as a septum. A needle pierces the septum and a delivery shaft opens up an anchor on the other side of the wall like an umbrella. Then an operator places a disk on the other side to complete the anchor.

So in addition to the soft robot on the outside pumping the free wall of the ventricle, the shaft pulls the septum toward the wall, squeezing the ventricle to get blood flowing. Without pulling on the septum, the device wouldn’t really be replicating the beating of a heart. “The septum is very actively engaged in the ventricular contraction,” says study coauthor Nikolay Vasilyev, a scientist in the Department of Cardiac Surgery at Boston Children's Hospital. “When the heart contracts, it's not only the free walls that move. The septum thickens during the contraction and moves inward into the respective ventricle.”

By manipulating both the outside of the organ with a soft robot and tugging on the septum with a rod, this device helps the heart pump blood much more precisely than other devices: The system reads either the electrical signals from the heart or pressure changes within the ventricle to time its movements in concert with the normal operation of the organ.

The researchers have already shown the robot working in a live pig. The next step could be to actually implant the thing in an animal and stitch it up, then watch the robot work over the course of months.

“In terms of technological development, I believe we are almost at the stage where a large company or a pool of investors take this technology to the next level and make a product out of it,” says University of Leeds roboticist Pietro Valdastri, who was not involved in the study. “I frankly hope this is going to happen, as this technology looks pretty ready to me for this type of jump.”

Robots have already stolen our hearts. Now they're keeping them beating, too.

Related Video

Science

If the Tin Man Actually Had a Heart, It'd Look Like This

A robotic heart points the way to a future where soft robots help us heal.

Back in 2011, when Guillermo del Toro was first starting to hype his forthcoming movie Pacific Rim, he gleefully described it as “giant fucking monsters against giant fucking robots.” That’s how he always talked about it, with childlike glee. But he was also steeped in its antecedents: Toho monster films, Voltron, decades of sci-fi. The film he was planning was a playground toy battle writ large, imagined by a guy with the exuberance and resources necessary to build his own toys. Without that, it would’ve just been Transformers—all rock-‘em-sock-‘em, no heart.

Pacific Rim Uprising is what that movie would’ve been without Guillermo del Toro. Not to drag Steven S. DeKnight’s 10-years-later sequel—it could’ve been a much worse mecha-wreck than it is—but it’s clearly playing in someone else’s sandbox, tooling around with another kid’s toys. While it monster-robot fights are just as fun the second time around, it seems content simply to play the same notes as the original. And without the skill of del Toro and original screenwriter Travis Beacham, Uprising is nothing more than the wedding-band cover version of Pacific Rim.

Related Stories

It’s funny that it would turn out this way. When the original Pacific Rim came out in the summer of 2013, it wasn’t exactly a critical darling. It barely cleared a 70 percent on Rotten Tomatoes; genre fans appreciated its charms, but it wasn’t embraced by the kind of people who would tell you at parties they loved films. There’s even an argument to be made that it was below the talents of the man who made Pan’s Labyrinth. But in retrospect, especially after seeing Uprising, it’s impossible not to notice del Toro's deftness. To have Idris Elba scream “We’re canceling the apocalypse!” is a gamble at best, but to pull it off so well the line briefly became a catchphrase—and even gets a shoutout in its sequel—is testament to GDT's mastery.

No, Pacific Rim wasn't deep. Yes, that ending was cornier than Iowa in the summertime. Frankly, it’s hard to pinpoint what exactly del Toro did to make it work—but those things become obvious when set next to *Uprising'*s shortcomings. Like, say, originality. Concepts like the “drift compatibility” and “neural handshakes” that let jaeger pilots sync to control their mechs seemed ludicrous the first time around, but they were forgivable because, hey man, cool story. But here? Not so much. Having Ron Perlman show up as a black market kaiju parts dealer in Pac Rim because Perlman makes a great bad guy. Having teenaged Amara Namani (Cailee Spaeny) introduced in the sequel as a potential hero who pilfers fallen jaegers doesn’t have the same impact, despite Spaeny's charisma. (Also, isn’t that Rey’s introduction in Star Wars: The Force Awakens?) The same goes for Uprising’s talk of the strange scientific properties of kaiju blood and the importance of banding together at the end of the world, which can feel like a strong case for un-canceling the apocalypse.

Sequels are never going to be truly original—canonical consistency is the entire point—but any subsequent installments in a franchise should at least try to further the lore, and I’m fairly certain the only new thing I learned in Uprising was that tapping into kaiju brains can get you so high you’ll want to marry a kaiju brain. (Don’t ask.) And what Pacific Rim Uprising does get right—its epic final third, wherein everyone shuts the hell up and lets the giant robots fight the giant monsters—it does in daylight so broad it renders everything just a little too shiny. Most of del Toro’s Rim took place at night, an aesthetic choice that gave every fight a neon-hued Blade Runner edge. Uprising is the opposite, an aesthetic choice that reveals too many details. Sunlight isn't only a disinfectant; it makes jaegers look even more like Transformers in a Michael Bay movie, and kaiju appear a lot less menacing. (Not for nothing, but the gaping blue hellmouth of the movie’s final Big Bad looks more like a Georgia O’Keeffe painting than anything else.)

None of this is to say that Pacific Rim Uprising doesn’t have redeeming factors. Again, the fights are fun. And John Boyega, who plays Jake, the son of Elba's character Stacker Pentecost, continues to exude the same charisma that has made him a Star Wars fan favorite. The movie passes the Bechdel Test, still a relative rarity in genre and sci-fi films. Charlie Day will probably never not be funny. But there’s no heart, no soul—and that was what Guillermo del Toro brought to Pacific Rim. Where del Toro imbued his movie with a sense of “Can you believe I’m getting away with this?” Uprising opts for “Oh yeah, we’re trying to get away with this! EXTREME!”

Guillermo Del Toro has always been a master of finding the joy and emotional center in surreal, even unbelievable situations. He made a movie about sexing a fish-man and won an Oscar for it. His is a special gift. He wants to give people worlds steeped in the creatures of his imagination. Pacific Rim Uprising, though, just gives them giant monsters and robots—nothing more.

More WIRED Culture

Related Video

Movies & TV

Pacific Rim Uprising Cast Answer 50 of the Most Googled Kaiju Questions

Pacific Rim Uprsing stars John Boyega, Scott Eastwood, Cailee Spaeny, Burn Gorman, and Charlie Day answer the 50 most Googled questions about Kaiju.
Pacific Rim: Uprising comes out March 23rd, 2018

"Netflixing in Public"—the act of watching Netflix out in the world, not to be confused with "Netflix and chill"—is officially a thing. Ever since smartphones got fast enough to stream on-the-go, folks have gotten more and more used to watching TV and movies almost anywhere. Don’t believe us? Go watch the line at Whole Foods for an hour, or ride the New York City subway. Or check out the latest data from Netflix itself.

Yes, Netflix is paying attention to when, where, and how people consume TV and movies, and has actually started studying how their habits are changing. And in their latest data set, released today, the streaming service says it discovered that 67 percent of Americans now watch Netflix out in the world, a figure that, according to Eddy Wu, Netflix’s director of product innovation, shows that "Netflixing in Public has become a social norm."

Not that looking at stuff on your phone was ever really frowned upon. Even back in 2015, when Pew Research Center released its study on the matter, 77 percent of adults thought it was fine for someone to use their cellphone while walking down the street, and 75 percent thought it was acceptable for people to use them on public transit. In the intervening years, connectivity has only become more prevalent and watching streaming video more common (see: AT&T giving out free HBO Go with its unlimited data plans and T-Mobile letting users watch video without eating up their data allotment). Moreover, Netflix itself launched a feature a year ago that allowed folks to download video for when they're out of range, something that's no doubt upped the amount of video people are watching in the mall or at the airport.

“The introduction of the Netflix download feature has given users the freedom to watch their favorite movies and shows wherever they want,” Wu said in a statement, “like during their commute or waiting in line, or for some … that means at work or even in a public restroom.” (Um, that last one is oddly specific, Ed.)

Streaming while flushing aside, Netflix’s data—which comes from more than 37,000 responses to a worldwide survey conducted this past summer, rather than some sort of creepy tracking mechanism—found some fascinating bits of information. For one, 44 percent of the respondents reported that they’d caught someone snooping on their screen, and 22 percent were embarrassed by what they were watching. (Was it Gossip Girl? It was Gossip Girl, wasn’t it? Don’t lie.) Netflix also found that 11 percent of those surveyed had a movie or TV show spoiled because they peeked at someone else’s screen in public.

The snooping aspect of Netflix's study is compelling because it shows just how much rabid phone usage has completely eroded the line between public and private. Don't think so? Go back to that Whole Foods line and see how many people are talking to their significant other on an earpiece. The fact that almost everyone is on their phone now has lead to people being much more brazen about what they'll have up on their screens—screens that are likely to attract the attention of folks nearby.

And people who watch in public probably don't care if someone is looking over their shoulder. In addition to that fairly low embarrassment statistic above, Netflix also found 35 percent of those who binge in public say they've been interrupted by someone who wanted to talk about what they were watching. (Was it Gossip Girl? It was Gossip Girl wasn’t it?) The report didn't indicate whether any of them was bothered by the interruption, but chances are if they had been streaming in public for a while they were probably used to it. Fans still think of watching their favorite thing as a group event, whether consumed at home or elsewhere, it's just that smartphones have evolved our ideas where public spaces end and personal spaces begin.

Oh, and speaking of personal time, 22 percent of public streamers reported they have cried while viewing. Folks in Mexico, Colombia, and Chile were the most emotional, but—as Netflix’s data release notes—"it’s unlikely to see a German bawling while they binge." OK, that’s oddly specific, too.


More Netflix

Related Video

Culture

Who Said it? Luke Cage or Nic Cage

It’s surprisingly easy to get the two confused. Both are tall badasses known for saying outlandish things. So we threw some quotes at Mike Colter, who plays Luke Cage in Netflix's new series, and asked him to guess who said them—Nic Cage or Luke Cage.

Knead To Know: The Secrets of Gluten, Revealed

March 20, 2019 | Story | No Comments

If your homemade country loaf comes out of the oven shrunken and unfluffy, you may have neglected a central tenet of breadmaking: Hydrate the flour. When you knead the dough, you are massaging moisture into the wheat’s proteins, creating a matrix of gluten that traps gases so the bread can inflate from the inside. “The gluten structure is stretchy but impermeable,” says Nathan Myhrvold, the tech millionaire, chef, and creator of 2011’s six-volume science-of-cooking megawork, Modernist Cuisine. Now, Myhrvold and his team of food scientists and photographers are back with five more volumes, focused exclusively on bread.

The photos in the $625 labor of loaves, ­Modernist Bread, range from cross-sections of rising sourdough to artful, side-lit layers of injera. But so much about baking, as any practitioner worth their pinch of salt will tell you, takes place at the invisible-to-the-eye chemical level, and Myhrvold wanted to expose that hidden process.

For the image above, his crew rinsed a small ball of dough with water to wash away starch granules and water-soluble proteins, leaving behind a blob of near-pure gluten. Then, using a scanning electron microscope borrowed from Myhrvold’s company, Intellectual Ventures, they captured a slice of the gluten magnified to 734X, tweaking the contrast of the black-and-white image to give maximum visibility to the webby network at the heart of every perfectly quenched, ready-to-bake gob of pre-bread. As Myhrvold puts it, “That web makes wheat breads what they are.” Meaning: chewy, delicious, and upsetting to gluten-sensitive stomachs everywhere.

The first thing you notice when you walk into the theater is the smell of soap, followed by a faint stickiness on the carpeted floors, and a tacky coating on the armrests of the seats.

When the lights come up at the Gazillion Bubbles Show, it quickly becomes clear what's going on. Powerful fans blow tiny soap bubbles into the audience by the thousands. Little kids giggle; bigger kids scream. And like a magician, 27-year-old Melody Yang pulls out her wands.

She uses water-based vapor (she calls it "smoke") to create bubbles that erupt like volcanoes, and some that launch into the air like rockets. She brings kids on stage and makes huge, tubular bubbles that can encase five of them inside.

"People love it. It's just something that is so universal," she says. "It's something that takes you back to your childhood because a lot of the times when we see a bubble we see it when we're very young, and we're just like 'what is that?' You know, it puts us back in the moment."

Yang grew up on this stage. Her parents, Fan and Ana, have been performing together for decades, and over the years they brought Melody and her brother, Deni, into the act as well.

"Me and my brother would walk on stage and he'd put us in a bubble," Melody says of her father, "and then he would slowly teach me and my brother the routine."

Now, the Yangs take turns performing in New York, where they share a space with the Tony Award-winning musicals Avenue Q and Jersey Boys, and in venues around the world.

The family has set more than a dozen world records, for everything from Encasing the Largest Land Mammal in a Bubble (an elephant) to fitting the Most People Inside a Bubble (181 was their record) to making the world's Longest Soap Bubble Wall (a 166-foot, 11-inch bubble), a record that still stands. Their records not only prove that the Yangs are bubble experts, but also that there's a record for just about everything.

Watch the video above to see the incredible bubbles Melody makes—and to learn some of her tricks for making them at home.

Satellites do an incredible job of mapping algal blooms, the green mats that spread over lakes and oceans during warm, nutrient-rich summers. But the hypnotic, swirling images from space can't tell if toxins are lurking in a carpet of cyanobacteria, threatening the safety of water.

Ecologists and hydrologists can test water's drinkability by boating through the blooms—though collecting samples off the side of a power boat is tricky and inconvenient. So this year, scientists are monitoring Lake Erie with a robot, 18 feet below the water’s surface.

The so-called Environmental Sample Processor, ESPniagara, sits on the floor of Lake Erie’s western basin. It collects algae from the surrounding water, analyzes microcystin (a small, circular liver-toxic protein), and uploads results for researchers at the end of every test. They're watching this toxin closely, because elevated levels of it could swiftly poison the water supply for humans and wildlife in the surrounding area.

A no-frills charm dominates the ESPniagara's aesthetic. “It kind of looks like a trash can,” says Tim Davis, a molecular ecologist at NOAA in Ann Arbor. Tentacles of clear plastic tubing for sample processing swirl around the lab-in-a-can’s lower half, while circuits and wiring snake between the components above. Those electronics and the machine’s batteries—400 D cell batteries power the unit—understandably need some protection to sit at the bottom of the lake. “The metal trashcan is essentially a pressure case that can withstand very, very high pressures, and essentially keeps it dry,” Davis says.

Staying dry isn’t the only requirement for the lab capsule. ESPniagara also needs to stay put, remain upright, and avoid sinking too deeply into the gunky mud. So NOAA recruited applied physicists at the University of Washington to design the 1,000-pound frame encasing the unit. By their calculations, even if Hurricane Sandy-level winds hit Michigan, the water sampling could continue. And at the lake’s surface, a round orange data buoy relays information from its tests via a cellular modem, like the one in your phone.

So far ESPniagara has been testing the water every other day. But as of August 1, with the risk of harmful blooms steadily rising, it began testing on a daily schedule. It pulls lake water in, concentrating algae cells onto a filter. When the filter is clogged with plenty of algae to measure, the biology begins.

While full-scale labs use temperature-controlled water baths, freezers, and centrifuges to run these kinds of experiments, the ESPniagara accomplishes the same tests with a few carefully formulated protocols. Each toxicity measurement happens within a quarter-sized puck that’s about an inch and a half tall.

To measure the algae’s microcystins, it’s important to know that the cyanobacteria hold most of their toxins inside their cells. “So in order to get accurate concentrations, you need to be able to break the cells open,” Davis says. A bit of methanol-Tween-20 (basically dish detergent) does the trick, along with some heat and pressure. And once the cells are cracked open to reveal all the toxins, the ESPniagara dots samples into a four-by-five grid for quantification.

    Related Stories

  • Nick Stockton

    Climate Change-Fueled Storms Could Leave Less Water for Drinking

  • Neel Patel

    Incredible Images of Algal Blooms Taken From Space

  • Gwen Pearson

    Don't Drink the Water … In Lake Erie

The toxin detection relies on antibodies that fluoresce when they’ve bound a specific substance. In this case, the antibodies that don’t bind a toxin light up, so brighter dots mean safer water. An internal camera photographs the test array, and at the end of this whole process—it takes roughly four hours—the data buoy sends off that photo. The results end up with collaborators all the way across the country, at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute servers. Then Davis and his team download them for their own analysis.

Once they've got toxicity data, they combine it with satellite measurements for algal biomass and hydrodynamic models of windspeed and current. That full picture tells them how toxic the bloom is, and where the toxins will end up next. Knowing that strong winds are about to send more toxins into the water supply, for example, helps treatment plants decide how to act. When more microcystins arrive, they’ll know to roll out extra filtration steps—like particle activated charcoal neutralization—to keep drinking water safe. It’s almost like the ESPniagara gives water treatment plants … extrasensory perception.

Related Video

Science

Tap Water

You can't see it, but there's a lot going on inside a glass of tap water. The faucet aqua is essentially an invisible cocktail of sulfates, resins, varying levels of lead, and so much more. Find out what else is inside.

Let's get this out of the way: You've seen the first trailer (and, before that, the TV spot) for Solo: A Star Wars Story, right? If not, go ahead and do that. OK, now that we have your undivided attention, we can get on with all the other Star Wars news of the last few weeks. And there's a lot. Can you say "a whole new series of movies, and even more"?

The Solo Han Solo Film Had Two Han Solos Behind the Scenes (Got All That?)

The Source: Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy

Probability of Accuracy: If Kennedy is saying it, it’s legit.

The Real Deal: While the new trailers didn’t show much in terms of Alden Ehrenreich’s Han Solo, it was revealed via Entertainment Weekly that the original Han Solo, Harrison Ford, was involved in the making of Solo: A Star Wars Story, acting as an advisor to his successor. “What [Ford] did so beautifully for Alden was he talked a lot about what he remembered when he first read Star Wars, and what George had done with Han,” Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy explained. “Who the character was and the conversations he had for so many years with George about how that character developed… He gave Alden that kind of insight which was invaluable. There were several times in the course of making the movie where Alden would actually recount some of the things that Harrison had pointed out. I think that was really, really helpful to him.” How much of this will come across onscreen, of course, no one will know until May.

Fans Won’t See the Seams In Solo

The Source: Director Ron Howard

Probability of Accuracy: The proof will be in the pudding when the movie’s out, but he seems very sincere, if nothing else.

The Real Deal: EW also talked to director Ron Howard about stepping in and taking over Solo after the dismissal of original directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller. When asked about how much of the finished movie is his, versus Lord and Miller’s, he demurred. “I don’t really want to explain it. I don’t really want to be specific about that because, again, I don’t even want that to matter to fans,” he said. “I could understand why you’d ask, and some might even be curious, but look, everybody who has been involved in this has done nothing but love what this movie could be, and that’s been the vibe around it. I think audiences are gonna feel that love and excitement.” Well, that’s the hope, at least…

Winter Is Coming. Kind Of

The Source: An official Lucasfilm announcement

Probability of Accuracy: It’s an official announcement; this is as accurate as it gets.

The Real Deal: In a surprising move, Lucasfilm announced last week that Game of Thrones executive producers David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are going to be heading to the galaxy far, far away once their time in Westeros is up, signing on to create a new series of Star Wars movies for the studio. Lucasfilm didn't provide any details beyond that—but that didn’t stop people from speculating that they could be working on a Knights of the Old Republic movie, just like they did when it was announced that Rian Johnson would be working on a new Star Wars movie series. At this point, someone needs to make a real Old Republic movie just so fans won't have to speculate about it anymore.

Are There Secret Star Wars Movies in the Works?

The Source: Mysterious, vague rumors on Twitter

Probability of Accuracy: Who can even tell…?

The Real Deal: The hiring of Weiss and Benioff also launched a conversation online about the fact that Lucasfilm seems unable to hire anyone to make a Star Wars movie who isn’t a white man, at a time when the movies themselves are making efforts to branch out in terms of the diversity of their leads. This piece by Marc Bernardin is a fine example of why this is a problem, and what it means for the future of Star Wars movies and the fandom as a whole. Which is what made these tweets particularly interesting…

…Are there secret Star Wars movies in the works that no one knows about, being made by people that no one knows is working on them? It sounds unlikely and deeply paranoid … but also not entirely impossible, despite that.

A Galaxy Streaming Very Close to You Indeed

The Source: Disney CEO Bob Iger

Probability of Accuracy: It’s a vague announcement, but it's something that Iger has no reason to fib about, so let’s call it accurate.

The Real Deal: Star Wars: Rebels is coming to an end, but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be any more Star Wars on the small screen. Indeed, just the opposite; speaking to investors recently, Disney CEO Bob Iger revealed, “We are developing not just one, but a few Star Wars series specifically for the Disney direct-to-consumer app. We've mentioned that and we are close to being able to reveal at least one of the entities that is developing that for us. Because the deal isn't completely closed, we can't be specific about that.” Multiple series? Start your speculation engines.

Related Video

Movies & TV

The Last Jedi Cast Answer the Web's Most Searched Questions

Star Wars: The Last Jedi stars Mark Hamill, Laura Dern, John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Domhnall Gleeson and Kelly Marie Tran take the WIRED Autocomplete Interview and answer the Internet's most searched questions about Star Wars and themselves.

This App Maps Opioid Overdoses in Real Time

March 20, 2019 | Story | No Comments

The opioid epidemic is ripping through America like a fire untamed. Blame big pharma, if you want. Blame cheap pain pills and cheaper heroin. Blame the mesolimbic reward system. Just don't wallow in it—the blame. Wallowing takes time, and with opioid abuse killing close to 100 Americans a day, time is in exceedingly short supply. “The number one question is, how do we get a better sense of what's going on in our communities in real-time," says Jeff Beeson, deputy director of the Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. Not a year from now. Not a month from now. Today.

So last year, the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA set out to create a tool that would give law enforcement and health officials the data they need to respond to the public health crisis as swiftly as possible. The result was a web app called ODMAP that combines street-level data with tools from Esri, the digital mapping company, to help public health officials, police departments, and first responders track and respond to overdoses in real time.

ODMAP's national scope distinguishes it from similar opioid-tracking apps. States across the US are racing to develop tools for managing the country's opioid crisis, and Indiana in particular has successfully tracked trends, collecting data from local agencies to build a statewide database of things like drug arrests, seizures, and administrations of the overdose-reversing drug naloxone. ODMAP takes a similar approach, but focuses on mapping overdoses, specifically—whether they're happening locally, two towns over, or several states away.

That's the kind of geospatial data that can help communities brace for overdoses before they happen. "You've seen those epidemiology maps where a disease spreads outward from an initial set of dots? We're seeing similar patterns on a daily basis with ODMAP," says Beeson. If ODMAP registers a spike in overdoses in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the app immediately notifies public health officials in Berkeley County, West Virginia, 120 miles away. Why? Because in 8 to 10 hours, West Virginia's eastern panhandle is going to start seeing overdoses, too.

"A lot of these geographic correlations, we didn't know they existed until we started tracking overdoses with the app," Beeson says. By anticipating a ripple effect of overdoses, regional officials can warn their communities, notify hospitals, and ensure first responders have the naloxone they need to administer to overdose victims.

Meanwhile, the same data helps law enforcement officials double-check theories about the way drugs travel into and out of their jurisdictions. Take the relationship between Berkeley and Anne Arundel. Washington/Baltimore HIDTA had suspected a link for years, Beeson says, based on arrest data. "But if we pick someone up for trafficking in Baltimore, it's not like we know where that person's drugs are going. Now, we're basically tracking the drug. We're able to see it in black and white, as it spreads throughout a region." And the more data ODMAP collects, the more regional relationships health and law enforcement officials can confirm. "We've never had overdose data like this before—and we've never shared it with each other," Beeson says.

Health and law enforcement officials I spoke with about the tool say they like it because it's simple, powerful, and free. First responders at the scene of an overdose (Beeson says there are currently close to 1,000 registered nationwide) log in to ODMAP via a password-protected web portal. The interface lets these so-called Level I users specify whether the overdose was fatal, whether they administered naloxone, and, if they did, how much. That information, along with the time and location of the overdose, goes to ODMAP's central database. For first responders, that's all there is to it; the process takes seconds to complete and requires no personal information about the victim.

Police have additional, password-protected access to a form that lets them enter information like the victim's date of birth and overdose history; witness information; whether the victim overdosed on fentanyl, oxycodone, or some other narcotic; whether any drugs were found at the scene; even a photograph of the drugs' packaging. That information is stored on a separate database, to keep everything HIPAA compliant. If any of the data matches a previous overdose report, ODMAP will connect the reporting officers so they can coordinate.

Things get more interesting on ODMAP's backend, which is accessible to Level II user like sheriffs and public health chiefs. It requires a separate username and password and provides a bird's-eye view of overdose incidents at the national level. Every overdose appears on the map in the form of a color-coded blip. Accessing data for a state, county, or neighborhood is as simple as panning and zooming.

"It's like having real-time traffic data on Google Maps," says Aaron Kustermann, chief of intelligence for Illinois State Police, one of several organizations in the state that recently began using ODMAP. "Being able to monitor trends and see what's happening and compare with other areas? That's where the power is." Understanding where and how people are overdosing can take local health and law enforcement months to suss out. "With this tool, we can react in real time to a spike in fentanyl-related deaths, or purity-related deaths."

    More on Opioids

  • Issie Lapowsky

    Indiana, Reeling from Opioid Crisis, Arms Officials with Data

  • Lizzie Wade

    How America Is Battling Its Horrific Opioid Epidemic

  • Matt Simon

    Kratom: The Bitter Plant That Could Help Opioid Addicts—if the DEA Doesn't Ban It

Adoption will make or break this tool. "From a surveillance perspective, the more data you have on a given health issue the better," says Harvard University's John Brownstein, a computational epidemiologist who uses digital tools to map disease and drug abuse across populations. "Having direct data on overdoses is super exciting, but it's a crowdsourcing tool, so you want as much engagement as possible."

From the looks of it, ODMAP is spreading quickly. It launched on January 18th in just two West Virginia counties. Today, 70 counties across 19 states are actively contributing data to the system. Last week there were 16 states on board, and in the past few days, the number of health and law enforcement agencies using the program jumped from 168 to 186. The opioid crisis might be sweeping the country, but so, too, are the tools that could curb its spread.

“Ask any health or law enforcement agency in the country: We don’t have the time, and we don’t have the resources to sufficiently deal with the opioid crisis,” Beeson says. “We can’t throw money at it, and we can’t arrest our way out of it. But what we can do is use data and technology as a tool, to maximize what limited resources we have.”

Related Video

Science

Why Banning Kratom May Make the Opioid Epidemic Even Worse

In August the DEA announced plans to ban Kratom, a herbal substance used to treat pain, anxiety and in some cases opioid addiction. A group of tenacious users got the agency to back down and extend public comment until December 1st. Now a tough decision lies before the DEA.

CrisprCon is not a place where spandexed, beglittered, refrigerator drawer fans come together for an all-you-can-eat celebration of unwilted produce. No. Crispr-Cas9 (no E), if you haven’t been paying attention, is a precise gene editing tool that’s taken the world by storm, promising everything from healthier, hangover-free wine to cures for genetic diseases. Like, all of them. And CrisprCon is where people come not to ask how to do those things, but rather, should we? And also, who’s the we here?

On Wednesday and Thursday, the University of California, Berkeley welcomed about 300 people—scientists, CEOs, farmers, regulators, conservationists, and interested citizens—to its campus to take a hard look at the wünderenzyme known as Cas9. They discussed their greatest hopes and fears for the technology. There were no posters, no p-values; just a lot of real talk. You can bet it was the first Crispr conference to sandwich a Cargill executive between a septagenarian organic farmer and an environmental justice warrior. But the clashing views were a feature, not a bug. "When you feel yourself tightening up, that's when you're about to learn something," said moderator and Grist reporter, Nathanael Johnson.

Which, to be honest, was totally refreshing. Serious conversations about who should get to do what with Crispr have been largely confined to ivory towers and federal agencies. In February the National Academy of Sciences released a report with its first real guidelines for Crispr, and while it suggested limitations on certain applications—like germline modifications—it was largely silent on questions outside of scientific research. What sorts of economies will Crispr create; which ones will it destroy? What are the risks of using Crispr to save species that will otherwise go extinct? Who gets to decide if it’s worth it? And how important is it ensure everyone has equal access to the technology? Getting a diverse set of viewpoints on these questions was the explicit goal of CrisprCon

Why was that important? Greg Simon, director of the Biden Cancer Initiative and the conference’s keynote speaker, perhaps said it best: “Crispr is not a light on the nation, it’s a mirror.” In other words, it’s just another technology that’s only as good as the people using it.

Panel after panel took the stage (each one, notably, populated with women and people of color) and discussed how other then-cutting-edge technologies had failed in the past, and what history lessons Crispr users should not forget. In the field of conservation, one panel discussed, ecologists failed to see the ecosystem-wide effects of introduced species. As a result, cane toads, red foxes, and Asian carp created chaos in Australia and New Zealand. How do you prevent gene drives—a technique to spread a gene quickly through a wild population—from running similarly amok?

From the agricultural field, the lessons were less nebulous. First-generation genetically modified organisms failed to gain public support, said organic farmer Tom Willey, because they never moved agriculture in a more ecologically sustainable direction and it never enhanced the quality of food people actually ate. At least, noticeably so. Instead, most modifications were to commodity crops like corn and soy to improve their pest resistance or boost yields.] “It was a convenience item for farmers,” he said. “And a profit center for corporations.” In order for gene-edited foods to avoid the same fate, companies like Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer, and Cargill, who have already licensed Crispr technologies, will need to provide a more tangible value than corn you can spray the bejeezus out of. Like say, extra-nutritious tomatoes, or a wine with 10-times more heart-healthy resveratrol and fewer of the hangover-causing toxins.

    Related Stories

  • Megan Molteni

    Scientists Upload a Galloping Horse GIF Into Bacteria With Crispr

  • Megan Molteni

    US Scientists Edit a Human Embryo—But Superbabies Won’t Come Easy

  • Megan Molteni

    Crispr's Next Big Debate: How Messy Is Too Messy?

The presence of executives from each of these three companies signaled that they’re serious about not making the same mistakes they did in the ‘90s when GMOs first came to market. “Back then we were only talking to farmers,” said Neal Gutterson, vice president of R&D at Dupont Pioneer during a break between panels. “I can’t remember anyone going to anything like this or casting as wide a net in our discussions with the public.”

Of all the fields Crispr will touch, medicine is the one most primed for disruption. So it’s of great concern to conference-goers that Crispr doesn’t become a technology only for the haves and not the have-nots. Shakir Cannon, founder of the Minority Coalition for Precision Medicine, pointed out the myriad ways doctors and researchers have exploited people of color in the name of scientific advancement, while neglecting diseases that hit underserved communities the hardest. In a breakout session on Wednesday, Rachel Haurwitz—CEO of Caribou Biosciences, one of the big three Crispr companies—asked Cannon and his colleague, Michael Friend, how industry leaders could help make sure that doesn’t happen. “First, you have to build trust with communities,” said Friend, whose work focuses on sickle cell anemia. “But we think Crispr could be a real turning point.”

Still, CrisprCon was just more talk—which the field has seen a lot of recently. Crispr’s co-discoverer Jennifer Doudna has taken a step back this past year from her lab at Berkeley to travel the world and discuss the importance of coming to what she calls a “global consensus” on appropriate uses for gene editing technologies. And in her opening address on Wednesday, the standing-room-only auditorium heard a line she’s trotted out many times before. “I've never seen science move at the pace it’s moving right now,” Doudna said. “Which means we can’t put off these conversations." The conversations happening at CrisprCon were all the right ones. But action, whether in the form of regulations, laws, or other populist social contracts, still feels a long way off.

Related Video

Science

Biologist Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty – CRISPR

CRISPR is a new biomedical technique that enables powerful gene editing. WIRED challenged biologist Neville Sanjana to explain CRISPR to 5 different people; a child, a teen, a college student, a grad student, and a CRISPR expert.

The Quiet, Steady Dominance of Pokémon Go

March 20, 2019 | Story | No Comments

Two years ago today, a studio called Niantic released a game with a novel proposition: Go outside. Point your smartphone at the real world. Catch some monsters. Within a day, Pokémon Go was at the top of every app store chart. Within 200 days, players had spent a billion dollars on in-game upgrades—the shortest time to reach that milestone by a wide margin. In the summer of 2016, you couldn’t walk two blocks without running into, sometimes literally, a person in hot Pidgey pursuit. And then it stopped. Or so it seemed.

The news reports faded. Shops that had seen a sharp spike in sales thanks to Pokémon hot spots settled back into their normal routines. In just four weeks, between that August and September 2016, Pokémon Go shed nearly 20 million players, as enthusiasts headed back to school, or lost themselves in various other viral pursuits.

But the game’s long retreat from that initial burst belies its continued, unprecedented success. And in the gap between what you might think happened to Pokémon Go and the game’s current-day dominance lies an important lesson about the future of apps.

Pokémon Went

It’s true that far fewer people play Pokémon Go today than did two years ago. In July 2016, the crush of players boosted attendance at Pokémon-heavy Crystal Bridges Museum in Fayetteville, Arkansas by 50 percent year over year. By that August, the tide was already ebbing. “It seems like the hype died down in the span of a month,” says Crystal Bridges public relations director Beth Bobbitt. (She adds, “We still have a lot of ‘pokestops’ and ‘gyms’ all around the museum campus so I think we’re still a great location to play the game, for those who still are.")

Niantic CEO John Hanke

You’ve seen this yourself, anecdotally. There are no viral videos of Pokécrowds gone amuck anymore. No one makes Weedle jokes at the water cooler. The natural conclusion: Pokémon Go is just another fad that disappeared in a blink, a fameball of Pog proportions. But writing off Pokémon Go after the initial frenzy is like assuming PyeongChang no longer exists post-Olympics. What matters isn’t how Pokémon Go looked at its zenith, but how it held on from there.

“It was completely uncharted territory. The initial fervor, that global excitement around the game and the way it spread virally, globally, in such a short period of time. It was a new experience for all of us,” says Niantic CEO John Hanke. “But looking at it in retrospect, it looks very similar to all games. There’s an attrition curve that’s reasonably consistent across games. Some games are better at that attrition curve than others. That kind of separates the winners from the losers.”

By every measure that matters, Pokémon Go has been a winner. Since its launch, it has almost never dropped out of the daily top 100 downloaded apps in both the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store, according to app analytics company App Annie. It has been the top-grossing app in the Play Store this entire week. In two years, according to an estimate by app analytics firm Apptopia, it has taken in $1.8 billion in revenue.

"Even though the mega spending at the beginning has died off, the rate of revenue is still highly impressive," says Apptopia communications lead Adam Blacker. "Where the money comes from is actually pretty evenly split between iOS and Android, which is unusual"

It also helps that mobile games don’t necessarily require lots of players to be successful. Revenue generally comes from power users, the whales that invest in PokéCoins—or whatever their poison—the way others might their 401k.

“Generally speaking within games, a smaller portion of your users are spending a lot of money. That’s true of most premium games,” says App Annie analyst Lexi Sydow. “I would imagine that trend would hold for this game.”

But the most impressive indicator of Pokémon Go’s sustained success is how much of their lives people devote to it. To this day, more cumulative time is spent playing Pokémon Go than any other game. It’s not even close: One in five minutes spent on the top 20 games on Android in May was devoted to chucking virtual Pokéballs.

“The game has been remarkably consistent and stable in terms of its performance post that bubble era, if you want to think of it that way, when we first launched,” Hanke says.

In fact, only a handful of apps—hello there, Candy Crush Saga—have had anything close to Pokémon Go’s staying power. The durability is surprising, especially if you’d forgotten Pokémon Go even existed. But it’s also instructive, especially as the app economy fully embraces the augmented reality experiences Niantic pioneered.

All Inclusive

Niantic doesn’t offer much in the way of demographic specifics on its players, but suffice to say they don’t much resemble the Fortnite crowd. The game attracts proportionally more older people and more women than its peers—and in fact can credit much of its initial success to enthusiasts who otherwise wouldn’t be playing anything at all.

Pokémon Go was not displacing other games. It wasn’t taking time away,” Sydow says. “We saw that it was actually additive time. People were taking more of their day playing Pokémon Go but also doing what they would originally.”

Pulling from a broader pool has helped keep Pokémon Go going. While it experiences steady attrition like any other game, it has a higher ceiling on potential new players to attract. And because it’s a game that takes place in the real world, it has more ways of making sure those players stick around.

“I think the design of the game in terms of it being an MMO should not be overlooked,” says Hanke, referring to the massively multiplayer online game genre of which Pokémon Go is a prime example. World of Warcraft would be another, a comparison that Hanke invites. Just as a WoW guild encourages regular, cooperative play, exploring the world through a Pokémon Go lens with friends can be mutually reinforcing.

“I think in Pokémon Go, because it’s a real-world game, it’s even more sticky than with League of Legends or something, where you’ve got a team but never see them face to face," Hanke says. "With Pokémon Go, you are meeting those people face to face. You’re forming real friendships with them. Friendships are sticky. That’s probably the secret sauce of the game, right there.”

Niantic has, naturally, leaned into this advantage. In June 2017 it introduced so-called Raid Battles, a cooperative mode where groups of players team up to take down especially powerful bosses. This past January, it began organizing a monthly worldwide Community Day, using special Poké-bonuses to lure enthusiasts out into the open in major cities. And just last month, it started rolling out a Friends feature, which enables sending of gifts and trading of Pokémon among people you know in real life.

The roadmap from here follows that same course, buttressing the gaming appeal of Pokémon Go with hints of a social network. “I think there’s a ton more we can do there to basically enrich the game when you’re playing it together with people that you know,” Hanke says. That includes a system for dueling other players, which Niantic still plans to implement at some point.

Brave New Worlds

Whether Pokémon Go’s durability, two years later, surprises you likely depends on if you still play it. But its disappearance for so many people for so long underscores how little we know about what happens on other people's phones.

"Our mobile phones are our most personal devices. We have our bank accounts linked, we have our messages to our family members, we have our emails," Sydow says. "I think that translates here."

Its success may also prove difficult to replicate, although you can expect a swath of imitators now that both Apple and Google have invested deeply in augmented reality, and Niantic itself has opened up its platform to outsiders.

Pokémon Go is itself, after all, a spin on Ingress, a game Niantic launched in 2012 that follows the same basic pattern—minus the Pikachu appeal. Ingress had its devotees, but without generations of Pokémon fans to tap into, it had nowhere near the cultural impact. Niantic's upcoming effort, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, will also map a famous fictional property over the real world. As AR becomes less of a novelty than the norm, the trick will be to create those experiences without the failsafe of a megahit's built-in fan base.

Still, surely something else will catch the same lighting in a bottle—or Blitzle in a Pokéball—that Niantic has. When that happens, all due credit to the model that enabled it: Go outside. Point your smartphone at the real world. And find some friends to do it with.