Food science, ancient human genes, and dark comets
In the news pod, Chris van Tulleken tells us what he's got planned for this year's Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. Then we hear about the innovation to harness energy from radioactive carbon-14 atoms, and learn more about when humans and Neanderthals got to know each other. Then, we look skyward, where astronomers have described a series of mysterious near-Earth objects similar to the famous Oumuamua...
In this episode

01:04 - Chris van Tulleken brings food and farts to TV lectures
Chris van Tulleken brings food and farts to TV lectures
Chris van Tulleken
First this week, the UK’s Chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, has used his annual report to bear down heavily on obesity: he’s advocating for a stiff levy on junk food to tackle both childhood obesity, and worklessness. The move - which has been dubbed a ‘fat tax’ by the British press - comes as the broadcaster, doctor and author Chris van Tulleken prepares to deliver the 2024 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures on this very topic. I caught up with him during his rehearsals for the scientific showpiece…
Chris VT - Lecture 1 is 'From your mouth hole to your bum hole,' the tube, the mechanical and chemical destruction of food, and its absorption. Lecture 2 is how we literally use the elements in our food to produce energy and as construction material. And Lecture 3 is about the processing, and we are building towards trying to build a deep understanding of how processing affects our physiology and how we've gone from the food system being a miracle that feeds people better than at any other time in the Earth's history, to simultaneously being the leading cause of early death for humans and animals. Poor diet is now a very serious cause of disease and it's also a source of real problems for the planet; carbon emissions, agrochemical inputs, loss of biodiversity, extinction and so on.
Chris - This is really the thrust of 'Ultraprocessed People,' wasn't it, your book, which was excellent by the way, I really enjoyed going through it, and it's of its moment, isn't it? Now's the time we need to be talking about this because it's almost like we've forgotten what food is for and where it comes from. Home economics has been ditched across the curriculum in many countries. And as you say, the world is malnourished, not undernourished.
Chris VT - That's a very good way of putting it. Although I disagree that now is the moment. In fact, the moment was 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, or 30 years ago. In 1990, 5% of children in the UK at the age of 10 were living with obesity, which is an unacceptably high number. Having an integer percentage of children living with diet related disease is not tolerable. We've let that grow and expand so that a quarter of children now leave primary school living with obesity, roughly a quarter. Doing nothing isn't an option and the source of the problem, and this is extremely widely agreed upon, now - I don't think anyone credible could disagree - that problems like obesity have at their heart commercial incentives. They are caused by commercial interests in the same way that the pandemic of lung disease was caused by commercial interests. They need similar kind of policy approaches and regulation.
Chris - How are you going to make this digestible for kids? Because that's really who the lectures are targeted at, isn't it, it's young learners, people you want to inspire to become the next generation of people who will change things.
Chris VT - The Royal institution is the first time I have really spoken directly to a young audience in public about food. Weirdly, on 'Operation Ouch,' which we've been making now for well over a decade, we don't do it and we don't do it for a good reason, which is because the food on kids plates, they don't get to choose, and telling kids what safe and healthy food is feels very unjust when they may not be able to access or afford that food, and when other food is marketed to them as being healthy when it probably isn't or definitely isn't. I think we've got two concerns: the primary one is that kids leave these lectures feeling empowered, feeling knowledgeable, not feeling anxious, and with an increased level of understanding and a reduced level of shame and stigma. There's a separate, quite discreet concern about eating disorders. As a result, The Royal Institution, and I do this generally, but they've taken it really to another level. They have very specifically engaged with eating disorders experts, clinicians, academics, to make sure that we are going to reduce the risk of eating disorders with the lectures, not increase them. It's very important particularly that, for kids who are well on their way to becoming grownups (this is an audience of 11 to 17 year olds), that they do understand how the food system harms their bodies and the planet, and the kind of changes we need to be looking for. That's scientific. The discipline of The Royal Institution is to use science as the tool. To say that good science is truly independent, good science is conducted without external influence. Science tells us about the harms. The science tells us about the origin of the harms, and the science leads us toward the policy solutions.
Chris - One of the things that defines the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures though has got to be the demos, and the interactive nature of it. So what's up your sleeve to turn food into something which can do that?
Chris VT - At the heart, the big question about food is: it's an energy source. It's full of energy and you can release that energy in all kinds of interesting ways involving strong acid explosions, flames, and general fun RI demo dangerousness. The discipline of demonstrations makes these unlike any other lectures I've ever given. I think all the lecturers say this, that even if you're a kid's communicator, you're still pretty used to using your words. Being forced to show things is a massive headache in a way, but once you do it, it's really, really good. My favourite example, in Lecture 2, we will explain the very significant difference between the way an internal combustion engine takes hydrocarbon fuel in and produces energy, and the way your body does it. To do that, we have to turn the audience into subatomic particles. We have to inflate a reservoir with protons, we have to create a lightning bolt, and we have to create all the chemical intermediates that transmit and carry energy around the cell. The shorthand for this, it's called oxidative phosphorylation, and in order to explain this to kids I have had to phone a number of professors of biochemistry, so has the RI team, we've got young experts who are working with me. I think we would all say that we have understood this process now in a level of detail that we never grasped. I definitely understand it better now than I did during my PhD. Some people have done biochem degrees and they're like, 'Oh right, yeah, no, I never quite got elements of it until now.' It's an Einstein quote, isn't it? Whatever everyone says, if you want to understand something properly, try and explain it to an 11-year-old and if you can't, you probably don't understand it yourself.
Chris - People always phone into programmes I'm on and they always want to talk about flatulence so, sorry to lower the tone, but will farts feature? That has to be part and parcel of any lectures about food.
Chris VT - Farts feature, burps feature. We are going to do a demonstration that illustrates, I think very, very clearly why you must not set your farts on fire. We are going to explain - I'm going to leave this as a spoiler - are farts particles of poo? Because if farts are particles of poo, this is a huge problem, right? Because surgeons farting during operations, which need sterile conditions, might be causing wound infections. We will be discussing farts in more detail than I think has ever been done before in public. I think I can say that.

08:31 - Radioactive diamond battery will last for thousands of years
Radioactive diamond battery will last for thousands of years
Tom Scott, University of Bristol
British scientists have created the world’s first carbon-14 diamond-based battery. By capturing the fast moving electrons given off when radioactive carbon-14 atoms decay, none of which can escape their hard diamond casing, the technology promises to provide power to devices at low levels for potentially thousands of years. Here’s the creator Tom Scott at the University of Bristol…
Tom - Instead of using nuclear fission, for example, which is what we do in a reactor to heat water to create steam and drive a turbine and in doing so generate electricity, we're actually generating electricity directly through radioactive decay. What we've developed effectively is a cousin to the solar panel, except instead of needing sunlight to generate the electricity from the panel, we're actually using radiation. What we're actually doing is embedding inside the voltaic the radioactive material such that the energy is produced and converted inside a single device. That makes it very efficient.
Chris - So what materials are you using and what's the origin of the radioactivity in the first instance?
Tom - Radioactivity that we've been using in this first device is an isotope of carbon called carbon 14. Actually, carbon 14 is naturally created in the upper atmosphere. The presence of it means that we can do things like carbonating archaeological finds, but in our case, because it's radioactive, when it decays it releases a beta particle, which we then convert into a trickle of electricity in our devices. Now, our devices are actually made from diamond, which is a phase of carbon, which is really very hard. It's actually one of the hardest natural substances on the planet. What we do is, we grow diamond from a gas plasma that we create, and we incorporate into the diamond the radioactive carbon. All we're doing is we're substituting non-radioactive carbon in the diamond for radioactive carbon. Because the diamond is really dense and it's really hard, it forms a really, really good cage. That means that we can convert the radiation energy into electricity, but also the radioactivity doesn't escape from the device, which makes it intrinsically safe.
Chris - You've got the radioactive source, which is the atoms of carbon 14 inside the diamond, what are they hitting in order to produce the electricity and then for you to tap off the electricity if that's all going on inside a diamond?
Tom - We create a special structure within the diamond. It's actually what we call a diode structure. That means that any electrons that we create within the device will flow in a single direction out of the device, which we can then connect to a working circuit. That might be a transmitter, it might be some sensors that we can make some readings with. A beta particle you can think of as being an extremely high energy electron. When that fires out into the diamond structure, you can think of it as bouncing its way through the structure and, with each collision it makes with another carbon atom, energy is dissipated into the structure of diamond as essentially like a cascade or a shower of electrons. It's that shower of electrons, which is the electricity, which is then flowing out of the device. I like to describe it as being something a bit like a sandwich. In our device we have a layer of diamond which is not radioactive, and then we have a layer which is radioactive, and then we have another layer which is not radioactive again, but it's been doped in order to help with the flow of the electrons in one direction out of the device. A bit like a ham sandwich where the ham layer is the bit for our diamonds, which is the radioactive bit.
Chris - How much energy comes out, at what sort of voltages, and how long will this last?
Tom - We're talking about devices which are never going to power cars or trains. We're talking about devices which constantly trickle out a tiny amount of power, and we’re talking microamps, at about two volts, but it would do so for a very long period of time. The half-life of carbon 14 is about 5,300 years. That means that with our devices they will have hit half power output over that period of time. In terms of human timescales, we're talking about a forever device, but in terms of geological timescales, we're talking about a device which would continue to produce power for several thousand years.
Chris - What do you think you can do with it? When you know you've got something at two volts with a few micro amps, what sort of things could that power?
Tom - Typically, we are looking at device applications where we can use that trickle of power, either because it's at sufficient level it can continually power a very low power consumption activity, that could be something like a pacemaker potentially, but for most of the device applications that we've already done a prototype for, we're trickle charging a very low leakage capacitor which is storing the electrical energy. When that capacitor over a period of time gets full, it then will discharge itself into a working circuit which might contain sensors or transmitters, for example. We see these devices as working in what we call a chirp mode. Every so often a device will chirp some information or it'll make a reading and then send that information and it will do that for very long periods of time. Potentially very useful in things like environmental monitoring in very extreme places where it's either very hot or very cold or maybe for example at the bottom of the sea or even at the bottom of an oil and gas well or where we're storing carbon dioxide, but also lots of applications in space where it can go from very hot to very cold quickly and you also need a device which can withstand the sort of solar radiation that's much stronger out beyond the protective bounds of the atmosphere. Really we're not looking to replace or supplant the standard lithium ion battery. What we're trying to do is provide a power source which is very good across extreme environments and also in very remote locations where it would be very expensive or potentially dangerous to try and go and replace a chemical battery.

15:43 - Ancient DNA reveals mixing of modern humans and Neanderthals
Ancient DNA reveals mixing of modern humans and Neanderthals
Arev Sumer, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
But first to a new genetic analysis that has pinpointed the period when modern humans began to mix and interbreed with Neanderthals, a parallel species closely resembling but genetically distinct from us that lived in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before disappearing around 40,000 years ago. We know the two groups interbred once more modern humans arrived in Europe from Africa, because scientists have assembled the Neanderthal genome from archaeological remains and we can still detect Neanderthal DNA sequences in our own population today. But now scientists in the US and Europe have gone a step further to identify more precisely when. They’ve done it by looking at how both ancient and modern DNA samples have been affected by a process called “recombination”, which happens when eggs and sperm are made. To increase genetic diversity, the body randomly switches equivalent chunks of DNA between the two pairs of each of our chromosomes. This means that genes that sit next to each other on the chromosome tend to be passed on together, so you can follow them, like genetic breadcrumbs. But, as more time passes, they get progressively more fragmented as more recombination events slowly split them up with each new generation. Hey presto, a genetic clock. And what it shows is that Neanderthals and modern humans overlapped and interbred for potentially 5000 years. Here’s Arev Sumer…
Arev - One thing that was always debated was if our ancestors mixed with Neanderthals or not, and we already have an answer to that question due to the first genome of a Neanderthal that was sequenced in 2010. The answer is yes. All humans outside of Africa living today carry some DNA from Neanderthals. We have a broad idea of when this might have happened and where, but we would like to better understand the interactions at that time between the different human groups: modern humans and Neanderthals.
Chris - How can we get it, the answer to that question, given it was so long ago?
Arev - What we use to understand it better is what we call ancient DNA. This is a field that has been growing really quickly over the last 10, 15 years. What it means is, when we are excavating an archaeological site, if we find human remains; teeth, or bones or even sediments, we can extract DNA from the individuals that lived in the past using these remains and this would allow us to jump back in time and see some of the genetic aspects of the groups that these individuals belong to.
Chris - How are you trying to then get the answer to that question, which is when and where that mixing most likely happened?
Arev - When our cells are dividing, there is something called recombination, and because of this there's shuffling of genetic information in our genome. Imagine if you had one parent that is a modern human and a parent that was a Neanderthal, you would have one set of chromosomes from one individual, and the other from the other parent. What recombination does would be then breaking down these parts. The chromosome that came from the Neanderthal parent would then break into pieces. This happens once in each generation. We use this information, the length of this Neandertal DNA in the genome of us, to be able to calculate how much time, how many generations must have passed, since we had this Neanderthal ancestor. Using this information, we can actually estimate the timing of this mixing event to where we think it was probably in the Middle East. But we do not have any direct evidence to suggest that.
Chris - Right. This technique you're using, this recombination, basically you're saying, well if I swap bits of genetic material from the chromosome of one parent to the chromosome of the other, which is what happens when we make eggs and sperm, isn't it? As this happens more with subsequent generations, the bits which are all Neanderthal slowly get separated out more and more and more so they dilute out. So you can wind the clock back to see where that first must have happened. What time point then does that lead you towards when this probably began to really happen first?
Arev - What we did in my study is, because our individuals are so old (older than 45,000 years,) we find that the Neandertal DNA in their genomes is in the form of really long segments which we can detect very well and very precisely. We use those to identify how many generations have passed since mixing and when these individuals lived, and that was about 80 generations. We were able to then multiply this time with the generation time of humans, which is 29 years, and estimate when the mixing event happened. And that was about 45 to 49,000 years before now.
Chris - Can you also get another important question that seems to come up a lot, because we know that Neanderthals subsequently disappeared, but we also therefore know that there was a period of coexistence when we overlapped, but we don't know how long that was. Does this give us any clues about that question too?
Arev - It does in a way. We know that Neanderthal's disappeared about 40,000 years ago. They were already in Eurasia when our ancestors left Africa, so they must have overlapped probably by at least 10,000 years. We don't exactly know when modern humans migrated out from Africa, but our results say this must have happened at least 49,000 years ago.
Chris - If you look at the genes that we still see in us today, are there any interesting patterns there? Are there any genes that seem to be there far more often and argue that they do something good for us and therefore interbreeding with Neanderthals tooled us up genetically to make us more successful? And then the flip side, are there any genes which are very prominent in Neandertal populations that just completely disappear once this overlap and this admixture of the mixing of the genes between the two different species happens, which would argue that perhaps some Neandertal genes were bad for us and disappeared.
Arev - Definitely we do see that. There are regions in the genome of us today that we do not see in any human living today, any Neanderthal segment or DNA in these regions. We call them the deserts. The Neanderthal deserts, because there's nothing there from Neanderthals. The X chromosome is definitely depleted of Neanderthal genes. This could mean that negative selection removed the Neanderthal DNA from this region in human groups and it could well indicate that this was because of some kind of incompatibility in mating. Maybe people who had higher Neanderthal genes in their X chromosome were not able to reproduce as well as those that didn't have it. It could indicate that maybe there was some sort of unsuccessful mating between these individuals. There are also other regions in our genome that are high in Neanderthal genes, possibly because they're beneficial for us. These are often related to the immune system. Because our ancestors left Africa much later than Neanderthals, probably the Neanderthals were better adapted to the conditions in Eurasia and also to diseases. Perhaps when they mixed with our ancestors, the genes that provided them protection from some diseases were beneficial for our ancestors and hence they were positively selected.

24:04 - Oumuamua and beyond: new near-Earth objects identified
Oumuamua and beyond: new near-Earth objects identified
David Rothery, Open University
In 2017, the first object we’ve been able to observe visiting our solar system from outer space tumbled into view. Because of its peculiar, cigar-like shape and was moving in an odd, extremely rapid way, it ignited a media frenzy with speculation that it might be an alien spaceship. Further investigation eventually concluded that it was indeed an alien insomuch as it was from somewhere outside our own solar system, but it was nevertheless a lump of rock, and somewhere between an asteroid and a comet. Space scientists named it ‘Oumuamua’, meaning ‘a messenger from afar’ in Hawaiian, a nod to where the telescope used to discover it was located. Now, scientists have documented seven more new so-called ‘dark comets’ which are not from outside the solar system but do still show strange patterns of movements. It comes in the same week a team from MIT have described 100 small asteroids (some just 10 metres in width) in our Solar System’s main belt using the James Webb Space Telescope. Here to make sense of it all for us is David Rothery, professor of planetary geosciences at the Open University…
David - There are asteroid like bodies which have been seen to move in trajectories which are not quite the orbits that they should have. The orbital path of anything around the sun is basically an ellipse if it's within the solar system. There are some slight perturbations to orbital motion because of how sunlight is reflected and absorbs heat, is reradiated, but we have about 14 objects which are being called dark comets, which is a bit of a misnomer, but you'll see why they're called comets. The explanation for these non gravitational accelerations or perturbations in the trajectory is that they must be degassing, and gasses are escaping and flinging away some dust, and the reaction against the dust being thrown away is what causes the main object speed and direction to change.
Chris - And did they come from our Solar System or outside the Solar System? Because the original claim when Oumuamua, the first one that was documented a few years ago now, was written about, people said this was an alien spacecraft because it appeared to be coming from outside the Solar System. How did they know that and where did the rest of them come from?
David - The object now known as Oumuamua was discovered when it was screaming through the Solar System at far too fast a speed to be orbiting the Sun. A few people said, "It's the alien spaceship from far reaches of our galaxy adjusting its trajectory with reaction rockets or something." But no, it's just small amounts of degassing. Something from very deep space is going to have ices in it, which when you get close to the sun, the ices will sublime, some dust will be thrown up, and the speed and direction of travel will be tweaked ever so slightly. Now the dark comets are not interstellar objects, they're orbiting the sun, about half of them are near Earth objects, their orbits come past the Earth, and others stay out in the main asteroid belt. They're not the same class of body as Oumuamua, but they've got the same phenomenon going on, which is material being thrown off in too small quantities for us to see, but which we can infer because of the way their orbital paths or orbital trajectories are being changed.
Chris - I'm slightly disappointed that they're not alien spacecraft, that would be quite intriguing and quite a discovery, wouldn't it, but one of the things that people do speculate in some of the coverage of this is, well these sorts of objects might be seeding life giving molecules. They're not themselves aliens, but they might bring life that can take root in various places. Is that overegging the pudding?
David - I think it is, Chris. To have volatiles, volatile substances and presumably some carbon rich material, that's the material which you need on a young planet for life to form. But these objects, they're fragments of larger things. This class of objects we've seen crossing the Earth were not there four and a half billion years ago when the Earth was forming. So it hasn't taught us really anything about the delivery of organic materials to the early Earth.
Chris - Talking of interesting things that are also out there and occasionally visit the earth, as in they come and produce fireballs and stuff, those are asteroids that come and rain in on our atmosphere from time to time. There's this other paper which is documenting enormous numbers of small asteroids, and is this right, that they can see something 10 metres across way beyond the orbit of Mars, from Earth? That's just outstanding astronomy.
David - Yeah, these are observations by the James Webb Space telescope or JWST. It has detected large numbers of what are being called decameter sized asteroids, that's 10 meters or a few tens of meters in size. There's a lot of 10 metre sized material out there, some of which will eventually get onto orbits which intersect with the Earth, but it doesn't mean they're a big threat to the Earth because objects of this size probably wouldn't get through the atmosphere intact.
Chris - What's the importance of the discovery, then? Or is this just the James Webb team flexing their astronomical muscles to show we can do this, this is why this is a powerful instrument. Look what sort of resolution we can achieve.
David - I think this is a wonderful bonus discovery. I'm not sure if this was in the plan for JWST. They wanted to look for planets around other stars. They wanted to do deep sky work and there are these wonderful images we see of all kinds of things in deep space. But it just shows that when you get a new wavelength accessible to you, in the infrared light of JWST with high resolution, no light pollution, no thermal pollution, you are able to do a lot, and the observations to discover this class of bodies and to get the statistics on them so they can learn about the dynamics of the collision and fragmentation process going on, this is all a bonus from staring at primary targets. It just shows that when you build a good instrument, you can do so many more things with it that perhaps you didn't expect.

30:11 - How else can we make energy from nuclear fission?
How else can we make energy from nuclear fission?
Yes, in theory: by directly using the kinetic energy from fission products.
In a nuclear reactor, the fission process splits a uranium atom into two lighter fragments moving at high speed (and thus a lot of kinetic energy.) The fragments are also positively charged because they have been stripped of their electrons.
If the nuclear fuel is made thin enough (on the order of microns), these fission fragments could escape and interact with an external system, such as an electric field. Attracted to negatively charged electrons, they could transfer their kinetic energy to electrons crowded on the electrodes creating the electric field, producing a current.
This is a very exotic application with numerous technical challenges to be overcome: the need for ultrathin, durable nuclear fuel, for example.
It’s fascinating nevertheless, though, and an active area of research along with other experimental methods that are worth keeping an eye on.
Comments
Add a comment