Rumors are flying almost as fast as particles at the Large Hadron Collider (part of which is in the photo). And internal memos are leaking. The world’s largest scientific instrument may have seen evidence of the Higgs boson. Or maybe not.

Though some media outlets have called the claim a hoax, Jon Butterworth, who leads the British team at the LHC, says it is not and that the findings really do point to the existence of the Higgs. But Butterworth, who blogs on science for The Guardian, emphasizes that the evidence needs to be checked and the experiments repeated.

The Higgs particle, to date a still-theoretical entity, is another one of those counter-intuitive physics things many of us will have to learn to explain to the public, especially of this thing turns out to be real. It’s a particle, but it’s also a field that pervades the universe and gives other particles mass. How are we going to make that stick when most people don’t even know what a light-year is? The irrepressible Leon Lederman gave us some help on the hype when he allowed his publisher to entitle his 1993 book The God Particle. Lederman swears the title wasn’t his idea. The particle in question is the Higgs.

The UK’s Daily Mail headlines its story: “Mass hysteria!” Kinda cute once you realize what kind of mass they’re talking about.

David Shiga at New Scientist explains the origins of the rumors–a draft of an abstract posted anonymously on a physics blog. You can read the abstract on the blog, posted last Thursday.

Mike Wall of Live Science sensibly starts his lede with “A rumor is floating…” Second graf calls it a controversial rumor. Writing last Friday, he notes that it could be a hoax. But that was before Butterworth weighed in.

Perhaps the best all-around account of the state of play as of Monday morning was Ian O’Neill‘s report on Discovery News. He has a nice quote from Butterworth’s interview on the UK’s Channel 4: “If we got this excited about every single thing, no one would get any sleep.” Hm. Couldn’t that be read two ways?

–Boyce Rensberger

Scholars who study the interactions of science and society often lament the public’s ignorance of the history of science. And they bemoan the public’s gullibility in accepting the latest announcement of a supposed new scientific discovery. So it’s good to see Dan Vergano‘s piece in USA Today online about a genetics journal shining a bright light on the darker recesses of its past–the heyday of the eugenics movement.

The Annals of Human Genetics, which began life in 1925 as the Annals of Eugenics, has opened its archive for the first 29 years of its existence, during which it was one of the premier vehicles of scientific evidence that led to the forced sterilization of at least 60,000 people. The Annals was also a leading champion of scientific racism. The journal is also publishing reports by historians on what they find in the archive.

It’s a sordid history–by today’s standards–and Vergano does a fine job in reminding us of its details and surprising some of us that the founder of the original journal was a pioneer of legitimate statistical methods, creating such still-useful tools as the P-value and the chi-square test.

What Vergano and the journal’s housecleaning makes clear is that eugenics was not pseudoscience. It was horribly wrong in many ways, but it was widely accepted among researchers as good science.

–Boyce Rensberger

The Boston Globe‘s Carolyn Y. Johnson got wind via PLoS ONE of a strange experiment over at Harvard, where an investigation of symbiosis and of photosynthesis led to production of zebra fish  riddled with photosynthsizing cyanobacteria. The little critters – the green ones – didn’t seem to do much harm to the fish even though they had invaded much of system including the brain.

It’s just a short piece, with a spritely tone. One longer term aim is to see whether an animal like this might not only be made to carry photosynthesizing guest throughout its tissues, but to get some of its nourishment from the sugars and other carbohydrates they would generate.

By the way, as one learns on reading more, that ghostly green color in the picture of the modified zebra fish is not there because of the cyanobacteria innoculate. Turns out, under the kind of microscope used to take the picture, normal zebra fish tissue is what fluoresces green. The little fluorescent red dots, including in the brain and eye, are concentrations of the solar-energy-powered bacteria. The picture caption with Johnson’s story should have said as much.

For a longer and more detailed account, check out the long blog post that the grad student who did most of the work put on the web:

• Oscillator (blog) Christina Agapakis: (Photo)Synthetic Endosymbiosis ; Hmmm. Very interesting. But, uh, is there oversight and review to gauge the chance such work might lead to a breed of cyanobacteria that would happily invade human cells? Might that be dangerous? Might that be the ultimate sunblock – soaks up the sunlight in your outer dermis AND feeds you (and turns you green). Who knows what that might be. The group, it says here, is already seeing how things go in mouse cells. That is worth checking out.

Grist for the Mill: PLoS ONE article Towards a Synthetic Chloroplast ;

- Charlie Petit

(English intro to Spanish lang. post) Next week  in Quito (Ecuador) the 6th Latinamerican science journalism seminar starts. This year its theme is coverage of biodiversity and water. The Spanish-lang tracker will be there too, to give a talk. In the meanttime, checking Ecuadorian newspapers, we found an interesting story : the wikileaks cables reveal that the US embassy had serious doubts about president’s Correa conviction ini supporting Yasuni ITT initiative. (The ITT initiative is trying get international funds to compensate and avoid the extraction of oil in the Yasuni’s Amazonian rainforest). In a related  story, researchers say that Peruvian Amazon has decreased 6 times in recent years due to illegal mining. Also, one find an interesting article in Argentina about research on controlling sediments of theLa Plata River estuary. A piece in Costa Rica explains how easy it is to find protected species in fish markets.

La semana que viene el Tracker participará en el VI Seminario Iberoamericano de Periodismo Científico que se realizará el 26 y 27 de abril en Quito, Ecuador. Tendremos oportunidad de conversar con comunicadores, y escribir en este espacio acerca de la situación del periodismo científico en Ecuador. Pero un primer vistazo a los medios nos trae una noticia interesante de esta semana: los cables de wikileaks revelan que la embajada de EEUU dudaba del compromiso del presidente Correa con la iniciativa ITT (El Universo). Recordemos: El área amazónica del Yasuní alberga una enorme cantidad de petróleo en su subsuelo, y la iniciativa Yasuní ITT lucha desde 2007 por recabar fondos internacionales que compensen no extraer el petróleo y preservar así la riquísima biodiversidad de la zona. El asunto es controvertido y recurrente en los medios de comunicación. Como informa la muy completa nota de El Universo, o esta en La Hora “Wikileaks desnuda la iniciativa Yasuní ITT”, la embajada estadounidense pone en duda que el compromiso del gobierno de Rafael Correa sea sólido. Según los cables que muy bien detalla El Universo, el gobierno ecuatoriano hace movimientos contradictorios, hay un baile de cifras, salidas de tono, no confía en el apoyo internacional, y podría preferir la opción de explotar el crudo. En cuanto a periodismo medioambiental, es una de las historias más suculentas que un periodista podría abordar.

Lo hace por ejemplo y de manera contundente Tierramérica, en el excelente reportaje de Gonzalo Ortiz “Los árboles tiemblan en la selva de Texaco”; una muy bien documentada denuncia a los desastres ambientales que está generando Chevron en la selva ecuatoriana.

Ya fuera de Ecuador, en una problemática con cierto paralelismo, leemos en El Comercio (Perú) y La Tercera (Chile) que la deforestación de la Amazonia peruana ha crecido 6 veces debido a actividades mineras ilegales en busca de oro, según un estudio de la Universidad de Duke. De momento sólo encontramos notas de agencias, pero de nuevo es un tema importante a profundizar.

Y sin abandonar el asunto de la biodiversidad, interesante nota en La Nación (Costa Rica) de Michelle Soto, denunciando que los ticos consumen 27 especies de peces y mariscos sin saber que ello afecta muy negativamente al ecosistema de arrecifes. Además de sugerir a los consumidores que pregunten qué pez están comprando, hay otros ángulos que se podrían haber explorado, pero buena nota, y alerta expuesta a la población. Otra temática “nueva” desde el punto de vista medioambiental la encontramos en La Nación (Argentina), donde Susana Gallardo explica que los sedimentos del estuario del río de la Plata están siendo estudiados para comprender mejor el funcionamiento de un área tan importante desde el punto de vista ecológico y pesquero.

La riqueza natural es uno de los bienes más preciados de América Latina. Está bien que EEUU busque maravillas en el espacio por medio de la NASA, y nos inunde constantemente con noticias curiosas de discutible importancia sobre el Universo. Pero los periodistas latinoamericanos tienen tesoros mucho más cerca. Y más frágiles, necesarios de preservar, y asociados a historias con muchos más ángulos a cubrir. Debería haber más noticias de ciencia sobre el Amazonas que sobre el Universo.

- Pere Estupinyà

Slow days for science news and looky here – some fellows at the biomechanics lab at the University of Nottingham got their hands on some chocolate eggs. Roll the cameras!

• New Scientist TV – Sandrine Ceurstemont (video producer): Crash testing an Easter egg ;

Further search on news breakthroughs with this general theme produces:

• MSNBC GadgetBox- Sean Fallon: 10 slightly cracked ways to celebrate Easter ; On the list, and don’t miss this, the YouTube classic Creme that Egg! Rube Goldberg madness.

Which by random walks leds to another from the same guy:

• MSNBC GadgetBox – Sean Fallon: The world’s most complex Rube Goldberg machine ; Fallon rightly gives credit to somebody who had this story first, at Popular Mechanics.

- Charlie Petit

Search engines are like magic surprise gift packs. Five years ago upon starting this tracker job I set up a Google Alert email service to trigger on the phrase “science writer” in news story texts. It is supposed to omit credit lines with bylines and usually does. So I get stories about science writers, on stuff they’ve done, on talks they’ve given, occasional grist for my own mill via  random glimpses into science writing as culture.

This morning I received notice of a breezy little column:

• Guardian (UK) Ian Sample: Science writer’s block / As a science writer you have weighty responsibilities. Dwell on them too long and they will paralyze you from the neck up.

Why in tarnation would this experienced member of the trade be writing on something of such keen interest to colleagues but rather, uh, too far inside the neurotic mind of said trade to merit popular circulation? It is a nicely done walk through the anxieties of what we do, and I particularly enjoyed his examples of good and clever science writing. One that stands out is an effort, by another writer, to explain a far-fetched Swiss idea on how to take the catastrophe out of assembling Ikea furniture from their kits – which he calls flatpacks.

Having by now violated the dictum to never bury a lede too far, I’ll get to it. It turns out that Sample’s piece is the latest in a series of tips for would-be science writers who have not yet tried to do it professionally. The Guardian and its sister Sunday pub, The Observer, are running a science writing contest. The intro is from Alok Jha: Calling all budding science writers. Funding is from The Wellcome Trust, which perforce has its name on it. The winners in several categories will get prizes, and see their work in the paper.

If you want to know more and find it for yourself, take a look at the Guardian’s prize page.

It includes tip sheets. An out-loud reading of these would pass for a workshop session at NASW’s portion of the annual ScienceWriters meetings in the US. You may find the individual gems yourself at the preceding link, but here are a few – listed in part to share their deft topic selection. Considering that the impetus here is presumably and merely to come up with something once in awhile to remind readers that there is a contest on, not bad at all.

• Gaia Vince: Tell me a story!
• Barry J. Gibb: Plan the hell out of your writing task ; Hmmm. I’ve tried that. I never follow the plan, though.
• Henry Gee: The ten rules for excellent writing ; Ten things are enumerated here. Are better at the end.
• Tim Radford: Take big, wonderful and startling ideas and make them comprehensible . You’ve got metaphor, analogy, and imagery at your disposal, and a lexicon that would be the envy of Shakespeare ; Please also note the estimable Radford’s venerated “25 commandments for journalists.” I like the part that says “words like shallow, facile, glib, and slick are not insults to a journalist.” But I often violate “”Beware of long and preposterous words.” I am a sucker for them – the preposterouser the better.

Grist for the Mill: Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize (rules and such). Alas for most tracker, non-writer readers, you gotta be based in the UK or Ireland. Deadline is May 20.

- Charlie Petit

Many of us have heard that other species outnumber us in our own bodies – more microbes by far and mostly in the gut than we each have individual cells. And there has been plenty of news on the giant variety of microbes we harbor. But here comes a new gut bug study with a surprisingly small digit: 3. That is how many distinct microbial populations have been found in a study of people from several European nations. The result is in Nature, reported by a team at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Just as humanity is separated into blood types, one might also separate us into gut types – dubbed enterotypes.

Exactly how this info will pay off is not clear, but the researchers report (and reporters repeat) that it is bound to be useful.

Stories:

• NYTimes – Carl Zimmer: Bacteria Divide People Into 3 Types, Scientists Say ;
• AFP – Marlowe Hood: As with blood, several types of human gut ;
• Not Exactly Rocket Science (blog) Ed Yong: Divided by language, united by gut bacteria ; people have three common gut types ;
• HealthDay News (via USNews&World Report) Jenifer Goodwin: Gut Bacteria Falls Into Three Major Types ; They falls in, or they fall in?
• Wired – Brandon Keim: Gut-Bacteria Mapping Finds Three Global Varieties ; Good selection, for the technically minded, of lead illus. Story’s fine, hed is misleading. Researchers said their limited sampling reveals three types. They expect a global hunt to turn up more.
• LA Times – Eryn Brown: Gut microbes: What’s your type? ;
• LiveScience (via MSNBC) Wynne Parry: What’s in your gut? Here are 3 bacterial profiles ;
• Bloomberg – Cecile Vannucci: Human Gut Check Finds Bacteria Sorted in Ways That May Aid in Treatments ;
• NatureNews – Nicola Jones: Gut study divides people into three types ;
• Time Magazine – Amie Ninh: You Know Your Blood Type. What About You Gut Bug Type? Mostly a mashup of other outlets reports (with attribution).

Grist for the Mill: EMBL Press Release (via EurekAlert!) ;

- Charlie Petit

With a hefty $100,000 grant from a private foundation American University social scientist and media and science policy analyst Matthew Nisbet has written a bracing report he calls Climate Shift. It analyses why worries over climate change have not gotten deep traction in US politics.

It’s long, heavily footnoted, and while it is aimed at explaining the extreme polarization of public opinion over climate change, and discussing how various partisans are seeking to shape it, the report itself instantly generated a big dose of polarization.

It was supposed to have been publicized today. Well-known and uncompromisingly fierce blogger Joe Romm, at his site ClimateProgress, jumped the embargo – a rather weak one, one must say, that just begged to be broken anyway – a few days ago. Romm seems to operate on the principle that climate change is such an existential threat to humanity and life as we know it on Earth that emergency measures ought to be taken now and anybody not on board with that is a fool. And he lambastes the report’s conclusions. Ammunition comes from one professor who reviewed the report in advance for Nisbet, and was so upset at its final result he returned his honorarium and demanded his name be removed from it.

Nesbit’s conclusions, buttressed by piles of footnotes, include that:

• Al Gore and other openly Democrat and usually liberal partisans did as much to polarize and to put the public off from cap and trade as did the conservative forces backed with corporate money.
• The media did not mislead the public, and has not for years now, by engaging (not much anyway) in ‘false balance’ that implies a significant schism exists among scientists over the reality and human causes of global warming.
• Don’t blame evil old-industry capitalist and conservative money. “Green” forces lobbying for cap and trade legislation have caught up with and in some ways exceeded the money spent by climate change contrarian and skeptical forces. That includes notably the piles of cash that the Libertarian Koch brothers have poured into the fray.
• Scientists may well agree that climate change is real and demands action, but they – as represented by AAAS membership -  are so far to the left of the American median that they come off as partisan rather than authoritative.
• The fastest way to get anything done about climate change and greenhouse emissions is to stop talking about it as an environmental issue – saving the climate – and stress the economic benefits of innovation, of moving off a fossil fuel economy,  and away from dependence on foreign oil.

That’s how I read it anyway. There is lots to the report. For one thing, Chapter 3 convincingly demolishes the idea that “false balance” in reporting misled the public into thinking that the science is too uncertain to justify major dislocations in the economy to blunt the pace of climate change. There are many plots of data. Here’s one to the right. Journalists on the beat need to read this chapter.  Fox News is not included in this chapter’s data bases. Fox, Nisbet writes, addresses an audience of fixed vision that would be skeptical of climate change no matter what, so it doesn’t much change the debate (critics, including Romm, disagree). The red parts of that chart represent the portion of news stories in an elite, select group of US news outlets that reflect the consensus, climate-change-is-real opinion among researchers in the field. The other segments represent false balance and open scorn. A lot of those categories ran in the Wall St. Journal’s opinion pages.

One can understand why the report is getting flak from environmental activists. It tells them not to go on and on about climate, but talk about energy independence or the invigorating economic impact of technical innovation.

Here’s liberal me, but just because the people worried most about climate change tend to the left or progressive side of politics is no reason to fudge the truth about the seriousness of climate change, and its primacy among reasons to change the economy fast. The problem here is that if climate change is so serious, its correctives all seem to require concerted, int’l government action. Mandatory stuff ordered by distant bureaucrats will always inspire in the conservative side of humanity desperation to wish the problem away rather than accept a solution so hard to stomach. So it goes. Where’s the intellectual honesty in fibbing about why one thinks we need to burn a LOT less fossil fuel? That is, the conservative-offending nature of plausible solutions is built in to the situation, and is not the result of bad framing of the argument. Changing the subject won’t help. That is, climate change itself must be cast as a non-partisan issue of major significance. Solutions and arguments about them ought to be a different topic (and good luck with that..).

Well-known bloggers and other editorialists, aside from Romm, are all over this.

• Chris Mooney (The Intersection blog) The Nisbet Report on Our Climate Failures, Part I. Mooney says he is troubled. Blame Gore?
• Jocelyn Fond, Fae Jencks (Media Matters blog) Report Glosses Over Media Failures in Climate Coverage ;
• Nature Magazine (Editorial): Home truths ; Says Nisbet’s report does an excellent job.
• Keith Kloor (Collide-a-Scape blog) : Joe Romm Breaks Media Embargo, Kneecaps Nisbet ;
• Bradford Plumer (NPR/New Republic) : Eco-Movement Faces A Hostile Climate ; Xlnt analysis.
• Roger Pielke Jr. (eponymic blog) Analysis of the Nisbet Report, Part I and Part II. It includes valuable background context including this Gallup Survey result.

- Charlie Petit

Earlier this week my eye skipped past a news release on word from the University of St. Andrews – from a grad student mainly – that, maybe, out there on alien planets and especially if (and double maybe) they have multiple suns and at least one is an M-dwarf (red dwarf), there are plants with black foliage. I thought for a moment to turn on the searchlights to see if anybody picked it up but, as often happens, went on my round and forgot to do it.

Now today I see at NPR‘s website that a guest blogger, the Washington Post‘s Marc Kaufman saw the same release and did write something. It is something nice, too. It doubles as a self-plug for his book on the consequences for  humanity’s collective view of itsel should life, intelligence or otherwise, be revealed on other planets . Mostly it’s on nature here and way out there. Are black holes nature?  he asks. I dunno. I’d guess so, but it’s a cinch that most of us have never applied “nature” to outer space, even while adverbial and adjectival versions, natural and naturally, are employed for near anything.

And now that NPR and Kaufman have given me a nudge..

Other Stories on Black, Alien Plants:

• MSNBC Cosmic Log – Alan Boyle: Alien trees just might look black; Alan read the release carefully, maybe there’s a paper available too – and explains that not just any double star system would reward evolution of black foliage. At least one ought to be a dim red dwarf. A lot of other writers, esp. headline writers, missed that. He cites Battlestar Galactica and a scene that illuminates the piece.
• BBC – Neil Bowdler: Black plants ‘could grow’ on exoplanets with two suns ;
• Nat’l Geographic – David Mosher: Alien Trees Would Bloom black on Worlds With Double Stars ;
• Daily Mail (UK) Star Wars is real: Life could thrive on planets like Tatooine with two suns … but the plants would be black ; Uh, what the hell…?   It must be fun working for the Mail.
• Universe Today – Jason Major: Red Suns and Black Trees: Shedding a New Light on Alien Plants ;
• Fox News – Loren Grush: Could Black Trees Blossom on a World With Two Suns? ;
• Wired News UK – Duncan Geere: Planet with twin suns may grow black trees ;
• Astronomy Now – Emily Baldwin: Black trees in a world of two Suns? ;

Grist for the Mill:

Royal Astronomical Society Press Release; RAS news page giving a list of releases pertinent to its current meeting.

- Charlie Petit

The other day we congratulated the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for the Pulitzer two of its medical writers won. Had I been thorough I’d have seen another Pulitzer for medical writing – in the non-fiction book department.

The winner, physician Siddhartha Mukherjee of New York, was born in New Delhi. So I’ll make amends for the earlier oversight by sharing a nifty news story on him, and on award winning Indian science and medical writers generally, from his homeland:

• The Times of India – Chidanand Rajghatta : Another malady, another Pulitzer: Indian Doc’s book on cancer wins prize ; A sweeping, graceful article. By the way, it even mentions the first Indian-born Pulitzer winner, Gobind Bihari Lal, who got one in 1937. I first saw Sri Lal on a sidewalk outside the adjoining SF Chronicle and SF Examiner buildings in 1972, while walking with Dave Perlman. Dave said “That’s Gobi Lal. He’s 90 years old. You’ll never catch me around here when I’m 90.” Perlman is now two years past that milestone, still at the Chron, probably at his desk cranking out copy at this very second. I’ve told that story so many times, I better retire it now.

- Charlie Petit

Shenzhen nuc. power plant, China

At least 32 nuclear power plants in the western Pacific are at sites that tsunamis could reach from large undersea subduction zones, the AP reports this week. It is a team effort, with bylines on top from Robin McDowell and Margie Mason, plus a creditline at the end for Charles Hutzler, Muneeza Naqvi, and Mike Schneider‘s contributions.

The strength of the story is its sweep, and description of the geology that makes plants along the South China Sea including in mainland China and Taiwan plausibly vulnerable. It also mentions efforts in India to add safety guards. Indian nuclear facilities were already hit by the 2004 Sumatra quake’s tsunami (one that also flooded the construction site for a prototype 500 megawatt, sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor near Chennai, for a few details in The Hindu see this boosterish account).

However, readers are left wondering what if any modifications to the existing and planned plants are being undertaken – or should be. Are the reactors themselves indigenous, or French, Russian, US or other designs?  Do they have passive cooling? Can their sea walls be built higher? How about putting the backup diesels in some sort of highly tsunami-resistant housings? No story of manageable size could answer all that (and might take months to write). But there is not any hint of the steps that might be taken, or are being taken, to prepare not just for the worst case natural or other disaster, but the worster ones as well.

This story is a commendable start. When one of the world’s largest news agencies gives the broader lesson of Fukushima Deiichi  this kind of attention, perhaps politicians, the press, and the public in the region will pay attention, cancel a few of the most vulnerable facilities, beef up and slather a few more layers of redundant systems on the rest of them.

Dateline Question: Hey AP, does it always  matter where the lead writer of a story was when it was written? This is datelined Jakarta, presumably where Robin McDowell was when it came together. The creditline says Margie Mason reported from Hanoi, Charles Hutzler from Beijing, Muneeza Naqvi from New Delhi, and Mike Schneider from Orlando. Jakarta is not even mentioned in the story and Indonesia only in a minor way. Why dateline it at all?

- Charlie Petit

One must admit, being of thoroughly tin ear, nothing was much expected when starting on the lead story today, Pam Belluck‘s long account of how experienced musicians add brio and emotion to compositions. They do so by altering notes that, on the score, have the exact same notation.

But I got transfixed while reading it. The reason is the parade of musicians she interviewed for this story. Lots of all-stars, from many genres. Yo Yo Ma and Paul Simon and Bobby McFerrin and Rosanne Cash and the trumpeter for Steely Dan and more? (What!? No Dick Dale for an explanation of fingering Miserloo as opposed to Pipeline?) Amid the celebrities, many scholars quoted too. Brava! For all that  the punch line is not so surprising – an aureole of variation in music must work about the same way, it would seem, that reading written text out loud sounds better from a person with heart – as long as the reader doesn’t ham it up too much – than from a voice synthesizer that forms every word flawlessly but the same each time.

Other headlines to note:

• Katherine Bouton (book review): Eighty Years Along, a Longevity Study Still Has Ground to Cover ; This is much more than a review – it’s a visit with the authors, full of insights into their shared nature – which in turn personifies and underscores their book’s conclusions.
• Yhudijit Bhattacharjee: Whales’ Grandeur and Grace, Up Close ; Another review, and a revelation on the artist behind the whale-sized photos.
• Gina Kolata - Drug that Stops Bleeding Shows Off-Label Dangers ; So what else is new? Off-label prescribing by doctors is often hazardous to health. What hit me is the manufacturing process behind the drug Kolata uses as an example. No wonder it costs $10,000 per dose. It’s like shoes that cost $10,000 – because the designer insisted they be stitched with the hair of yaks raised on the western slope of K2 and shorn at the waxing quarter moon. Except, in the drug’s case, one presumes there’s no other way to do it than with baby hamsters, calf serum, gene transfer, and a lot of time in the vat.

As usual, lots more. Whole Section.

- Charlie Petit