December 5, 2016

No Image

Sammy Lee Climbed Above Racism, Dove Into Olympic History

Sammy Lee, two–-time Olympic diving champion. Liz O. Baylen/LA Times via Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Liz O. Baylen/LA Times via Getty Images

Dr. Sammy Lee, the first Asian-American man to win an Olympic gold medal, died over the weekend after battling pneumonia. He was 96.

In the 1930s, Southern California had enough of the South in it that young Sammy Lee could only watch through the iron fence most days when other boys his age swam at the pool in Pasadena’s Brookside Park. The pool, like the area’s beaches and many other public facilities, was segregated. But not on Wednesdays.

The park declared that Wednesdays were International Days. “Basically, anyone who wasn’t white could use the pool,” said Paula K. Yoo, one of Lee’s biographers. “Then they’d drain it afterward.”

Young Sammy, though, had developed a passion for diving, and was determined to practice more often than once a week. In was to become his typical response to prejudice, he found another way.

“He’s very much a problem-solver,” Yoo said. “So when he was told, ‘You can’t use the pool except for that day,’ he decided, ‘Okay, then I’m going to work with a coach who would help me.’ “

Lee found a coach and they worked on his diving over a sand pit, which Yoo said was not uncommon back then. And sand had one advantage over water: “It gave him stronger leg muscles, which is why he was able to jump so high and perform those beautifully executed triple-somersault dives,” she said. ” Ironically, racism made him a better diver.”

The extra strength made Lee a good enough diver that he decided the Olympic team would be his goal. But he had another challenge, one at least as formidable as racial prejudice: his father.

Article continues after sponsorship

Lee was born in the U.S. to immigrant parents who’d made tremendous sacrifices for their child: He was their American dream. His father, Soonkee Rhee (he changed his name after arriving in America), wanted Sammy to be a doctor. He thought his son should be spending as much time on his studies as he did at diving practice. When Lee went to Occidental College, he did a lot of studying and a lot of diving.

“He’d spend a lot of time in labs, then walk 800 feet to the pool house, and practice dives to unwind,” Yoo said. “Then (he’d) go back to the lab and work some more.”

Lee was good enough to make the Olympic team, but the Games were canceled twice because of World War II. He finally got his chance in 1948. He was a 28-year-old medical corpsman in the Army Reserves competing in the London Olympics. As a hushed audience watched, Lee ascended to the high platform, jumped, and performed a triple somersault before elegantly slicing through the water. When he swam to the surface, he discovered he had near-perfect scores.

He’d compete once more in Helsinki four years later during the Korean War. As Major Sammy Lee, he almost didn’t go: Lee thought he needed to tend to the troops. The Army thought otherwise, gave him a month to train, and urged him to go. Lee won his second gold, making him the only Asian-American to win two consecutive Olympic gold medals. (He also earned a bronze in London for the 3-meter springboard.)

As a civilian, Lee discovered that his status as a veteran didn’t shield him from prejudice. He and his wife Rosalind were turned away when they wanted to buy a home in one part of Orange County. Eventually, they bought a home nearby from a sympathetic developer. Eventually they owned a house with a pool, where Lee coached students. He also coached divers for the 1960 Rome Olympics. Later, he’d mentor Olympic gold medalist Greg Louganis, and he served as an ambassador to the Olympics under three presidents.

The winners of the 1948 Olympic Men’s 10m Platform Diving competition, London, England, August 5, 1948. From left, bronze-medal winner Joaquin Capilla Perez (Mexico), gold medalist Sammy Lee (U.S.), silver medal winner Bruce Ira Harlan (U.S.), and American team coach Mike Peppe. FPG/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

FPG/Getty Images

Dr. Samuel Lee practiced as an ear, nose and throat doctor for 35 years, and retired in 1990. Until recent years, he still swam several times a week. A Los Angeles magnet school was named for him in 2013. And the childhood pool that barred him from entry, except on International Day? “They changed their policy after he won the gold,” Yoo said. “He became an honored guest. And the pool became open to everyone, which was something that pleased him deeply.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Despite Its Promise, The Internet Of Things Remains Vulnerable

The Nest thermostat is an Internet-connected device. Security technologist Bruce Schneier says that while Internet-enabled devices have immense promise, they are vulnerable to hacking. George Frey/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

George Frey/Getty Images

More and more of the things we use every day are being connected to the Internet.

The term for these Internet-enabled devices — like connected cars and home appliances — is the Internet of things. They promise to make life more convenient, but these devices are also vulnerable to hacking.

Security technologist Bruce Schneier told NPR’s Audie Cornish that while hacking someone’s emails or banking information can be embarrassing or costly, hacking the Internet of things could be dangerous.

“Unlike computers that only affect bits, the Internet of things affects objects,” Schneier says. “My Internet thermostat turns my heat on and off, Internet-enabled car drives around, and these devices are vulnerable to hacking. And the fear is that they can be used, you know, to kill people.”

Schneier says there is currently no government regulation around the Internet of things, and he fears it will take a disaster for that to change. There also isn’t an organized effort by manufacturers to make these devices more secure.

“Right now, unfortunately, these devices are being sold by the millions, they’re not secure, and bad things are going to happen,” he says. “We saw that a month ago with the attacks against a name server that dropped reddit and Twitter and a bunch of other websites. That attack was caused by vulnerabilities in digital video recorders and webcams and lots of consumer Internet of things devices. And nothing has been done to fix those.”

Article continues after sponsorship

Despite these weaknesses, Schneier remains optimistic about the Internet of things.

“The Internet of things has enormous promise,” Schneier says. “The Internet thermostat I bought gives me great control over my heat and air conditioning when I am away from home, and I save a lot of energy. It’s good for the world. It’s good for the environment. …

“We make our trade-offs, and we take our chances,” he continues. “These things are important, but by and large we’re talking about the edges of what are really interesting and exciting technological devices.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Scientists Battle In Court Over Lucrative Patents For Gene-Editing Tool

Emmanuelle Charpentier (left) and Jennifer Doudna have a case for being the inventors of CRISPR-cas9, a transformative tool for gene editing. Miguel Riopa/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Miguel Riopa/AFP/Getty Images

The high-stakes fight over who invented a technology that could revolutionize medicine and agriculture heads to a courtroom Tuesday.

A gene-editing technology called CRISPR-cas9 could be worth billions of dollars. But it’s not clear who owns the idea.

U.S. patent judges will hear oral arguments to help untangle this issue, which has far more at stake than your garden-variety patent dispute.

“This is arguably the biggest biotechnology breakthrough in the past 30 or 40 years, and controlling who owns the foundational intellectual property behind that is consequentially pretty important,” says Jacob Sherkow, a professor at the New York Law College.

The CRISPR-cas9 technology allows scientists to make precise edits in DNA, and that ability could lead to whole new medical therapies, research tools and even new crop varieties.

“Part of what makes it such a fun spectator sport is the amount of money that’s at stake,” says Robert Underwood, at the Boston law firm McDermott Will & Emery. “These could potentially be the most valuable biotech patents ever.”

The dispute pits high-prestige universities and well-regarded scientists against one another.

On one side of the dispute are research collaborators Jennifer Doudna at the University of California, Berkeley and her European colleague Emmanuelle Charpentier (currently at the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin).

Article continues after sponsorship

Feng Zhang, of the Broad Institute, is one of the contenders vying for royalties from CRISPR patents. Anna Webber/Getty Images for The New Yorker hide caption

toggle caption

Anna Webber/Getty Images for The New Yorker

“When they filed their patent application [in 2012], they did a great job disclosing how to use CRISPR for bacteria, but were a little lighter on details about how to use CRISPR in the cells of higher organisms” such as human cells, Sherkow says.

“Later in 2012, Feng Zhang at the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard files his patent application that gives a pretty detailed description about how to use CRISPR in the cells of higher organisms,” Sherkow continues.

And since the most important use of the technology is its ability to edit DNA in higher organisms, the real battle is over who can claim that invention.

Zhang’s patent went through the process faster, so it was issued first. But when the Berkeley patent came up for a decision, that created what’s known in patent parlance as an “interference.” So now the patent office needs to sort out exactly what the invention is and who invented it first.

“The dispute largely does appear like a winner-take-all affair,” Sherkow says.

But the patent court could decide that there are distinct inventions, each meriting its own patents.

Or it could decide that it’s not patentable at all, for various reasons.

“The other thing that could happen is the patents could be made moot by other discoveries,” says Anette Breindl, senior science editor at the trade journal BioWorld. “I’m sure the existing patents are written to be broad, but there could be new discoveries that just get around those patents.”

The stakes are enormous. Breindl says three companies built around these patents already have a billion dollars of investment behind them, and a fourth company has a stake in the technology that could be worth $2 billion.

The scientists themselves stand to gain a great deal — and so do their universities, which are listed on the patents as well.

Robert Cook Deegan, at Arizona State University’s School for the Future of Innovation in Society, says regardless of how this legal battle comes out, academic researchers can still use the CRISPR technology without worrying about ownership rights, “but if you’re doing any research that might eventually be commercially valuable well, then you’ve got a problem.”

Those researchers would need to license the technology’s rightful owner, whoever that ends up being, “and the concern is how many licenses you’re going to have to pick up, and if there’s going to be one dominant patent that everybody has to license from a particular firm,” he says.

Some companies have already placed their bets, and they’ve licensed the right to use CRISPR from one or the other of the companies involved in the patent battle. If that patent evaporates, Underwood says, “I don’t think you’d get your money back.”

And any inventions based on the patent wouldn’t be protected, or possibly legal to sell. So companies in this field are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the patent dispute. Tuesday’s hearing is just one step in a process that’s likely to last through 2017.

In court, the two sides are expected to give brief answers to questions from the patent judges and jockey for position, trying to get the case framed in the way most favorable to their interests.

“Whatever the resolution is, if there’s no settlement, we can expect appeals that will last for years,” he says.

And, on top of the patent dispute, scientists widely assume that CRISPR will earn Nobel Prizes for the scientists who are ultimately recognized as the inventors of this transformative technology.

You can email Richard Harris at rharris@npr.org.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Tom Cruise Faces an Ancient Evil In First 'The Mummy' Trailer

The Mummy 2017

When most people think of The Mummy, they likely think of the tongue-in-cheek, Brendan Fraiser-starring reboot from the late ’90s that was less a horror movie and more of a family adventure that went for laughs instead of scares. But when The Mummy first emerged back in 1932 it was unmistakably a horror movie about a young woman stalked by the reanimated corpse of an ancient Egyptian prince.

So when a reboot of The Mummy hits theaters on June 9, 2017, it’s already got the difficult task of bridging the expectations of those who want an adventure movie and those who want a fantasy-filled horror movie. Thankfully the team behind it seems up to the task. For starters, it’s got a screenplay from Doctor Strange and Passengers writer Jon Spaihts and is directed by Star Trek writer-producer Alex Kurtzman. And that’s just behind-the-camera.

In front of it we’ve got Tom Cruise, Annabelle Wallis and Sofia Boutella, who just killed it in Star Trek Beyond, as the titular mummy. And as if that wasn’t enough, we’re also getting Russell Crowe thrown in as a one Doctor Jekyll, which should be an interesting piece of a larger Universal monster movie puzzle that is expected to bring in the Wolfman, the Invisible Man, the Bride of Frankenstein and maybe more.

Here’s the full trailer for The Mummy. Check it out.

[embedded content]

The Mummy hits theaters on June 9, 2017.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)