In honor of Darwin Day Feb. 12, 91����Ƶ Boulder evolutionary biologist Daniel Medeiros explains what we get right and wrong about Darwinism

For evolutionary biologists, the big day is imminent.

No, not Valentine’s Day.

For many scientists, educators, historians and humanists, the upcoming event of note is , which supporters say is a time to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking and a hunger for truth, as embodied by .

The noted British naturalist and biologist is widely recognized for his book,  which is considered the foundation of modern evolutionary biology. Darwin Day is celebrated internationally every Feb. 12, the anniversary of Darwin’s birth on Feb. 12, 1809, outside of London.

Scientists say it’s hard to quantify the impact Darwin had on evolutionary theory. At the same time, , and some propagandists have used his scientific theories to support a variety of  and, in some cases, would likely be appalled by.

Recently, Professor Daniel Medeiros with the 91����Ƶ Boulder Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology talked with Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine about some of the mistaken ideas associated with Darwin while also delineating why some of his scientific concepts can be so difficult to grasp. His responses have been lightly edited for style and condensed for space.

Question: One idea about Darwin is that he originated the idea of evolution. True or false?

Medeiros: False. I actually had a colleague, Ned Friedman, a plant evolutionary biologist, who taught a whole course on evolutionary thinking before Darwin. And in fact, Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had some pretty clear evolutionary thoughts and logic. I think Darwin collected the most data and articulated the best case for evolution by natural selection, but he didn’t come up with it out of whole cloth.

That’s how things happen in evolution—there’s ‘convergence.’ Similar solutions can occur in different lineages around the same time or given the same environmental pressures. That’s the idea of evolution by natural selection; I think several scientists came to that conclusion simultaneously. So, it wasn’t all Darwin, but I think he did the best, most comprehensive way of presenting things.

Question: What about the idea that Darwin’s theory on evolution encompasses the origins of life?

Medeiros: I think he may have hypothesized on the origin of the living creature from a primordial soup of chemicals, but I don’t think he knew enough about chemistry or cell biology to go beyond that. I don’t know how he would have even begun to hypothesize about cellular evolution.

Question: What about the idea that Darwin believed humans are descended from apes?

Medeiros:  That’s kind of a tough one, even for some of my students in my upper division class. The proper way to think about evolution is as a family tree. The idea that humans evolved from a chimp or humans evolved from a monkey; specifically, what you think of a modern monkey, is incorrect. It’s easy to conceive given that those modern species are clearly related to us, but we are not descended from them.

Now, our last common ancestor looked something like a chimp and would definitely be classified as a “great ape”. We also had an ancestor who looked something like a monkey, but technically, ‘we came from a monkey’ is not how you would describe it in evolutionary biology terms. We evolved from species that were chimp-like, but we’re not chimps and we did not come from modern monkeys.

Any species that’s alive today is a successful modern species, as much as we are. If it’s around today, it’s a survivor. It’s a successful species that has its own set of innovations. If it’s living today, it’s its own success story.

Question: What about the idea some attribute to Darwinism that modern humans aren’t evolving?

Medeiros: That’s incorrect. That’s a property of all living things—that they are always changing. It’s not something you can stop. DNA is always accumulating mutations. There’s always genetic variation, and that variation responds to the environment. In the short window of time we have been around, it’s hard to see, but it’s true.

I’m not sure how we’re evolving, but there’s no organism that’s not evolving. So, we’re changing for sure, in some way, but I don’t know how. It will be interesting to see.

Question: There’s also this idea associated with Darwinism that animals are deliberately attempting to adapt to their environments. Accurate or not?

Medeiros: That’s a misconception. The word ‘evolution’ means unfolding, originally, which implies that you have some truth or something that’s unfolded or revealed. But it’s actually much more chaotic and there’s a huge random factor.

From the organism’s perspective, they’re just throwing out babies with variations. And hopefully, one of them sticks. And if one sticks, your lineage hangs around and has another chance for more mutation. So, it’s random and it’s chaotic.

Andthere are limitations. Species go extinct all the time. Maybe their environment changed too quickly, and they were unable to adapt. Maybe they just didn’t hit upon the right mutations, or there could be constraints to their development or their genome that wouldn’t allow adaptive traits to evolve and they go extinct. That’s common.

(The word) ‘evolved,’ in terms of how people use it in common language, it’s like, ‘Oh, I evolved. I became better.’ It’s about this idea of better and more. But then extinction is evolution, too. It’s just change over time, however, that manifests itself.

A cool thing that I teach in my class is that a lot of animal evolution since the Cambrian or a little later—has been about loss; trimming down, getting rid of what you don’t need. I think that’s one thing that’s not really recognized too much, that evolution is not always—or even mostly—about gaining fancy new features. It’s not necessarily this march toward more and more sophistication. It’s a lot about use it or lose it—about losing features that are not adaptive anymore. A lot of evolutionary change, especially in animals, is loss.

Then you have these blockbuster new things, like feathers, which are a huge innovation, or a turtle shell, or the human brain, which is another huge innovation. But then, even more than that, what makes a lot of species different from each other is that they’ve lost different things.

Question: Why do you think it seems so hard for people to grasp the idea of evolution?

Medeiros: Evolution is hard to understand because it’s inherently about processes beyond any individual’s experience. It’s about things happening on a scale of tens, hundreds, thousands and millions of years. That’s hard for us to fathom, and it’s not necessarily intuitive.

It’s kind of like the idea of the earth spinning around the sun. That’s not intuitive. If you look outside, that’s not what you see happening. You don’t feel like you’re spinning. The sun moves up over you. It defies your experience as a human.

So, it’s easy to have misconceptions and I don’t fault people for that. It’s a hard, hard concept just by itself, much less the implications where it could be perceived as taking human beings down several notches, as just another animal that evolved.

Question: There is an idea in some quarters that evolution and religion, whether it's Christianity or another faith, are incompatible. Any thoughts on the notion that if you believe in one of those ideas you can’t believe in the other?

Medeiros: I think that’s mostly on the religion side of things. It’s really up to you, whether you, as a religious person, can believe in evolution. That’s a great thing about religion: If you want to incorporate evolution into it, you could surely work it in, but if it somehow interferes with your beliefs, you won’t. You can shape your religion to exclude any kind of science, if you want.

In my education, I’ve had several biology teachers, evolutionary biologists and otherwise, who were quite religious people and (evolution) didn’t interfere with their belief.

As I understand it, Darwin himself was a religious person for most of his life, and finally ended up calling himself agnostic. You can see some of that in his writing. With some (discoveries) it was like, ‘OK, where does this place God? This evidence maybe puts the role of God in a different place than I was taught when I was younger.’ I think he used some language like that in his writing.

I’m not a historian, but I don’t think Darwin ever excluded a role for religion.

Question: It seems like not long after Darwin published The Origin of Species, people began using his work to promote their own political, religious or ideological agendas?

Medeiros: Yes, 100%. I couldn’t give you the exact timing on when that started to happen, but I think it was while he was still alive that people began to formulate ideas around his work. I think that’s not uncommon: You figure out some scientific truth and there will be people to exploit it for good and bad.

Evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest—all of those touch phrases and concepts—in isolation have been used to justify some very horrible things.

Question: The Darwin Awards were created a few years back as a tongue-in-cheek honor bestowed on people who removed themselves from the gene pool by doing something really dumb. How far removed are those awards from anything associated with the actual British biologist?

Medeiros: I remember first hearing about them in graduate school. At the time, I thought it was humorous, but after I became a parent, the idea of people getting hurt and dying in weird ways was no longer so funny.

And really, that’s not how natural selection works. It’s not like, you’re an evolutionary loser, so you get attacked by a lion because you’re dim-witted.

Really, it’s all about the numbers at the margins. For example, with this particular adaptive allele, you have lineage that has 5% more offspring—and you do that over many generations and throw in some random environmental change—and they’re the fittest. But their fitness is just kind of at the margins and there’s a lot of luck involved, too.

So, it’s not as clear as, ‘Oh, this is person’s a ding-dong; they strapped themselves to a rocket' or whatever. That’s not an accurate representation of Darwin’s ideas.

Question: Will you be doing anything for Darwin Day this year?

Medeiros: In past years I’ve given a talk about Darwin, mentioning some things about the ‘modern synthesis’ concept, which includes things that Darwin was not aware of at the time—filling in some of the gaps he was unaware of—like DNA and genes.

That’s not to take anything away from Darwin. It’s fun to read Darwin because he’s so modern in how he thought and deduced things. I think a lot of biologists feel like, ‘Well, if I was back then, that’s how I would have figured things out, too.’

But to answer your question, nothing special planned, like reading from Origins. I might celebrate by going to my lab and writing a grant.  Also, my youngest son has the same birthday as Darwin, so we will be focusing on that! I think Darwin would appreciate that … by all accounts he wasn’t just a great scientist, but a really devoted dad.

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about ecology and evolutionary biology? Show your support.

Related Articles

91����Ƶ Boulder distinguished professor recognized for ‘transformative contributions to restoration ecology’

Katharine Suding, a 91����Ƶ distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, has won the and Prize for Achievement in Science and been named a Franklin Institute Laureate.

Suding is recognized for making “transformative contributions to restoration ecology by increasing our understanding of degraded ecosystems and their recovery dynamics. Her work addresses urgent environmental and societal challenges, and guides policies and practices of ecological restoration, biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management,” notes The Franklin Institute.

The Bower Awards honor extraordinary excellence in science, technology and business. Suding and her eight colleagues in the 2025 Franklin Institute Laureate cohort are cited as “true visionaries, pushing the boundaries of innovation to find solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges—and their achievements are transformative.”

“I am incredibly honored to receive The Franklin Institute’s Bower Award for Achievement in Science,” Suding said. “Ecosystem restoration is tasked with solving complex environmental challenges facing the world today, a discipline that well represents Benjamin Franklin’s spirit of innovation and application. I could not have done this work if not for amazing collaborations with students, postdocs and colleagues, as well as indispensable partnerships with restoration practitioners. This award is for them, for the field and for everyone working to bring back nature.”

Suding is a plant community ecologist who works at the nexus of ecosystem, landscape and population biology. Her research aims to apply cutting-edge “usable” science to the challenges of restoration, species invasion and environmental change. She and her work with a range of conservation groups, government agencies and land managers to provide evidence-based solutions that take into account biodiversity, human well-being and management opportunities.

They employ a combination of long-term monitoring, modeling and experimental approaches in settings that range from alpine tundra to oak woodlands to grasslands. Common themes of their work include plant-soil feedbacks, functional traits, species effects on ecosystem processes and non-linear and threshold dynamics.

Founded in 1824, The Franklin Institute of Philadelphia strives to honor the legacy of Benjamin Franklin by presenting awards for outstanding achievements in science, engineering and industry. As the oldest comprehensive science and technology awards program in the United States, The Franklin Institute Awards Program has recognized more than 2,000 of the most pioneering scientists, engineers, inventors and innovators from around the world.

Previous laureates include Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Pierre and Marie Curie, Max Planck, Orville Wright, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Frank Lloyd Wright, Ruth Patrick, Jacques Cousteau, Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Gordon Moore, Shuji Nakamura, Jane Goodall, Elizabeth Blackburn, Bill Gates, Jim West and Gerhard Sessler, Cornelia Bargmann, John Goodenough, Jim Allison and Frances Arnold.

Suding and the other members of her laureate cohort will be honored in Philadelphia the week of April 28–May 2. Awards will be bestowed during a ceremony at The Franklin Institute on May 1 hosted by Chief Astronomer Derrick Pitts.

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about ecology and evolutionary biology? Show your support.

Related Articles

91����Ƶ Boulder researchers Colleen Reid, Emma Rieves and their colleagues explored the potential impact of objective and perceived greenspace exposure on mental health

If you or a loved one is struggling with mental health, you’re not alone. Roughly one in every five adults experienced symptoms of anxiety or depression over the past two weeks, according to a 2022 CDC . The good news is a better state of mind could be right in your backyard—literally.

Perceived greenspace exposure—which represents a person’s perception of the amount and quality of access to and time spent in nearby greenspace—may have a significant positive effect on certain aspects of mental health, according to from an interdisciplinary 91����Ƶ team.

With Associate Geography Professor Colleen Reid at the helm, researchers from the Geography, Psychology and Neuroscience departments as well as the Institute for Behavioral Genetics and the Institute of Behavioral Science explored the link between greenspace exposure and stress, anxiety and depression.

Their study revealed a strong association between perceived greenspace exposure and reduced anxiety. Could better mental health be as simple as a walk in the park? Perhaps, says lead study author and geography PhD candidate Emma Rieves.

The relationship between greenspace and mental health “isn’t just about the greenspace that’s empirically there,” which they measured by aggregating the green pixels, representing greenspace, from aerial imagery, also known as objective green space. “The relationship is mainly influenced by aspects of green space that aren’t well captured by objective measures, such as the quality of the green space, how much time someone spends in green space and how accessible it is,” she says.

Research in the time of COVID-19

Reid started the study in late 2019, says Rieves, who arrived on campus to begin her graduate education in the fall of 2020. “It was weird,” she recalls. “But the [geography] department did a lot to facilitate interactions between students despite the restrictions that were in place at the time.”

Even before Rieves dove into the research project, she had personal experience with nature’s capacity to ease her mind, particularly during the early days of lockdown. “Being in nature definitely helped to combat some of the negative emotions you have when you’re stuck sitting in your house, doomscrolling and wiping down all your produce,” she recalls.

To determine the effect of greenspace exposure on the study’s research subjects, the team had to switch gears early in the data-collection process to account for the extra stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, says Rieves.

Once COVID-19 public health restrictions were in place, however, they added pandemic-specific questions to their mental health survey so that subjects could share the extent to which they were impacted by stressors such finances, resources and the possibility of infection. Their analysis could then control for pandemic-specific variables to more accurately identify the connection between mental health and greenspace exposure, says Rieves.

Is greenspace exposure a key to mental health?

The researchers found that perceived greenspace exposure was directly linked to reduced anxiety metrics and had a borderline statistically significant relationship with lower levels of depression metrics. Meanwhile, objective greenspace exposure bore no statistically significant association with anxiety, depression or stress.

In other words, when it came to mental health, and anxiety in particular, objective greenspace exposure mattered far less than subjects’ perceptions of greenspace exposure.

“ Based on the presence of green pixels, a vacant lot full of weeds would register as having a high green space signal. But if you were there, you might not perceive it as a superabundant green space,” says Rieves. “We found that other factors, like the quality of the environment in this example, is more important to the mental health and greenspace relationship.”

At the same time, the findings revealed a positive association between socioeconomic status and both objective and perceived greenspace, where people with higher socioeconomic status had higher perceived and objective greenspace exposure.

The takeaway

While no one is promising that a walk in the woods is a magic bullet, getting out in nature is never a bad idea, says Rieves. And no matter what the pixels indicate, or how many minutes a day you spend around trees, the data indicate that people’s perceptions of their own greenspace exposure are important to unlocking better mental health, says Rieves.

“This study doesn’t prescribe any specific level of greenspace exposure needed to reap its mental health benefits, but if you feel like you’re surrounded by greenspace, it’s probably good for you.”

91����Ƶ Boulder scientists Naomi Friedman and Samantha Freis contributed to this research.

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about geography? Show your support.

Related Articles

Supporters revivify not just the building but also what it fosters and represents

John and Karen McLaren didn’t meet in Hellems—they met in a women’s studies class held in Ketchum—but their son William met his fiancée there.

So, as a family they well understand that a university education extends far beyond successive semesters of classes. It’s also a collection of experiences—bright beads on a string that grow, one after another, into something complete and beautiful.

Where those experiences happen is an important part of them, both in the moment and recalled in memory years later. For the 85% of 91����Ƶ undergraduate students who will have taken a class in Hellems Arts and Sciences Building by the time they graduate, the place is a part of the story.

“It’s the center of campus,” says Karen McLaren, explaining what inspired her and John, in part, to donate to the ongoing Hellems renovation. While their names will be on a plaque at the entrance of a conference room in honor of their donation, they see it as not only supporting the physical place—the walls and tables and teaching technology—but the broader idea of experience.

Hellems, then, is more than a building; it is also a symbol, one that heralds the liberal arts, signifies a common student experience and fosters student success. In that vein, supporters like the McLarens buttress two funds that advance these ends: the Hellems Fund for Collective Belonging and the Hellems Fund for Fostering Success.

These funds have garnered support. For instance, in addition to his $13 million donation to fund the Michael A. Klump Center for Real Estate, Klump gave $2 million to the Hellems Fund for Collective Belonging and the Hellems Fund for Fostering Success.

The Hellems Fund for Collective Belonging will provide resources for student mental health and well-being, which inspired Klump to include Hellems as part of his recent $15 million gift to 91����Ƶ Boulder. His gift of $2 million to name the Hellems south courtyard will help students find support groups through the Hellems Fund for Collective Belonging. “I owe a lot of my success to attending the University of Colorado, where I had the privilege of meeting inspiring individuals and forming lifelong connections across the country,” says Klump. “These experiences have deeply motivated me to give back and set an example.”

Hellems is “one of the most significant contributors to the student experience at 91����Ƶ Boulder,” notes designer David Keltner of Hacker Architects, which is working with 91����Ƶ Boulder to reimagine Hellems for today and tomorrow. “As such, it is not only one of the most commonly held experiences of the university; it also plays a role in creating those critical first impressions of collegiate life for incoming freshmen.”

Hellems also is the heart of the College of Arts and Sciences and home not only of the beloved Mary Rippon Theatre, but the Colorado Shakespeare Festival—a renowned nexus between the university and the community beyond its borders.

Construction on the 95,000-square-foot building is expected to be complete in 2025. The process of re-envisioning Hellems has been guided not only by administrative, faculty and staff input, but by guidance from students. They suggested not only practical improvements to accessibility, study spaces, classrooms and lighting, but creating spaces of gathering and belonging.

Reimagining Hellems has been a process of not only honoring its more than 100-year history and preserving the integrity of the building but also recreating it as a 21st-century space.

The redesign seeks LEED for New Construction Version 4 Gold Certification as well as reduced energy consumption, aligning with campuswide sustainability goals and aligning with college priorities

A reimagined Hellems will create opportunities for students to gather, linger, connect and succeed in their arts and sciences home on campus. It will be a place for everyone—accessible and inviting, a key part of the college experience.

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about Hellems Reimagined? Show your support.

Related Articles

While speakers acknowledged the change and uncertainty of the moment, they encouraged hope and the importance of continuing to work toward justice

The afternoon began with a karibu, the Swahili word for “welcome”—not just to the Glenn Miller Ballroom or the 91����Ƶ campus, but to the beloved community “where everybody is included and nobody is excluded,” said Reiland Rabaka, founder and director of the Center for African and African American Studies (CAAAS), in opening the CAAAS Day Black History Month celebration Saturday afternoon.

The celebration came, as several of the speakers acknowledged, during a time of great change, when many are feeling the anxiety that often accompanies uncertainty.

“I have spent many decades watching progress and regress,” said 91����Ƶ Boulder Chancellor Justin Schwartz. “We seem to step forward and then back and then forward again.”

In emphasizing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s observation that, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” Schwartz noted that the arc “is not smooth like a rainbow,” but rough and jagged. “The arc does not bend on its own, people bend the arc. Collectively, we bend the arc toward justice.”

, president of the University of Colorado, told those in attendance that “we are not changing anything until we are required to do so by a lawful order. We’ll keep our eye on the ball and continue to do our work. At this point, there’s very little we’ve been required to do lawfully.”

Saliman added that the University of Colorado remains committed to all of Colorado and encouraged people to “approach each other with compassion right now.”

91����Ƶ Regent , the second Black woman and third Black regent in the history of 91����Ƶ, was forceful in pointing out the lack of Black leadership within the 91����Ƶ system, while Annett James, president of the NAACP of Boulder County, emphasized the importance of accurately told history during Black History Month.

“History must be approached as a discipline rooted in fact,” James said, “not interpreted by those who wrote it.”

Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett, while acknowledging the “struggle, setback and oppression” in Boulder’s history, said that “in the days and years to come, we will continue to build the beloved community here in Boulder.”

Carrying the theme of building the beloved community, Rabaka emphasized that “we are going to keep doing this and we shall not be moved.”

Related Articles

Roselinde Kaiser, a clinical psychologist and neuroscientist, is being recognized for her research on the science and treatment of adolescent depression

Roselinde Kaiser, a 91����Ƶ associate professor of psychology and neuroscience, has been named a winner, the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on outstanding scientists and engineers early in their independent careers.

“PECASE embodies the high priority placed by the government on maintaining the leadership position of the United States in science by producing outstanding scientists and engineers and nurturing their continued development,” according to the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which was commissioned in 1996 to create PECASE.

“The awards identify a cadre of outstanding scientists and engineers who will broadly advance science and the missions important to the participating agencies.

In honoring scientists and engineers who are early in their research careers, the PECASE Awards recognize “exceptional potential for leadership at the frontiers of scientific knowledge during the 21st century. The awards foster innovative and far-reaching developments in science and technology, increase awareness of careers in science and engineering, give recognition to the scientific missions of participating agencies, enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals, and highlight the importance of science and technology for the nation's future,” according to the NSTC.

Kaiser is a clinical psychologist and neuroscientist who studies the science and treatment of adolescent depression. With her research group, the Research on Affective Disorders and Development Lab (RADD Lab), she conducts research that asks questions such as: How can brain functioning and behavior help us to understand the experience of depression in adolescence and over the course of human development? Can we use brain or behavioral markers to better predict depression—or to predict resilience? How can we enhance brain and behavioral functioning to promote emotional health and wellness throughout the lifespan?

The mission of the RADD Lab is to gain insight into the brain and behavioral processes that reflect or underlie depression and other mood experiences, with the goal of leveraging research discoveries to foster emotional health. This year, in partnership with an interdisciplinary team of scientists, educators and young people, Kaiser and her team are launching an initiative to scale and translate scientific discovery into high-impact programs aimed at promoting mental health.

“I am delighted and honored to receive the PECASE, which truly reflects the dedicated efforts of our research team and the commitment to innovation at the University of Colorado,” Kaiser says.

“Youth depression is an urgent public health priority; in our research, we are advancing new paths to promote healthy mood through interdisciplinary discovery achieved with and for young people. The PECASE recognizes the promise and innovation of this work and is a launchpad for research that will develop and scale programs for personalized health insight and wellness promotion. We are enthusiastic to begin the next chapter in research discovery and real-world impact.”

Also recognized with a PECASE award was , JILA fellow, National Institute of Standards and Technology physicist and 91����Ƶ Boulder physics professor and Jerome Fox,  a 91����Ƶ Boulder associate professor of chemical and biological engineering.

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

Related Articles

Political science Professor Federiga Bindi says the new, Islamic rebel-led government is telling the West what it wants to hear but that the situation on the ground is concerning

In May, 91����Ƶ Department of Political Science professor and foreign policy expert  was asked to spearhead the creation of a conference sponsored by the  regarding the future of Syria. The Middle Eastern country had been mired in a grinding civil war for 13 years with no end in sight, and AFSC was concerned the world had largely forgotten about the conflict and its resulting humanitarian crisis.

By the time the two-day conference, titled Reframing the Conversation Around Syria in Europe, convened in early December at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, the  that had governed the country for more than 70 years collapsed spectacularly as Muslim rebels swept through the country and seized the capital of Damascus.

“Everybody was surprised—even that the rebel attack took place,” says Bindi, noting the war had essentially settled into a stalemate for some time. “That’s the interesting thing, because to prepare for this conference, I talked to a lot of experts. I went to Brussels several times—and nobody expected something like this. So, everybody was taken by surprise, and everyone was surprised how quickly things happened.”

In past years, the Assad regime had been able to successfully battle insurgents with support from Russia and Iran. However, with Russia bogged down in its war in Ukraine and Iran on the defensive after Israel’s attacks on it, as well as allies Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon—following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on Israel—the situation on the ground in the Middle East is very different today, Bindi says.

“Also, there are indications that they (the rebels) were not alone—the U.S.,  Israel and Turkey directly or indirectly supported them, because Syria was an ally of Iran, and if you take away Syria as an ally of Iran, then Iran can’t resupply Hezbollah in Lebanon,” she says. “So, the change (in leadership in Syria) is bad for the Russians, but I think it’s even worse for Iran.”

Meanwhile, Israel and Turkey can be considered the winners resulting from the outcome and the new major regional power in the Middle East, she adds.

What next for Syria?

At the December conference in Brussels, attendees—including foreign policy experts and Syrian activists—were “clearly happy that Assad was gone, but they were also very wary,” Bindi says. “Their first message was, ‘We shouldn’t just say this is great, because we don’t know what happens next.’”

While many Syrians at home and abroad—and many in the West—hope for peace and healing in Syria, Bindi says there are too many variables to know if that’s possible. One particular concern is whether the new government, composed of leaders from the Islamic rebel group Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), will show tolerance for the country’s religious and ethnic minorities and support basic human rights.

While noting that , the charismatic leader of HTS, has swapped his combat fatigues for business suits, dropped his wartime pseudonym for his real name, and downplayed his past jihadist views for a more moderate form of Syrian nationalism in interviews with Western media, Bindi says the news that has been coming out of Syria is not encouraging.

“The way he (Sharaa) presents himself, dressed in a suit and speaking with western media, he’s been very conciliatory. For example, he just met with the custodian of religious sites in Jerusalem. He said, ‘Christians are going to be allowed to live in peace. Don’t worry. I’m a big supporter of the Pope.’ So, the rhetoric is very conciliatory, very Western, but the acts are not. The little news we have out of Syria is that Alawi (members of a religious minority to which previous President  belongs and drew power from) have been beaten and even killed.”

Separately, when the German foreign minister, who is a woman, recently visited Syria with a European delegation, HTS leaders declined to shake hands with her but did shake hands with male delegation members. Bindi says that could suggest HTS endorses strict Muslim prohibitions regarding interactions between men and women, in contrast with Syria’s recent past as a Muslim but largely secular country that allowed women many of the freedoms found in the West.

“So, that may suggest they (HTS) are not that liberal after all,” she says. “A former envoy to Syria, who I know very well, told me he’s convinced Syria is going to be a theocracy-style government like in Afghanistan.”

Meanwhile, Bindi says rightwing leaders in Europe are using the change in leadership in Syria to say that the roughly 2 million Syrian refugees can safely return home, but it’s her view that “Syria is not safe by any means.”

Foreign troops occupy Syria

Currently, several foreign governments have military troops occupying portions of Syria, and Bindi says the potential for clashes with Syrian forces and with each other remains ever-present, noting that those foreign powers have sometimes competing objectives. Israel has occupied the Golan Heights and nearby areas in Syria for what it says are security reasons, the United States has occupied portions of the country with the stated objective of fighting ISIS while also supporting the Kurds, and Turkish armed forces have occupied the northern portion of Syria to support rebel forces and to potentially combat what it calls Kurdish terrorists. Meanwhile, Russia, which maintained naval and air bases in Syria during Assad’s regime, still has some troops in the country.

“At the moment, there is no territorial integrity in Syria,” Bindi says. “I don’t see the Kurds giving up their territory in Syria. I don’t see the Turks giving up their territory. I don’t see the Russians leaving, if they can keep their bases. And I don’t see the Americans and the Israelis withdrawing. Nobody wants to give up their territories, so it’s a big mess.”

The new leadership in Syria likely isn’t happy that portions of the country are occupied by foreign powers, but it’s not in a position to demand their withdrawal, and it may grudgingly accept the status quo if it is allowed to implement a theocracy, she says.

Given the situation in Syria today, it’s hard to predict what comes next, Bindi says. Still, one scenario that Bindi says is very unlikely is that Bashar Assad, who fled to Moscow as the rebels closed in on Damascus, will ever return to power.

“I think he’s gone, just like the Shah in Persia,” she says. “He’s going to have a golden exile in Russia, and that will be it. He should be happy he saved his skin, unlike Saddam Hussein (in Iraq) and unlike Muammar Gaddafi (in Libya).”

The other scenario that Bindi finds very unlikely is that the United States and Europe will commit major military forces to Syria to attempt to promote nation-building and democracy, like they attempted with Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The strategy of exporting democracy to the Middle East has failed miserably, because our understanding of the region was faulty and the Middle East is such a kaleidoscopically complex region,” she says. “So, I don’t think we will put boots on the ground in Syria. That, I think, is fairly certain. The more plausible is that we just let them be, like we ultimately did in Afghanistan.”

Risks remain for the West, as well as Syria

Bindi says such a scenario does not automatically mean that the risks to the West are minimized, however, with the new Republican U.S. administration and Congress.

“To be frank, the most important variable is what will happen in Washington, D.C., after Jan. 20. That’s the true reality,” she says. “Syria is definitely not a priority for Trump, but the neighboring states are. The loss of (Assad) was a blow to Iran, and we know that for Trump, Iran is a foe, so what might the (new administration) allow Israel to do? I say that because Israel can only attack with the support of the U.S. It’s a very dangerous situation.”

Meanwhile, with so much recent conflict in the Middle East, Bindi says she is concerned that people in the West have become numb to all the fighting.

“I think we’ve gotten way too used to violence,” she says. “The images don’t touch us anymore. Kids die. We’ve become accustomed to the horror. We’ve lost our humanity, and I think that’s very scary.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about classics? Show your support.

Related Articles

In honor of what would have been Paul Newman’s 100th birthday, 91����Ƶ Boulder film historian Clark Farmer considers whether there still are movie stars

Movies did not invent stars—there were stars of theater, opera and vaudeville well before moving pictures—but movies made them bigger and more brilliant; in some cases, edging close to the incandescence of a supernova.

Consider a star like Paul Newman, who would have turned 100 Jan. 26. Despite being an Oscar winner for The Color of Money in 1987 and a nine-time acting Oscar nominee, he was known perhaps even more for the radiance of his stardom—the ineffable cool, the certain reserve, the style, the beauty, the transcendent charisma that dared viewers to look away.

Even now, 17 years after his death in 2008 at age 83, fans still sigh, “They just don’t make stars like that anymore.”

In fact, if you believe the click-bait headlines that show up in newsfeeds every couple of months, the age of the movie star is over. In with Allure magazine, movie star Jennifer Aniston opined, “There are no more movie stars.” And in Vanity Fair’s 2023 Hollywood issue, , “The concept of a movie star is someone untouchable you only see onscreen. That mystery is gone.”

Are there really no more movie stars?

“There are still actors we like and want to go see, so I’d say there still are movie stars, but the idea of them has changed,” says 91����Ƶ film historian Clark Farmer, a teaching assistant professor of cinema studies and moving image arts. “I think that sense of larger-than-life glamor is gone, that sense of amazement at seeing these people on the screen.

“When we think of what could be called the golden age of movie stars, they had this aristocratic sheen to them. They carried themselves so well, they were well-dressed, they were larger than life, the channels where we could see them and learn about them were a lot more limited. Today, we see stars a lot more and they’re maybe a little less shiny and not as special in that way.”

Stars are born

In the earliest days of film, around the turn of the 20th century, there weren’t enough regular film performers to be widely recognized by viewers, Farmer says. People were drawn to the movie theater by the novelty of moving pictures rather than to see particular actors. However, around 1908 and with the advent of nickelodeons, film started taking off as a big business and actors started signing longer-term contracts. This meant that audiences started seeing the same faces over and over again.

By 1909, exhibitors were reporting that audiences would ask for the names of actors and would also write to the nascent film companies asking for photographs. “Back then you didn’t have credits, you only had the title of the film and the name of the production company, so people started attaching names to these stars—for example, Maurice Costello was called Dimples.”

As the movie business grew into an industry, and as actors were named in a film’s credits, movie stars were born. In 1915, Charlie Chaplin conflagrated across screens not just in the United States, but internationally, Farmer says.

“You could say that what was produced in Hollywood was movies, but studios were also actively trying to produce stars—stars were as much a product as the movies,” Farmer says. “There was always this question of could they take someone who had some talent or some looks or skills like dancing or singing, and would they only rise to the level of extra, would they play secondary characters, or would they become stars? Would people see their name and want to come see the movies they were in?

“Stars have this ineffable quality, and studios would have hundreds of people whose job it was just to make stars; there was a whole machinery in place.”

During Hollywood’s studio period, actors would sign contracts with a studio and the studio’s star machinery would get to work: choosing names for the would-be stars, creating fake biographies, planting stories in fan magazines, arranging for dental work and wardrobes and homes and sometimes even relationships.

For as long as it has existed, the creation and existence of movie stars has drawn criticism from those who argue that being a good star is not the same as being a good actor, and that stars who are bigger than the films in which they appear overshadow all the elements of artistry that align in cinema—from screenwriting to cinematography to acting and directing.

“There’s always been a mixture of people who consider film primarily a business and those who consider it primarily art,” Farmer explains. “Film has always been a place for a lot of really creative individuals who weren’t necessarily thinking of the bottom line and wanted to do something more artistic, but they depended on those who thought about it as a business. Those are the people asking, ‘How do you bring people in to see a movie?’ Part of that can be a recognizable genre, it could be a recognizable property—like a familiar book—but then stars are one more hook for an audience member to say, ‘I like Katherine Hepburn, I like her as an actress and as a person, and she’s in this movie so I’ll give it a try.'

“One of the biggest questions in the film industry is, ‘How can we guarantee people will come see our movie?’ And the gamble has been that stardom is part of that equation.”

Evolving stardom

As for the argument that movie stars cheapen the integrity of cinema, “I don’t think they’re bad for film as an art form,” Farmer says. “Audiences have this idea of who this person is as a star or as a performer, which can make storytelling a lot easier. You have this sense of, ‘I know who Humphrey Bogart is and the roles he plays,’ so a lot of the work of creating the character has already been done. You can have a director saying, ‘I want this person in the role because people’s understanding of who this person is will help create the film.’ You can have Frank Capra cast Jimmy Stewart and the work of establishing the character as a lovable nice guy is already done.”

As the movie industry evolved away from the studio system, the role of the movie star—and what audiences wanted and expected from stars—also began changing, Farmer says. While there was still room for stars who were good at doing the thing for which they were known—the John Waynes who were excellent at playing the John Wayne character—there also were “chameleon” stars who disappeared into roles and wanted to be known for their talent rather than their hair and makeup.

As film evolved, so did technology and culture, Farmer says. With each year, there were more channels, more outlets, more media to dilute what had been a monoculture of film.

“Before everyone had cable and streaming services and social media, movies were much more of a cultural touchpoint,” Farmer says. “People wanted to dress like Humphrey Bogart or Audrey Hepburn. Faye Dunaway wears a beret in Bonnie and Clyde and beret sales go off the charts. People went to the movies, and they recognized and admired these stars.

“One of the markers of stardom is can an individual actor carry a mediocre film to financial success? Another would be, are there people who have an almost obsessive interest in these stars, to the point of modeling themselves after star? Stars tap into a sort of zeitgeist.”

However, the growth and fragmentation of media have meant that viewers have more avenues to see films and more ways to access stars. Even when A-listers’ social media are clearly curated by an army of publicists and stylists, fans can access them at any time and feel like they know them, Farmer says.

“Movies are just less central to people’s lives than they used to be,” Farmer says. “There are other forms of media that people spend their time on, to the point that younger audiences are as likely to know someone who starred in a movie as someone who’s a social media influencer. But that’s just a different kind of stardom.

“I think the film industry really wants movie stars, but I’m not sure viewers necessarily care all that much. Again, it’s always the question of, if you’re spending millions and millions of dollars on a product and you want a return on that, how can you achieve that without making another superhero movie or another horror movie? The industry wants movie stars and audiences just want to be entertained.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about cinema studies and moving image arts? 

Related Articles

Beer historian and 91����Ƶ Boulder Assistant Professor Travis Rupp explains why canned beer, celebrating its 90th anniversary today, has been ‘immensely impactful’ for the industry

“It's Saturday, y'all, here's a plan
I'm gonna throw back a couple …
Until the point where I can't stand
No, nothing picks me up like a beer can.”

• From “Beer Can” by Luke Combs

On Jan. 24, 1935, some shoppers in Virginia were likely scratching their heads and gawking at something they hadn’t seen before―beer in cans―s��𳦾��ھ�����������, Krueger’s Cream Ale and Krueger’s Finest Beer from the Gottfried Krueger Brewing Company. Up until then, beer drinkers had enjoyed their suds in bottles. 

Today, canned beer is commonplace, but according to beer archaeologist and historian Travis Rupp, a 91����Ƶ teaching assistant professor of classics, even though canning would prove to be “immensely impactful” for the industry, neither brewers nor consumers cared much for cans initially.

“There were false claims made about metal flavor leaching into canned beverages because the beer was coming in contact with the aluminum,” Rupp says. “Where this may have been the case with early steel or aluminum cans, it wasn’t true for most of the container's history.”

Rupp adds that even as late as 2015, glass bottles were viewed as better containers for beer, given that they were “nicer” for presentation.

Yet today, cans have emerged as the clear winner in the beer game. A Colorado example: MillerCoors Rocky Mountain Metal Container, based near the Coors campus in Golden, now churns out roughly .

“Cans are the best containers for beer. They don’t let in sunlight or oxygen, which are both detrimental to beer,” says Rupp. “Bottles let in sunlight. Even brown or amber bottles allow a small percentage of ultraviolet rays through, which can skunk or spoil the beer. Bottles also can leach in oxygen through the cap over time as the seal breaks down. Bottles still have a place for cellaring or aging high gravity barrel-aged beers or sours, but if you want your beer to stay and taste fresh the longest, you opt for cans.”

The case for cans

Over the decades, cans have also helped brewers’ bottom lines: “Cans are far cheaper because they’re much lighter to ship,” Rupp explains. “Freight shipping costs are mostly dictated by weight. This ultimately can result in higher profits for breweries and lower costs for consumers. They’re also far, far cheaper to store, since they require far less space than glass bottles and cartons.”

Long before cans made their debut, Rupp says some breweries tried replacing wooden casks with metal kegs throughout the 19th century, but no protective liner existed to prevent metallic leaching in these containers. “And given the long duration that beer would sit in the metal casks before serving, the flavor would become quite awful. It wasn’t until the 1960s that stainless steel kegs hit the market.”

About that metallic-flavor-leaching debate, Rupp says aluminum can producers now apply a patented protective liner to the inside of their cans to prevent leaching. “If you cut open a can produced by the Ball Corporation [the global packaging giant], you’ll find … a dull grayish-white crosshatched pattern in the can. This is the protective liner, and I assure you no metal flavor is leaching into your beer.”

But for Rupp, perhaps the most impressive technology comes in what’s called the seaming process on cans. The ends (or top) of the can are produced separately. Once the cans are filled, the end is placed on top and goes through a series of rollers and chucks to seam the top of the can.

“This bond is so tight that the sides of the can will fail before the seam does. It’s a really cool advancement in canning technology, as are canning machines in general that work hard to ensure no oxygen ends up in the beer before the cans are sealed. We’ve come a long way from church keys and pull tabs on beer cans.”

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about classics? Show your support.

Related Articles

91����Ƶ Boulder chemist Niels Damrauer and his research colleagues use visible light to break environmentally persistent carbon-fluorine bonds in PFAS

The strength of the bond between carbon and fluorine can be both a positive and a negative. Because of its seeming unbreakablility, food doesn’t stick to Teflon-coated frying pans and water rolls off rain jackets rather than soaking in.

However, these bonds are also what put the “forever” in “forever chemicals,” the common name for the thousands of compounds that are perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are so commercially abundant that they can be found in everything from candy wrappers to home electronics and guitar strings—to say nothing of their presence in industrial products.

The C-F bond is so difficult to break that the products containing it could linger in the environment for thousands of years. And when these molecules linger in a human body, they are associated with increased risk for cancer, thyroid disease, asthma and a host of other adverse health outcomes.

“There are a lot of interesting things about those bonds,” says Niels Damrauer, a 91����Ƶ professor of chemistry and fellow in the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute. “(The C-F bond) is very unnatural. There are a lot of chemical bonds in the world that natural systems have evolved to be able to destroy, but C-F bonds are uncommon in nature, so there aren’t bacteria that have evolved to break those down.”

Instead of long-used methods of breaking or activating chemical bonds, Damrauer and his research colleagues have looked to light. , the scientists detail an important finding in their ongoing research, showing how a light-driven catalyst can efficiently reduce C-F bonds.

“What we’re really trying to do is figure out sustainable ways of making transformations,” Damrauer explains. “We’re asking, ‘Can we change chemical reactivity through light absorption that we wouldn’t necessarily be able to achieve without it?’ For example, you can break down PFAS at thousands of degrees, but that’s not sustainable. We’re using light to do this, a reagent that’s very abundant and that’s sustainable.”

A foundation of spectroscopy

An important foundation for this research is spectroscopy, which can use light to study chemical reactions that are initiated with light, as well as the properties of molecules that have absorbed light. As a spectroscopist, Damrauer does this in a number of ways on a variety of time scales: “We can put light into molecules and study what they do in trillionths of a second, or we can follow the paths of molecules once they have absorbed light and what they do with the excess energy.”

Damrauer and his colleagues, including those in his research group, frequently work in photoredox catalysis, a branch of photochemistry that studies the giving and taking of electrons as a way to initiate chemical reactions.

“The idea is that in some molecules, absorption of light changes their properties in terms of how they give up electrons or take in electrons from the environment,” Damrauer explains. “That giving and taking—giving an electron is called reduction and taking is called oxidation—so that if you can put light in and cause molecules to be good reducers or good oxidizers, it changes some things you can do. We create situations where we catalyze transformations and cause a chemical reaction to occur.”

Damrauer and his research colleague Garret Miyake, formerly of the 91����Ƶ Boulder Department of Chemistry and now at Colorado State University, have collaborated for many years to understand molecules that give up electrons—the process of reduction—after absorbing light.

Several years ago, Miyake and his research group discovered a catalyst to reduce benzene, a molecule that’s notoriously difficult to reduce, once it had absorbed light. Damrauer and his graduate students Arindam Sau and Nick Pompetti worked with Miyake and his postdoc and students to understand why and how this catalyst worked, and they began looking at whether this and similar catalysts could activate the C-F bond—either breaking it or remaking it in useful products. This team also worked with Rob Paton, a computational chemist at CSU, and his group.

They found that within the scope of their study, the C-F bond in molecules irradiated with visible light—which could, in principle, be derived from the sun—and catalyzed in a system they developed could be activated. They found that several PFAS compounds could then be converted into defluorinated products, essentially breaking the C-F bond and “representing a mild reaction methodology for breaking down these persistent chemicals,” they note in the study.

Making better catalysts

A key element of the study is that the C-F bond is “activated,” meaning it could be broken—in the case of PFAS—or remade. “C-F bonds are precursors to molecules you might want to make in chemistry, like pharmaceuticals or other materials,” Damrauer says. “They’re a building block people don’t use very much because that bond is so strong. But if we can activate that bond and can use it to make molecules, then from a pharmaceutical perspective this system might already be practical.”

While the environmental persistence of PFAS is a serious public health and policy concern, “organofluorines [containing C-F bonds] have a tremendous impact in medicinal, agrochemical and materials sciences as fluorine incorporation results in structures imparting specific beneficial attributes,” Damrauer and his colleagues write.

By pursuing systems that mitigate the negative aspects of C-F bonds and harness the positive, and using the abundant resources of visible light and organic molecules, Damrauer says he hopes this research is a significant step toward sustainably producing products that use light as a reagent rather than heat or precious metal-based catalysts.

While the catalytic process the researchers developed is not yet at a level that it could be used on PFAS in the environment at a large scale, “this fundamental understanding is really important,” Damrauer says. “It allows us to evolve what we do next. While the current iteration isn’t good enough for practical application, we’re working to make better and better catalysts.”

Xin Liu, Arindam Sau, Alexander R. Green, Mihai V. Popescu, Nicholas F. Pompetti, Yingzi Li, Yucheng Zhao, Robert S. Paton and Garret M. Miyake also contributed to this research.

Did you enjoy this article?  Passionate about chemistry? Show your support.

Related Articles