A scientist finds beauty in the “visual synonyms” that exist in images seen through microscopes and telescopes.For Kimberly Arcand, a visualization scientist with NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, visual symmetry reveals how basic physics and chemistry thread through everything in the universe, from the tiniest organisms to the most massive galactic clusters.Microscopes might capture more in terms of magnitude, she said, but telescopes let us travel back in time by peering into the earliest periods of our universe. Can you tell the difference between microscopic and massive?Red whirls on this rabbit’s tongue are filiform papillae, which roughen the tongue and help move food around the mouth. Along with blue connective tissue and purple muscle fibers, the striped structure brings to mind …… the gas giant Jupiter. The planet’s rotation gives rise to the Coriolis effect, which deflects air flow and determines the direction of its swirling cyclones and bands.These clumps of Raji cells, which can cause a strain of herpes in humans, look like …… the sun’s churning surface. Dark spots are cooler than the surrounding areas; they appear where the star’s magnetic field keeps heat from emerging. Purple and white “spike” proteins on this popular model of the coronavirus help it attach to and enter our cells. These might remind you of …… the clumps of cosmic debris in Tycho’s supernova, a star that may have exploded at many points simultaneously.Each color in this slice of a mouse’s eye is a different amino acid; green is glutamine, pink is taurine and blue is glutamate. Its rings resemble …… the raging vortex at Saturn’s north pole, where green, pink and blue correspond to clouds of increasing depth. Winds whip around this hexagon at 300 miles per hour, but why the region forms the shape is a mystery.The bacterium that causes tuberculosis glows yellow in this phlegm sample; in orange are possible immune cells from the lung. Together they look like … … expanding bubbles, sculpted by stellar winds and explosions, in a galaxy called the Small Magellanic Cloud. Some astronomers believe our solar system formed within a similar structure.The time-keeping cells, in green, in a mouse brain brighten and dim throughout the day, helping the body maintain its circadian rhythm. The nucleus of each cell glows blue. Compare this to …… a cluster of stars in our Milky Way emitting infrared light, in green. Diffuse X-rays, in blue, were probably created by plasma streaming from the stars and heating the surrounding gas.Produced by

A team of researchers at Stanford find that older scientists are less productive after winning major awards like the Nobel and the MacArthur Fellowship.Winning a Nobel Prize can be a life-changing event. The winners are thrust onto a world stage, and for many scientists the recognition represents the pinnacle of their careers.But what is the effect of winning such a high-profile prize on science?John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, wants to find out. Awards like the Nobel Prize are “a major reputational tool,” he said, but he questions “whether they really help scientists become more productive and more impactful.”In August, a team of researchers led by Dr. Ioannidis published a study in the journal Royal Society Open Science that attempted to quantify whether major awards push science forward. Using publication and citation patterns for scientists who won a Nobel Prize or a MacArthur Fellowship — the so-called genius grant — the team analyzed how post-award productivity is influenced by age and career stage. Overall, it found that laureates of either prize had similar or decreased impact in their field.“These awards do not seem to enhance the productivity of the scientists,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “If anything, it seems to have the opposite effect.”The researchers’ study adds to a body of work that aims to demystify the ways in which awards shape how science is done, though scholars have different opinions on what factors matter the most.Since 1901, the Nobel Foundation has awarded prizes for groundbreaking achievements in physics, medicine and chemistry (in addition to prizes for peace, literature and, since 1969, economic research). The MacArthur Fellowship was founded in 1981, and unlike the Nobel Prizes, is granted as an investment into an individual’s potential.Dr. Ioannidis’s team studied winners of both prizes to account for how age affects scientific productivity. On average, Nobel Prize winners are more likely to be older and further along in their careers compared with MacArthur fellows.For the study, the team selected a sample of 72 Nobel laureates and 119 MacArthur fellows from this century and compared publication and citation counts of each awardee three years before they received the prize with after the recognition. Publications gave insight into how much new work a scholar was producing, whereas citations quantified the impact that work had in the field, Dr. Ioannidis said.His team found that Nobel winners published about the same number of papers after receiving the award, but that post-award work had far fewer citations than pre-award work. MacArthur fellows, on the other hand, published slightly more, but their citations remained about the same. The rate of citations per paper for both Nobel laureates and MacArthur fellows decreased after winning.Andrea Ghez, a University of California, Los Angeles, astrophysicist, both a MacArthur fellow and a Nobel laureate, said the difference is stark. “There’s a huge responsibility that comes with a Nobel in terms of really being identified as a leader in the world,” she said.Alex Welsh for The New York TimesWhen analyzing direct trends in age, the team found that laureates of either award who were 42 or older had declining citations and publication counts after their win. Recipients who were 41 or younger published more and were cited more, which the researchers said suggested that age played a role in the scientific productivity of awardees.But Harriet Zuckerman, a sociologist at Columbia University who has spent her career tracking the lives and work of Nobel laureates, said that it was difficult to distill productivity into such simple metrics. The difficulty increases when generalizing across different fields of science, which have varying standards for publishing or citing work. In some fields, for example, senior scientists may not include themselves as authors to give early-career scientists a chance to shine.Though Dr. Zuckerman does not necessarily equate this to productivity, she has also studied how the publication and citation patterns of Nobel winners fluctuated with age, career stage and other factors. She found that experience with fame caused the biggest shift — something that Nobel winners deal with in a way in which MacArthur fellows may not.“They are treated by others, both within their fields and outside science, often as celebrities, as people whose opinions count on everything,” she said. “It’s very distracting.”Andrea Ghez, a University of California, Los Angeles, astrophysicist, agreed that the difference between becoming a MacArthur fellow, which she did in 2008 at 43, and a Nobel physics laureate, which she did in 2020 at 55, is stark. “There’s a huge responsibility that comes with a Nobel in terms of really being identified as a leader in the world,” she said. For Dr. Ghez, that includes being a positive representation for women and defending the importance of science — two impacts that are not recorded in papers or citations.Another reason Nobel laureates may see a drop in productivity is that they feel they have peaked in one research area and want to try something new. “It’s called pivot penalty,” said Dashun Wang, a researcher at Northwestern University who analyzes scientific inquiry and who was not involved in the study.Dr. Wang found that this led to a temporary dip in publication rate, but that this bounces back after about three years. He has argued for seeing this as a positive.“It means these people want to continue to push the frontier,” he added.When it comes to Nobel Prizes specifically, the award gives you the confidence and clout to pursue bigger, more ambitious ideas, according to Dr. Ghez. “Transformative work is well known for not being well measured by citations,” she said.Dr. Ioannidis acknowledges the limitations of boiling down productivity to papers and citations, because they tell only one part of the story. “There are many other things that matter in the footprint of science and society,” he said.But until there is data to quantify those benefits, Dr. Ioannidis still finds value in trying to assess the effects of the awards — and in urging the community to think deeply about how to achieve more rigorous, impactful work. “Science is the best thing that can happen to humans,” Dr. Ioannidis said. But how to best exploit its benefits, he added, is a scientific question in itself.

A popular taxidermy exhibit in Sioux Falls, S.D., was closed after the toxin was discovered laced throughout the specimens. Many lament the loss of the “works of art.”Usually, you go to the zoo to look at live animals. But at the Great Plains Zoo in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, people also went to see the dead ones.The attraction, called the Delbridge Museum of Natural History, hosted one of the most impressive taxidermy collections in the country, with some 150 animals from six continents, each meticulously positioned in a diorama depicting their natural habitat. There, visitors could encounter — up close — a (stationary) mob of kangaroos, a pouncing lion, a panda eating bamboo and more.On Aug. 18, Sioux Falls and Great Plains Zoo officials announced that the Delbridge Museum had closed after nearly 40 years, citing an increased risk of chemical exposure to staff and visitors as the animal specimens age. At a news conference, streamed live on Facebook on Aug. 29, they specified that a majority of the taxidermy mounts contained arsenic, a toxin that can cause pregnancy complications, cancer and even death.“When we have a known carcinogen in one of our public displays, we can’t take risk,” Paul TenHaken, the mayor of Sioux Falls, said at the conference. Dave Pfeifle, city attorney for Sioux Falls, added that “there are no acceptable levels of risk regarding arsenic.”But the museum’s closing has drawn a backlash from Sioux Falls residents, many of whom have fond memories of visiting the taxidermy collection and worry that the decision represents the first step toward its disposal. Some feel the city is not being transparent about the risk, while others suspect that the zoo wants to get rid of the museum to make room for newer attractions.Greg Neitzert, a member of the Sioux Falls City Council, described the closing as an “out of the blue” decision that had come as a shock to him and other council members. He said the reasoning “just isn’t passing the smell test” — that the risk alone should not lead to the museum’s decommissioning.Conservators at large worry that the museum’s closing could raise undue concern over how safe antique collections truly are. “This is already something that bubbles along the surface for natural history museums,” said Fran Ritchie, chair of the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections’ conservation committee. “And then to have something boil over like this — it’s difficult.” Since the closing, she said, her colleagues have been contacted by other museums anxious to know if they should remove taxidermy pieces from display, or get rid of them entirely.A panda display.Great Plains ZooDamage on a taxidermy bongo, a forest-dwelling antelope native to West and Central Africa.Great Plains ZooThe closing of the Delbridge Museum has raised concerns about antique collections in museums elsewhere across the country.Great Plains ZooThe presence of arsenic is not uncommon in antique artifacts. The element is prevalently found in green pigments that were once used to dye clothing, book covers and even artificial flowers, according to Ms. Ritchie. (In the Victorian era, she said, people even ate small amounts of the toxin, hoping to make their skin appear pale.)Arsenic can exist organically in animals and plants, but it is the inorganic kind, found in soil and groundwater, that can be harmful. Before the 1980s, inorganic arsenic “soap” was used in taxidermy as an embalming agent, applied to the inside of an animal skin to prevent harmful pests. The skin was then pasted over a mannequin shaped in the animal’s likeness, and sewn together to create a realistic mount.“These aren’t stuffed animals, these are model sculptures,” said John Janelli, former president of the National Taxidermy Association. Most of the specimens at the Delbridge Museum were procured between the 1940s and 1970s by Henry Brockhouse, a Sioux Falls businessman and hunter, and the skins were mounted by the Jonas family, renowned taxidermists in the conservation world, Mr. Janelli said.Mr. Brockhouse displayed the animals behind glass, in the back of West Sioux Hardware, a store he owned, until his death in 1978. In 1981, his attorney, C.J. Delbridge, purchased the collection at a public auction and donated it to the city of Sioux Falls. Three years later, the Delbridge Museum opened, one of only a few natural history collections in the state.Wear and tear above the eye of a female nyala, an antelope found in southern Africa. Arsenic was applied to the inside seams of most specimens, so that as they age the arsenic is exposed where the skin separates from the mannequin.Great Plains ZooThe value of the exhibit extends beyond Sioux Falls, Ms. Ritchie said, in part because many of the species it includes are now protected, so a collection like this could never be replicated. Taxidermy is an invaluable educational tool, offering “a chance to get up close to an animal in a way that you cannot do safely in the wild,” she said. “It creates an experience that’s unlike anything else.”According to Becky Dewitz, chief executive of the Great Plains Zoo, who spoke at the Aug. 29 news conference, an appraisal had concluded that at least 45 percent of the collection showed wear and tear. In a chemical analysis, 79.5 percent of the mounts tested positive for arsenic.Conservators generally assume that all taxidermy mounts dating from before the 1980s were probably made using arsenical soap, Ms. Ritchie said. That the substance was applied to the inside means that, as the mounts age, arsenic is exposed around the seams, where the skin separates from the mannequin.At a city council meeting on Aug. 29, Ms. Dewitz showed photos of the deterioration on many of the larger animals in the museum, including a zebra, an elephant and a giraffe. “Gravity and age are not kind, even when you’re 15 feet tall,” she said. Reported levels of arsenic ranged from 0.5 to 54.6 milligrams per kilogram.But Kerith Schrager, an objects conservator at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum who specializes in hazardous collections, said that such data generally reveal little about the risk of exposure. “I can have a bottle of alcohol sitting on my desk, but if I don’t ever open it or touch it or drink it, I’m not exposed to it,” Ms. Schrager said.With arsenic, the route of exposure matters. Ingestion is the most harmful, followed by inhalation, then skin contact. Milligrams per kilogram is a common dose measurement for arsenic levels in food, Ms. Schrager said, but it is not useful for assessing surface or air contamination, which are the primary ways that museum staff or visitors might be exposed to the chemical.A hyena.Great Plains ZooGiraffe.Great Plains ZooThe Delbridge space currently functions as a warehouse, while officials wait for the recommendations of a work group commissioned by the mayor to determine the specimens’ future.Great Plains ZooTo accurately determine that risk requires an in-depth exposure assessment, Ms. Schrager said. This includes monitoring the breathing of a visitor as they “go about their business,” and taking wipe samples of anything touched, to test for cross contamination. Museums can then make adjustments where needed, such as enclosing the mounts in airtight glass cases or working with taxidermists to redo the mounts without arsenical pesticides.But that comes with a hefty price tag, Ms. Dewitz said. Installing glass and updating the museum’s ventilation system for better climate control could reach up to $4.2 million; a new building for the collection could cost up to $14 million.Sioux Falls residents at the city council meeting responded emotionally. “My soul is just broken,” said Beverly Bosch, the youngest daughter of Mr. Brockhouse. “This was my dad’s life.”On Sept. 15, Mr. TenHaken, the Sioux Falls mayor, announced the assembly of a new work group to develop a plan to make the taxidermy collection surplus, which marks the property as no longer useful to the city. But even if that occurs, navigating federal and state laws and figuring out what to do with the collection will prove tricky, as many of the animals are considered protected species.“These are like works of art,” Mr. Neitzert said. “You don’t throw works of art away — not lightly.”Mr. TenHaken affirmed that the city would not simply dispose of the collection in a landfill. “We wouldn’t just take artifacts like this and treat them like a Papa John’s pizza box,” he said at the Aug. 29 news conference.But some Sioux Falls residents want to keep the animals on display. A Facebook page for the effort has amassed over 15,000 followers. Mr. Neitzert plans to propose that the city hire a conservator to independently assess the situation.John Sweets, owner of the building that used to be West Sioux Hardware, said he felt a personal obligation to help save the collection, because he is so frequently stopped by older residents reminiscing about the magic of the building’s former contents.The space currently functions as a warehouse, but Mr. Sweets dreams of turning it into an artists’ bazaar, perhaps with taxidermy mounts arrayed throughout: the elephant here, the giraffe and hippo there. If the zoo can no longer house the animals, “let’s get them to a place where they can go,” he said. “And it just so happens that I own a place.”