Claim: Arabs “Don’t Win” the Nobel Prize, Fields Prize or Wolf Prize

Verdict: False and misleading

“There's 500 million Arabs in the world, and yet they don't produce science. They don't win the Nobel Prize, they don't win the Fields Prize, they don't win the Wolf prize. They don't produce literature”

– RFK Jr.

Robert F Kennedy Jr. says Arabs don’t produce science or literature

RFK Jr. took to the stage at a republican campaign event this week and used his time in the spotlight to claim that Arabs – that is, the huge number of people falling into this ethnic and linguistic group – make no substantial contribution to science.

Most of the response to these comments has focused on the inherent prejudice many people see in his comments. But putting that aside for a moment: is it even true?  

The Most Recent Counter-Example

To evaluate his claim, all that’s needed is a brief look at past Nobel Prize winners. While AP’s “Fact Check” [2] covered many examples, a lot of these are Peace Prize winners, which doesn’t really address the meat of Kennedy’s claim. He is talking about science. So how far do we have to go back to find a solid counter-example?

Only to the 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Palestinian-Jordanian chemist Omar Yaghi won the prize along with two other researchers for his work on metal-organic frameworks. These are molecular structures, designed so there are multiple cavities inside a crystalline framework, which can be used to store specific substances. Moreover, Yaghi won the Wolf Prize in 2018 for the same work.

Older Examples

And Yaghi isn’t the only one. Ardem Patapoutian, a Lebanese-Armenian raised in Beirut, won the Medicine Prize in 2021 for discovering the receptors for temperature and touch. And Ahmed Zewail, an Egyptian-American (raised in Egypt) won the 1999 Chemistry Prize for his work with femtosecond spectroscopy.

The Grain of Truth – and the Nature of the Falsehood

There is a grain of truth in RFK Jr.’s statement, but a small one: nobody seems to have won the Fields Medal with citizenship in an Arab-majority country.

But searching for counter-examples almost misses the point. Think about this: did RFK Jr. look at the facts before making this statement? Clearly not. And he went even further with his claims. Why suggest Arabs don’t “produce science” or “produce literature”? There are not many reasons someone would make much an absurd statement. I’ll leave it to the reader to choose the most appropriate.  

Season 17, Episode 66: How Do We Know There’s One Planet Per Star on Average?

Hey StarTalkians! Season 17, episode 66 was an exoplanet-focused discussion between Neil, co-host Matt and guest Professor Evgenya Shkolnik. Early in the discussion, they discuss a fact that comes up on StarTalk a lot: that each star has at least one planet, on average.

The Habitable Worlds Observatory with Evgenya Shkolnik - StarTalk Radio

(from 4:50)

Professor Shkolnik explains how we know this briefly, but what data exactly leads to this conclusion?

The First Exoplanets We Detected

Before getting into how we came to the estimate, it’s worth looking at the early hunt for exoplanets. The first confirmed discovery came in a 1992 paper, which looked at data from a pulsar, a rapidly-rotating type of star which produces a reliable, periodic signal pulse. This particular pulsar – the not-so-memorably named PSR1257+12 – should release a pulse every 6.2 milliseconds. However, precise measurement showed an unexpected, periodic variation in timing.

Researchers realised that this was likely due to a planet. As the pulsar is tugged slightly due to planetary orbits, the pulses’ travel time to Earth varied. In fact, they determined two exoplanets were probably responsible.

A similar but more broadly-applicable method is using the same effect of planetary orbits on a more regular star. The change in star motion relative to Earth, as it’s gravitationally pulled by an exoplanet, produces a Doppler shift in the wavelength – like the apparent change in pitch as an ambulance speeds past you. The first exoplanet discovery in a main-sequence star came in 1995 using this method.

Why It’s One Planet Per Star on Average

But these are just two methods – there are many more. One of the most interesting is gravitational microlensing – the same method that will be used by the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope – which depends on the magnifying effect of small-scale gravitational lensing.

The likely source of the “one planet per star” claim is a 2012 paper which used microlensing data from two surveys, the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE) and the Probing Lensing Anomalies Network (PLANET), from 2002 to 2007. As Professor Shkolnik explained, the researchers combined detections – matched across both datasets – with calculations of detection efficiency to make the estimate.

They found that in the range of between 0.5 to 10 Earth orbital distances and between 5 Earth masses and 10 Jupiter masses, every star in the Milky Way has 1.6 planets on average. They write “Planets around stars in our Galaxy thus seem to be the rule rather than the exception.”

Adding protein to ice cream makes it melt slower?? 🍦🍧🍨🧁

Was recently rewatching Culinary Class Wars (S1 E4), and one of the contestants was eliminated - his ice cream dish was critiqued to be a little 'off'.

He explained that he tweaked the recipe to incorporate a higher protein content (more eggs) in fear that the ice cream would melt too fast during the judging process. The judges also seemed quite clear on what went down as well - so that got me thinking is this common knowledge among chefs? ∘ ∘ ∘ ( °ヮ° ) ?

🧪 A quick search on Google led me to quite the scientific exploration of the process and chemistry of ice cream melting.

The Science of Ice Cream Meltdown and Structural Collapse: A Comprehensive Review

Proteins in ice cream not only contribute to its nutritional value but also play a key role in stabilizing the air–water (A/W) and oil‐water (O/W) interfaces, thereby influencing fat destabilization. The thickness of protein coverage on the O/W interface, the ability of the proteins to reduce interfacial tension, and the extent of surface coverage all play crucial roles in determining the degree of partial coalescence under the influence of shear forces during freezing. In the realm of dairy ice cream, whey protein and casein are the primary proteins influencing fat stabilization.

Notably, ice cream containing 10% protein forms an exceptionally stable emulsion, with no observed fat destabilization. 💪

Though I couldn't really find anything pertaining to egg proteins in particular --

Does mouth taping actually help you sleep?

There’s some evidence it can!

A 2025 study reviewed 10 studies on mouth tape, mouth seals, and chinstraps. Some studies found less snoring and fewer breathing pauses during sleep – especially in people with mild sleep apnoea.

The catch: the studies were small and most participants were sleep-clinic patients (not everyday sleepers). Importantly (and perhaps obviously) taping your mouth can be risky if you can’t breathe well through your nose.

So it might be worth a try, but if your nose is blocked (even from a cold), skip it!

Could the shingles vaccine lower dementia risk?

In Wales, people born on or after 2 September 1933 could get the shingles vaccine – but people born just a day earlier couldn't.

That cutoff created a rare natural experiment: two groups almost identical in age, but with different vaccination rates.

Remarkably, people who got the vaccine were 20% less likely to be diagnosed with dementia over the next 7 years. The effect was stronger in women.

Researchers aren’t sure why yet, but have some ideas. Check out the study for yourself!

Can a pet help keep your mind sharp?

It might, especially if you live alone.

A UK study followed 8,000 adults (aged 50+) for 8 years.

Among people living alone, pet owners showed significantly slower decline in memory and verbal fluency. In fact, they kept pace with people who lived with other humans.

So, for someone living on their own – get a pet!

Typhoons in Taiwan 🌪️

After the intense Typhoon Champi, everything finally seems to be returning to normal as of Sunday. Phew - This one was really no joking matter. 💨

Hope everyone is doing fine. Though I have heard some quote unquote "trends", on typhoons from Taiwanese locals that I made me do a quick search.

｡𖦹°‧ Some have pretty good scientific backing behind them that I thought it would be interesting to share :

1. Typhoons that come after the summer months (June/July/Aug/Sept) tend to be bigger and more dangerous.

Interestingly, there is quite a bit of evidence behind this. A 2025 paper outlines the mechanism and mentions that in autumn, typhoons travel more equatorward and encounter more favourable ocean sub-surface conditions for intensification. Compared to summer, the thermodynamic disequilibrium between the ocean surface and the lower atmosphere is more prominent.

1. In recent years, the Typhoons have been coming later in the year than before.

There seems to be a dispute over this as:

A 2023 paper identifies a significant seasonal advance of intense typhoons since the 1980s in most tropical oceans, with earlier-shifting rates of 3.7 and 3.2 days per decade for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, respectively.

Another 2025 paper finds a significant delay of the typhoon season in China, shifting later at a rate of 5 to 8 days per decade over the satellite era 1979−2023. 

∘ ∘ ∘ ( °ヮ° ) ?

👀 We know that El Niño plays a big role in typhoons. And given the Super El Niño this year with all the Indonesian forest fires, I guess its not a surprise that this year’s typhoons are also stronger it's a grim outlook. I guess my only other questions is: how much did global warming play a role in this? or are they more independent climate change? 🌧️

This surprised me.

Paper straws worse for the environment than plastic, South Korea study finds | South China Morning Post Paper straws worse for the environment than plastic, South Korea study finds

Papers vs plastic straw? Environmental impact

Good question.

A Korean report going around has a surprising find: plastic straws are better for the environment vs paper straws.

The report is basically a "life-cycle assessment" of the environmental impact of paper vs plastic straws.

(Incidentally, I spent a term at the Nanyang Technology University in Singapore doing life-cycle assessments!)

So is the Korean report right? I did some digging.

Summary:

• It is true that plastics straws are better on some measures (vs paper straws) e.g. climate change impact.

• However, alternatives like wheat straws (which was not studied by the Korean report) are better.

• And paper straws still degrade much quicker than plastics (so they won't get eaten by turtles).

(Read on for the full details and sources!)

I couldn't find the actual report/study, but here's an accessible news coverage, which highlights some key findings from the Korean report:

• Conventional plastic straws had the smallest [environmental] impact in 10 of the 16 categories, including climate change, acidification, particulate matter and human toxicity.

• On carcinogenic impact – paper scored 6.33× (worse than) conventional plastic, biodegradable plastic 3.34× worse, and bio-PE 16.18× worse. (This is a measure of waste during the manufacturing process, not cancer risk to anyone using a straw.)

• Bio-PE was the worst overall and despite being plant-based, it does not biodegrade. ("Bio-PE is made from renewable plant-based sources such as sugarcane, but it is chemically identical to conventional polyethylene and does not biodegrade. It is distinct from biodegradable plastic.")

• Straws of every material are effectively unrecyclable. They are too small for sorting facilities, and coatings and adhesives get in the way.

To note, the Korean report is a government commissioned study. But we can find academic/peer-reviewed studies to compare – for example this 2025 study from Greece.

The findings (from the Greek study) are consistent with the Korean study (paper and bioplastics are worse), but it also included wheat straws (which fared better than plastics):

• Wheat straws had the lowest overall environmental impact and a climate-change result of 0.0568 kg CO2 equivalent per year.

• Plastic cost least, at €0.30 yearly, with a reported climate impact of 0.084 kg CO2 equivalent.

• Paper and bioplastic reached up to 2.5 times plastic’s climate impact.

• Washing accounted for about 85% of metal straws’ annual climate impact, around 0.169 kg CO2 equivalent.

One thing the Korean study didn't seem to highlight, is the relative biodegradability of the paper straws.

This 2024 study does, and reports that paper straws lost 25–50% of their mass in 16 weeks, while plastic straws showed no measurable mass loss.

Season 17, Episode 67: Why Are People Anti-Vaccine and What Can We Do About It?

Hey StarTalkians! Episode 67 of season 17 was a “cosmic queries” edition, with Neil sitting down with co-host Jordan Klepper to go through some fan questions. This episode’s questions often touched on conspiracies, anti-science attitudes and cognitive biases, with a notable question about anti-vaccine views at the end:

Cosmic Queries – Curiosity, Conspiracies & the God Particle with Jordan Klepper - StarTalk Radio

(1:06:30)

Neil’s documentary sounds interesting, but what about the actual question? Here’s what I found out.

Why Do People Become Anti-Vaccine? The Surface Level Answer

More general research looking at the issue identifies some key factors linked to anti-vaccine views. Notably, these include:

• Concerns about the safety of vaccines and/or side effects

• Lack of trust in the government and healthcare professionals

• Conspiracy beliefs

• A lack of knowledge of vaccines

There were others, including emotions – which will be discussed below – but these were generally either COVID-specific or overlapped with the above.

Why It’s Important to Go Deeper

As one of the most informative papers I found points out, “surface beliefs” are really only part of the picture. If we could address concerns about side effects with data, the problem would already be solved. But the issue is actually related to attitude roots, like anxieties, personal identity and ideology.

The Psychology of Vaccine Hesitancy

One systematic review and one study tackle the deeper reasons underpinning anti-vaccine views. While the data on emotions is mixed, many studies suggest that more feelings of depression and anxiety are linked to vaccine hesitancy. Both papers also point to fears and disgust around needles and blood as being factors that drive resistance to vaccines.

The systematic review also identified cognitive inflexibility as a key factor, since it can lead to confirmation bias – something else they covered on the episode. These views can also be an aspect of personal identity, an almost defiant expression of individualism.

What Can We Do About It?

The most important factor is addressing the root cause for the specific individual. For example, disgust around needles and blood is understandable, but it’s better to focus on the downsides of the disease (for example, multiple blood draws for test, or IVs) than to dismiss these concerns. Another suggestion [5] is that instead of mocking conspiracies, it may be more useful to turn it around: there is a risk of conspiracies, but these may exist to hide the benefits of vaccines too.