The Great Migration: Tools Mark the Trail

Anatomically modern humans (AMH)—people who looked pretty much like us—migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago and settled across Asia and Europe.

Just who were these people, how long ago did they migrate, and what route did they first take? These are some of the biggest questions in archeology. Now at last researchers seem to be closing in on concrete answers.

In a report published in the November 30 issue of the open-access journal PLoS ONE, an international research team led by Jeffrey Rose presents its analysis of recent work in southern Oman, located on the southeastern corner of the Arabian peninsula.

For years, researchers have debated with each other over the earliest migration route. Was it across the Red Sea to the Arabian boot heel (sea levels being much lower then)? Or was it north from Egypt along the Mediterranean?

Rose and his team found evidence suggesting that AMH residents of the Nile valley migrated—with their distinctive tool technology—to present day Oman. Their analysis of over 100 sites in Oman led researchers to believe that the tool culture was clearly the same in both settings. In other words, one culture spans two continents, clearly supporting the idea of human migration.

Scientists have long known about the Nile valley culture, which they call “Nubian.” The breakthrough reported here is the strong evidence that Nubian toolmakers made their way out of Africa to Arabia, bringing their characteristic stonecutting techniques with them.

The date of migration, according to the report, is at least 106,000 years ago, perhaps earlier.

No human remains were found with the stone tools. This leaves open the possibility that some other humans—“archaic” and not anatomically modern—may be responsible for the stone tools. The researchers dismiss this idea on the grounds that AMH seem to be the only form of humans present in North Africa at the time of the migration.

“After a decade of searching in southern Arabia for some clue that might help us understand early human expansion, at long last we've found the smoking gun of their exit from Africa,” according to Rose, a Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham.

Another surprise contained in the report is that the stone tools were found inland rather than right along the coast. “For a while,” remarks Rose, “South Arabia became a verdant paradise rich in resources – large game, plentiful freshwater, and high-quality flint with which to make stone tools,” according to a press release issued by PLoS One. One possibility is that the “southern route” out of Africa along the southern Arabian peninsula was not so much a coastal expressway to Asia and Europe as it was a settling of the interior of Arabia.

The report, “The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia,” appears in the November 30, 2011 issue of PLoS ONE

Seminaries and Science

How can seminaries do a better job in helping future clergy become more aware of developments in science and technology?

That was the focus of a panel last week at the American Academy of Religion Meeting in San Francisco. Lead-off speakers were Dan Aleshire, Director of the Association of Theological Schools and Jennifer Wiseman, who directs the program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Then it was my turn. I pointed out the obvious. There’s no room in the theological curriculum to add anything. Faculty wouldn’t know what to add if they had the time. Students would be able integrate it into what they are already learning. So why bother?

I suggested that seminaries need to remember that their job is to teach theology. Doing our job well today, I argued, means that we have to take science and technology into account. One reason why this is so is because theological ideas or doctrines come mixed with outdated philosophical notions of nature.

For Christianity, this is a real challenge. Our core idea—redemption—is built on a myth of an original human nature that is lost and then restored. Unless students are minimally aware of how science challenges this thinking, seminaries aren’t doing their job.

I also suggested that for today’s students, my classroom references to current science almost always brought the subject matter to life. Students today are not so familiar with philosophy or other sources of criticism of theology. They have an easier time understanding how science challenges traditional ideas and forces them to think. They welcome the challenge. After all, they like to think that their education is relevant to the world in which they will serve.

Seminaries today need to focus on the basics—like theology—and teach it the right way right from the beginning, starting with introductory courses.

Sure, advanced electives are fine. I teach them myself, everything from “Christianity and Evolution” to “Ethics and the Technologies of Human Enhancement.” But the real key for seminaries, I believe, is to teach the core of the curriculum in a way that is appropriate for the clergy of today.

Here's where you'll find more about the AAAS program on seminary education, including recent news about an earlier program.

Brain Regeneration: Mouse Brains and Human Futures

Embryonic stem cells are surprisingly capable of regenerating portions of the brains of mice according to a report published in the November 25 issue of the journal Science. What is unexpected about this report is not the extent of the repairs so much as where they occurred in the brain.

The hypothalamus, which is involved basic metabolism and complex behaviors, has usually been regarded as less open to regeneration, whether naturally or by biomedical intervention. Naturally, a limited number of neurons develop during adulthood, but these are not enough to restore this area of the brain after injury or disease. “The neurons that are added during adulthood in both regions are generally smallish and are thought to act a bit like volume controls over specific signaling,” explained Jeffrey Macklis of Harvard Medical School and one of the lead researchers in the study.

“Here we've rewired a high-level system of brain circuitry that does not naturally experience neurogenesis,” Macklis said, “and this restored substantially normal function.”

The report reached this conclusion: “these experiments demonstrate that synaptic integration… [by] donor neurons can impart an organism-level rescue of metabolic defects, thereby providing a proof of concept for cell-mediated repair of a neuronal circuit controlling a complex phenotype.”

While it is important to underscore that this work is performed on mice, the results suggest that something similar might be possible someday in human beings with brain injuries. “The finding that these embryonic cells are so efficient at integrating with the native neuronal circuitry makes us quite excited about the possibility of applying similar techniques to other neurological and psychiatric diseases of particular interest to our laboratory," according to Matthew Anderson in a press release issued by Harvard Medical School.

For now, research continues using mice as models for human disease or spinal cord injury. “The next step for us is to ask parallel questions of other parts of the brain and spinal cord, those involved in ALS and with spinal cord injuries,” according to Macklis. "In these cases, can we rebuild circuitry in the mammalian brain? I suspect that we can."

This study, coming so quickly on the heels of another report showing the functional integration of human embryonic stem cells into the mouse brain, suggests that embryonic stem cell research may indeed open new ways to treat brain disease or injury. Both studies, however, open the possibility that the use of technologies of brain regeneration will not stop with disease. As always, the growing power of medicine to treat disease is also an expansion of the possibility of human enhancement. All this if far in the future. But already, advocates of human enhancement have noticed its significance. See, for example, the re-posting of the original press release on Ray Kurweil's transhumanist blog.

The report, entitled “Transplanted Hypothalamic Neurons Restore Leptin Signaling and Ameliorate Obesity in db/db Mice,” appears in the November 25, 2011 issue of Science.

Ancient Humans: Violent? Caring?

A report in the November 21 issue of PNAS opens a sobering window into the lives and deaths of Ice Age humans. The report analyses a skull found in China and dating to 126,000 years ago and showing clear evidence of blunt force trauma.

[See photo, left. This is the right superolateral view of the Maba cranium showing the position (A) and detail (B) of the depressed lesion. Credit: University of the Witwatersrand.]

Was it aggression or an accident, deliberate violence or just an sharp but unlucky bump to the head? No one knows for sure. Based on comparison with similar findings, however, researchers suspect human-to-human violence.

One thing that makes this discovery stand out is its early date. Quite possibly, it is the earliest known evidence of human aggression against another human being.

The injury was not fatal. The trauma to the skull shows clear evidence of healing. For researchers, this healing is proof that the victim lived months and possibly years after the injury, quite possibly because of care offered by fellow Middle Pleistocene humans. If true, then the skull may be evidence of human caring as well as human violence.

According to Prof. Lynne Scheparz, one of the authors of the study, “this wound is very similar to what is observed today when someone is struck forcibly with a heavy blunt object. As such it joins a small sample of Ice Age humans with probable evidence of humanly induced trauma, and could possibly be the oldest example of interhuman aggression and human induced trauma documented.”

At the same time, the skull’s “remodelled, healed condition also indicates the survival of a serious brain injury, a circumstance that is increasingly documented for archaic and modern Homo through the Pleistocene,” according to Schepartz. In other words, this skull is not unusual in suggesting that ancient humans cared for each other after serious brain injury. As Schepartz puts it in a press release from the University of Witwatersrand, this individual “would have needed social support and help in terms of care and feeding to recover from this wound."

According to the report itself, “the lesion…appears most likely to have been the result of a localized, blunt force trauma, sufficiently strong to produce the concentric ridges, the external depression, and the internal bulge. At the same time, the bone was extensively remodeled…Such remodeling minimally takes several months to develop,” possibly longer.

According to the report, it “is probable that it [the injury] was the result of an interpersonal altercation, with blunt-force trauma, given its form, but accidental injury cannot be excluded. It may be the oldest such case known…”

The report provides a sobering picture of the past. A single skull provides what might be the oldest snapshot of human violence and human caring, a scant 14mm in length but a powerfully accurate view of the best and the worst in us.

The report, “New evidence of interhuman aggression and human induced trauma 126,000 years ago, was published in the November 21, 2011 issue of PNAS.

Stem Cells, Working Brains, and Human Enhancement

Research using human pluripotent stem cells—whether derived from an embryo or induced into a pluripotent state—holds great promise for regenerating parts of the human body by producing new cells to replace diseased or damaged cells. Nowhere is this potential more intriguing than in the human brain.

During the past decade, researchers have learned to turn human pluripotent cells into neurons. They have tested these neurons in cell cultures, where they seem to function like normal neurons. They have implanted these human neurons in mouse brains, where human cells thrive like normal cells. The big question is whether they do the work of brain cells. Long before cells are implanted in human brains, researchers want to know whether the cells will function properly in any working brain, starting with a mouse brain.

Now comes evidence that the implanted cells seem to be fully function, integrated in the basic process of the mouse brain. In the report published in the November 21 issue of PNAS, researchers at the University of Wisconsin report on their use of a new technology, optogenetics, to test the function of the implanted cells. This technology uses light rather than electricity to stimulate implanted neurons. The result, it is claimed, is the best evidence so far that implanted cells are integrated fully into the functioning brain, sending and receiving signals as part of living neural networks.

”We show for the first time that these transplanted cells can both listen and talk to surrounding neurons of the adult brain,” said lead author Jason P. Weick in a press release from the University.

By using optogenetics, this study provides evidence that implanted human neurons derived from pluripotent stem cells can become functionally integrated into systems of a living brain, sending and receiving signals from surrounding or “host” cells and interacting with brain circuitry in a way that is consistent with normal brain rhythms.

According to the paper published in PNAS, the neurons derived from pluripotent cells “can participate in and modulate neural network activity through functional synaptic integration, suggesting they are capable of contributing to neural network information processing…”

What’s more, the researchers discovered that optogenetics may someday have a clinical use far beyond its value as a research tool. The fact that implanted cells can be stimulated using a light signal may someday become part of the way stem cells are used on human patients. According to Su-Chun Zhang, also an author of the report, “You can imagine that if the transplanted cells don't behave as they should, you could use this system to modulate them using light.”

Still more challenges must be met before neurons derived from human pluripotent cells are implanted successfully in the human brain. But this study advances the field in a critically important way and provides strong evidence that implanted cells might one day take on the function of damaged cells in the living human brain.

If human brains can be regenerated even in highly limited ways, the consequences will be profound. The most obvious applications will be to treat patients who have lost some part of brain function due to stroke, brain injury, or disease.

And if that becomes possible, it is not hard to imagine that the same technology will be used to regenerate the brains of those whose only “disease” is aging. Furthermore, it is quite likely that at some point in the future, implanted neurons derived from pluripotent cells will be genetically modified first, perhaps to prevent disease but also perhaps to enhance the performance of the brain into which they become functionally integrated.

It is important to stress that treatment for complex disorders of the brain, such as Alzheimer’s Disease, are still a long way off. But this research is an important step, showing that the basic concept of stem cell treatment may provide one form of treatment. But is that becomes possible, it may also become possible to enhance the cognitive capacity of people without disease.

The milestone reported here is just one more step--of which there must be hundreds or thousands--leading us closer to the day when human brains might be regenerated or renewed. Few will object to the use of such treatments to restore functioning neurons to those with Huntington's disease or early onset Alzheimers. And if early onset Alzheimers, why not late onset? And if late onset dementia, why not age-related cognitive decline? At what point do we cross the line from therapy to enhancement, and does such a line even exist?

So while we stress that these treatments are not available today--and may never be--they will very likely come in time. And when they come, they will open the path for completely new ways to extend the functional lifespan of the human brain.
The report, entitled "Human embryonic stem cell-derived neurons adopt and regulate the activity of an established neural network," appeared in the Nov 21, 2011 issue of PNAS.

Religion and Nanotech: Problems Ahead?

Chris Toumey has just posted a nice summary of research on religion and attitudes toward nanotechnology. Toumey is a cultural anthropologist in the University of South Carolina NanoCenter, and what he reports is pretty sobering.

Toumey’s study summarizes seven recent research projects that explore the relationship between religious beliefs and attitudes toward nanotechnology. He cites a study by Brossard et al. entitled "Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology", which found that the "strength of religious beliefs is negatively related to support for funding of nanotechnology.”

One thing that concerns religious people about nanotechnology, Toumey says, is its possible link to transhumanism. He writes that “many religious persons worry that nanotechnology will contribute to re-defining human nature in ways that are amoral or dangerous.”

Underneath the fear of nanotechnology is a more fundamental fear of transhumanism. Religious people, says Toumey, “sense that transhumanist values are the enemy of religious values, and that nanotechnology, especially nanomedicine, is implicated in a transhumanist agenda.”

Toumey claims that of the seven studies he reviewed, six identified the religious objection to transhumanism as the basis for worries about nanotechnology. Not all six use the term “transhumanism,” but all refer explicitly to a deep anxiety that nanotechnology poses some sort of threat to human nature. Toumey writes: “Six of the seven religious reactions include a concern that nanotech will contribute to changing our sense of what it means to be human, and that this is clearly undesirable.”

All the more reason for religious scholars to take up the challenge of transhumanism and to disarm some of the anxiety. For me, at least, transhumanism is not to be feared. It is to be criticized theologically, not because it seeks to use technology to enhance human beings but because it sets its sights too low, or so I try to argue in Transhumanism and Transcendence.

A more complete version of Toumey’s review—"Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology"—will appear in the December issue of NanoEthics.

New Book on “Transhumanism and Transcendence”

My latest book is Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement. It is a collection of essays from leading Christian theologians responding to various aspects of transhumanism and of the growing potential for technology to “enhance” human beings. The book is on display for the first time at the book exhibits at the American Academy of Religion, 19-22 November 2011 in San Francisco. The publisher is Georgetown University Press.

On the back cover of the book, Philip Clayton comments:

This is the most important Christian debate on transhumanism that I have ever read. Those who prefer fawning acceptance or frightened rejection of human enhancement can find simplistic monographs aplenty. But if you want to think theologically about the transformation of humanity through technology—what's already here, and what lies ahead of us—this collection is mandatory reading.

I wrote the first and the last chapters of the book, framing the argument and summarizing the findings.
The eleven chapters in between are written by established scholars and younger thinkers, some of whom were finishing doctoral studies on transhumanism just as the book was being written.

Michael Burdett, for example, drew upon his studies at Oxford in writing about Francis Bacon, N. F. Fedorov, and Teilhard as early examples of transhumanist thinking. David Grumett, an emerging expert on Teilhard, follows Burdett with a deeper look at this pioneering theologian and scientist.

J. Jeanine Thweatt-Bates drew upon her doctoral work to criticize transhumanist thinking on gender, while Stephen Garner and Todd Daly provided fresh thinking about themes of cyborgs and extended lifespans in traditional Christian theology. Michael Spezio, a theologian who does advanced research in neuroscience, engages some of the projects of the Defense Advanced (DARPA).

Established scholars such as Ted Peters, Karen Lebacqz, Gerald McKenny, Brent Waters, and Celia Deane-Drummond also contribute chapters to this book. While all of them raise criticisms of transhumanism and of the growing use of technology for human enhancement, all recognize that transhuman poses a challenge for Christian theology.

Here’s one way to think about the challenge. Religion promises but technology delivers, so who needs religion anymore? For example, Christian theology holds up a promise of some form of life beyond the present. Technology, on the other hand, sees aging as a problem to be overcome, and it sets out to slow or even reverse it.

Whether it will truly succeed is, of course, debatable. But that’s not that point. The key question is where we place our hopes and what form of life do we hope for.

Through technology, transhumanists hope to transcend the limits of our biology. But is this the truest and highest form of human transcendence? It is not that technology is rejected or feared. But does teach us to settle for too little?

Studying Transhumanism and Religion

For several years now, the American Academy of Religion has included a “Transhumanism and Religion Group.” The next session of the group will be on Saturday, November 19, during the annual meeting of the AAR in San Francisco.

During our session, we will hear four papers. Brian Green will address the question, “Could Transhumanism Change Natural Law?” He will be followed by Michael Burdett, speaking on “New Jerusalem or the Tower of Babel?: Transhumanist Visions of the Future in Kurzweil, Rees, and Bostrom.”

The third paper will be presented by Amy Michelle DeBaets, addressing “The Transhuman Mystique: Feminism and the Discourses of Democratic Transhumanism.” Finally, Abbas Rattani will speak on “Transhumanism, Cosmetic Neurology, and Suffering.”

Following the discussion, Calvin Mercer will conduct a business meeting to make plans for next year’s session. Stay tuned here for a report on what happens on Saturday.

Human Nature, Human Self-Creation

When I spoke at the University of South Florida-St Petersburg last week, I summarized various ways in which the Human Genome Project has opened new perspectives on recent human evolution.

Evidence is mounting the anatomically modern humans (AMH) interbred with archaic humans, such as Neandertals, within the past 80,000 years and perhaps as recently as 30,000 years ago. Not only that, but in the view of some experts, this interbreeding was widespread, possibly more the rule than the exception.

The title of my talk was “Finding the Human in the Genome.” I presented visual images of early human art, including the recent report of the discovery of the 100,000 “artist workshop” in South Africa.

Looking at ancient art can be inspiring and moving, but for us today, the question comes back more forcefully than ever. What are we? Where are we going as a species? Are we in danger of destroying ourselves, not by violence but by modification, by engineering future humans that are not exactly human anymore?

I suggested that our past is somewhat more complex than we thought. Our future, likewise, is a bit more open-ended. We are not clearly defined at either end, either in our origins or in our destiny. As science discovers a complex past, technology opens an uncharted future.

At that point in the talk, I turned to the prescient words of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, the author of the Oration on the Dignity of Man. Writing in 1486, Pico praises the greatness of the Creator, the “Great Artisan,” who creates human beings with no defined or determinate nature, except the need for self-creation:

Finally, the Great Artisan mandated that this creature who would receive nothing proper to himself shall have joint possession of whatever nature had been given to any other creature. He made man a creature of indeterminate and indifferent nature, and, placing him in the middle of the world, said to him "Adam, we give you no fixed place to live, no form that is peculiar to you, nor any function that is yours alone. According to your desires and judgment, you will have and possess whatever place to live, whatever form, and whatever functions you yourself choose. All other things have a limited and fixed nature prescribed and bounded by our laws. You, with no limit or no bound, may choose for yourself the limits and bounds of your nature. We have placed you at the world's center so that you may survey everything else in the world. We have made you neither of heavenly nor of earthly stuff, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with free choice and dignity, you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted the power of degrading yourself into the lower forms of life, the beasts, and to you is granted the power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, the divine.

According to Pico, God speaks these words to the newly created Adam and Eve and, in effect, to all of us. Then Pico comments: “Imagine! The great generosity of God! The happiness of man! To man it is allowed to be whatever he chooses to be!”

Now, thanks in part to recent science, we can see just how far Pico was right.

Archaic Interbreeding? So What?

Later this week, I will be speaking at the University of South Florida—Saint Petersburg in their lecture series, a Celebration of the Genome.” My topic is “Finding the Human in the Genome.”

I start with the obvious: Our knowledge of human biology is increasing rapidly, thanks in large part to the Human Genome Project. We can now compare the DNA of one human being with another and ask questions about similarities and differences. We can compare human DNA with the full genomes of chimps and other species.

Most interesting to me is that we can also compare the genome of anatomically modern humans with that of extinct forms of humanity, such as Neandertals or their recently discovered cousins, the Denisovans. What we have found is that in a real sense, they are not extinct at all because their DNA lives on in us.

That leads to something less obvious but more profound. The more we know about human biology, the less we know about human nature. Put another way, the more information we have, the less confident we are that we really know what we mean when we talk about “humanity.”

So what is going on here? Does it really bother anyone—besides me, that is, and perhaps only because I am, after all, a “theologian”? I am asking myself this question a lot these days. Does it really matter that our ancestors interbred with Neandertals and Denisovans and, as time will probably tell, many other forms of archaic humanity?

So what’s the big deal? In some ways I guess it’s like the high school student who runs a paternity test and learns that daddy isn’t daddy.

Or maybe it’s more like this. Years ago, I remember hearing Kári Stefánsson speaking to a roomful of scientists and introducing deCODE Genetics, the Iceland DNA database. He explained the reasons for the project, such as excellent health records, small genetic diversity, and superb genealogical records going back 1,000 years. We Icelanders need to sell more than fish, he said. We want to mine our DNA for all kinds of gene-disease information. Then Stefánsson mentioned that the information sometimes disproved the genealogies. Everyone laughed when he said: “We are not responsible for what our Viking ancestors did back then during the long Icelandic winters.”

Is that it? Is that all that’s happened here, just some forced revisions of the family tree? So what if my ancient ancestors were not exactly what I thought? It happened, after all, some 40,000-100,000 years ago. I am not responsible.

But I am affected. My biology is different from what I once thought. Perhaps I am healthier as a result of the ancient interbreeding, as at least one report has suggested.

More than that, I am coming to see human beings as biologically more diverse and more complicated that we once thought. The diversity part is a bit scary. We have not done well as a species in dealing with our differences.

The complexity part—that’s more of a mystery than a fear. I don’t claim to hear the voices of my Neandertal ancestors calling out from my DNA or reverberating through my metabolic processes. At least not yet.

Resveratrol and Human Enhancement

The debate over human enhancement may just have entered a new phase. Resveratrol, the natural compound found in red wine, has now been shown to improve the metabolism of human beings. While the word "enhancement" does not appear in the published report, the research will almost certainly be read by many as evidence that the use of resveratrol enhances human health and may even increase the human lifespan.

In the more prosaic language of the report, the news is simply this: Resveratrol, the natural compound found in red wine, has now been shown to improve the metabolism of human beings.

In the 2 November 2011 issue of the journal Cell Metabolism, researchers in the Netherlands and Switzerland report that a 30-day course of resveratrol brought about significant improvement in the basic metabolic functions of obese men.

Research using animals has shown that resveratrol can have a number of benefits related to how the body uses energy. In some species, resveratrol has been shown to increase average longevity. In other experiments involving lab animals, a reduction of 30-50% in calorie intake below what the animals normally eat has been shown to benefit the metabolism and extend the lifespan. Others studies show that resveratrol seems to mimic the effects of calorie restriction.

Now come hints that resveratrol may have some of these same effects on human beings. In the Cell Metabolism article, researchers report that the men who received the 150mg/day dose of resveratrol showed a number of changes that mimic what happens with calorie reduction. 150mg is about 100 times the amount of resveratrol found in an ordinary glass of red wine.

One of the researchers, Patrick Schrauwen, commented on the study in a press release issued by Maastricht University in the Netherlands: “We saw a lot of small effects, but consistently pointing in a good direction of improved metabolic health.” The study was concluded after 30 days, and so long-term benefits or side-effects are not known.

In particular, no one knows whether resveratrol has the capacity to extend the human lifespan. But the positive results published on 2 November will surely intensify the debate over the effects and the ethics of resveratrol.

In this study, resveratrol was administered to men who were obese but otherwise healthy. One way some bioethicists distinguish between morally legitimate “therapy” and morally questionable biomedical “enhancement” is by insisting that medicine must stick to treating those with disease. It is unethical, these bioethicists argue, to “enhance” people by using medicine to benefit those who are not sick. Their views are challenged by others who believe that technology should be used for human enhancement.

While this study may have observed that moral limit of treating only those with a “disease,” there is little reason to believe that the metabolic benefits of resveratrol are limited to those who are obese. On the contrary, there is every reason to think that this study will be used by advocates of human enhancement. In particular they will see this as the best evidence yet that resveratrol can be used to extend the human lifespan.

My prediction is that this study will encourage more widespread use of resveratrol. Most who use it will be seeking some form of enhancement if not an increase in longevity.

The article, “Calorie restriction-like effects of 30 days of resveratrol (resVidaTM) supplementation on energy metabolism and metabolic profile in obese humans,” appears in the 2 Nov 2011 issue of Cell Metabolism, where it is available free to the public.