MOORHEAD, Minn. — Family and friends of Tom Bearson wonder what he would be doing today. Would he have become the nurse anesthetist he hoped to be? Would he have his own family?

They also think about the young man he would have been at age 28.

Ten years ago this week, the life of 18-year-old Tom “Tommy” Bearson from Sartell, Minn., a freshman at North Dakota State University in Fargo, was cut tragically short.

Father Greg Bearson said losing Tom is as hard now as it was then.

“We’ve missed out on whatever life he was going to have and what that would have meant to our family,” he said during a recent interview with The Forum from his home in Sartell.

“Not a day goes by when I don’t think of him,” he added.

Longtime friend Sam Neeser, 29, said this 10-year mark puts into perspective the experiences Tom missed.

“As kids in college, I don’t really think we understood the weight of that,” Neeser said.

Tom Bearson was deemed missing in the early morning hours of Saturday, Sept. 20, 2014, after leaving a house party near the NDSU campus.

A mysterious tweet, posted around 1:20 a.m. to Bearson’s then-Twitter account by someone he may have been with, hinted at some kind of danger.

Bearson’s body was found three days later in the parking lot of an RV dealership in Moorhead, about five miles from the house party in Fargo.

The manner of death was classified as homicidal violence, meaning investigators ruled out accident, suicide or natural causes, while the cause of death was classified as asphyxia, or oxygen deprivation.

Though the people Tom Bearson was with that night initially spoke with Moorhead police when he was missing, they did not speak with law enforcement after Bearson’s body was found.

Moorhead police have said for years that this remains an active case.

Capt. Deric Swenson said the department plans to comment on the Bearson investigation through a statement on Friday and declined an interview.

Greg Bearson said he and Moorhead police are in frequent contact, and his family is supportive of their work.

“We absolutely know that they care about Tom and our family and are doing everything humanly possible. … That helps us sleep at night,” he said.

Greg Bearson said he believes the universe has a way of revealing the truth over time.

“At the 10-year mark, this is just another opportunity for the people involved to make things right, so all of us can kind of move on and try to find peace in our lives,” he said.

‘A heavy burden’

Previous reporting by The Forum established that Bearson left his room at Reed Hall around 10 p.m. that Friday night in September 2014 but did not indicate to his roommate where he was going.

At some point, Bearson met up with high school friend Jake Wenzel, and at 1:23 a.m. Saturday, a message was posted on social media from Bearson’s phone that tagged Cody Mead, Wenzel’s roommate, The Forum previously reported.

It read: “dude it’s jake come pick us up. … We are so lost and we are going to die. Just get somebody.”

Bearson and Wenzel eventually made it to the house where Wenzel lived at 824 14th St. N. in Fargo, about six blocks south of Reed Hall.

Police have said Tom Bearson was last seen leaving the house party around 3:40 a.m.

One of Bearson’s shoes and his cellphone were never found.

Authorities monitor Larry’s RV Sales & Services in Moorhead, Minn., where the body of Thomas Bearson, a North Dakota State University student from Sartell, Minn., was found on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2014. (Carrie Snyder / The Forum)

In July 2015, Greg Bearson and his wife, Debbie, encouraged people who were with Tom that night to cooperate with police and take a polygraph test.

Police would not confirm whether polygraph tests have been used in this case.

“We’re talking about a crime here. … It’s a big deal for when it goes to trial or whatever, all those things matter. That’s why everybody has to be so careful,” Greg Bearson told The Forum.

Related Articles

St. Paul police, fire departments contend with staffing, chiefs tell city council

Wagon overturns during preschool’s trip to Wisconsin orchard, injuring at least 17

Jury convicts man of murdering housemate at West St. Paul mental-health group home

St. Paul man pleads guilty to swiping pricey dog from woman on walk

Boy, 14, wounded in shooting outside St. Paul high school

The people responsible for Tom Bearson’s death might have “perfect lives” including good jobs and families now, his father said, but must feel tremendous guilt.

“It’s got to be a heavy burden to carry. At least in my mind, the only path for real peace is if they’re ever able to admit guilt. Until then, they’re just lying. They’re just living a lie,” Greg Bearson said.

He and his wife have managed to find some of their own peace through the nonprofit Tom Bearson Foundation, which raised about a half-million dollars over eight years, he said.

The foundation also partnered with the city of Sartell to build the Tom Bearson memorial basketball courts in a city park in 2022.

Tom Bearson was a standout high school basketball player in the central Minnesota town, graduating in the spring of 2014.

The foundation helped Greg Bearson, his wife and their 30-year-old daughter Maddie cope with grief and gave them an outpouring of support.

Since the foundation reached its goals, the family announced that it was closing the nonprofit after the memorial courts were opened and dedicated in August 2023.

‘Sadness is still there’

Tom Bearson was an integral part of a large core group of friends in Sartell who still think often about what life would be like with him still here.

T.J. Bevans, 28, works as a physician assistant in general surgery at a hospital in St. Cloud.

His father and Greg Bearson are lifelong friends, and their sons were born about 10 days apart, also becoming lifelong friends.

Bevans said Tom had one of the most infectious personalities of anyone he’s ever met.

“When he walked into the room, he was somebody that everyone always wanted to be around,” he said.

Neeser became friends with Tom Bearson in middle school at a basketball camp, and the two lived just down the street from each other in Sartell.

He described his friend first and foremost as funny, someone who wanted to get a smile or a chuckle out of people.

Neeser works for a content marketing company in the Twin Cities where he lives with his wife, 5-month old son and a dog.

Tom Bearson would have been a groomsman in his wedding, he said. Many of the friends are becoming established in their careers and have families of their own.

“These are all things that Tom deserved to experience,” Neeser said.

The bonds go even deeper, as he and his wife gave their son Levi the middle name of Thomas in Bearson’s honor.

Bevans said he’s always thought that time would heal anything — a belief he relied on when his mother died.

He tried to use that as a coping mechanism in the aftermath of Tommy’s death, but it feels different.

“It’s like that stinging feeling, that sadness is still there, even after 10 years,” Bevans said.

Bringing to justice, whenever it comes, the person or people responsible for Tom’s death will provide some level of satisfaction, Greg Bearson said, but it will be bittersweet.

“As much as it would mean to us, it still would never bring Tom back,” he said.

Related Articles

Jury convicts man of murdering housemate at West St. Paul mental-health group home

St. Paul man pleads guilty to swiping pricey dog from woman on walk

Boy, 14, wounded in shooting outside St. Paul high school

Driver in Chisago County crash that injured girl claimed he wasn’t driving, complaint says

Lawsuit settled after murder victim’s parents say Ramsey County, others didn’t properly supervise boyfriend

Which skillet is best?

If you spend any time in the kitchen, chances are you rely on a skillet for cooking many types of food. Occasional cooks and skilled chefs alike appreciate the versatility of this useful tool when it comes to stovetop cooking.

When you find the right size, material and price tag, your new skillet will likely become your go-to cookware essential, whether you’re frying up a quick lunch for one or preparing a dish for the family. Our top pick, the All-Clad Fry Pan, can survive high oven temperatures and is dishwasher safe.

What to know before you buy a skillet

Frequency of use

Budget-priced pans are okay for occasional use, but durable, high-quality skillets will withstand frequent cooking.

Lid vs. no lid

Not all skillets have lids, but models that do are worth it for cooking dishes that need to be covered while on the stove.

Size

Skillets come in different sizes, and some of the most common are 8, 10 and 12 inches.

Location

It’s no surprise that skillets are made for cooking on a stovetop, but some are made of materials such as stainless steel or cast iron that you can use in the oven. However, keep in mind that some skillet handles are not oven-proof.

What to look for in a quality skillet

Materials

Aluminum: These pans are affordable and lightweight, but some have longevity concerns. Leaching of the metal is also an issue, especially if the skillet isn’t anodized.

Stainless steel: Stainless steel skillets are strong and made to last. Some can even be used in the oven, provided the handles aren’t coated in plastic. Although food sticking to the surface is a concern, some modern skillets have finishes designed to prevent this.

Copper: These skillets are pricey, but they look as good as they cook. However, they aren’t quite as durable as pans made of other materials.

Nonstick

Although nonstick surfaces are prone to scratches, they’re popular because they’re easy to cook with and clean. Many nonstick pans are also quite affordable.

How much you can expect to spend on a skillet

Regardless of the material you choose, you can find a quality skillet for $20-$50, with some higher-end models falling in the $80-$120 range. The exception is copper, which is typically priced at $50 and up.

Skillets FAQ

Is there a skillet that can easily go from stovetop to grill grate?

A. Not all skillets can handle the intense direct heat of a grill, but one made of cast iron can. In fact, these pots and pans have been used to cook over open flames for centuries because they can withstand temperatures well over 500 degrees Fahrenheit.

What are some tips for maintaining a skillet with a nonstick surface?

A. To extend the longevity of your nonstick skillet, you can use only utensils made of nylon, silicone or wood to stir and serve food. In addition, washing your skillet by hand with a soft sponge and mild dish detergent will help protect the finish.

What’s the best skillet to buy?

Top skillet

All-Clad Fry Pan

What you need to know: This well-made, versatile skillet has a lid and a justifiably higher price tag, considering its features.

What you’ll love: It is crafted of durable stainless steel and aluminum with a surface that resists sticking. It can handle high oven temperatures and be cleaned in the dishwasher. It includes a limited lifetime warranty.

What you should consider: Frequent overheating can discolor the pan.

Top skillet for the money

T-fal Nonstick Fry Pan

What you need to know: This is the best pick if you need a decent pan at a price that won’t break the bank.

What you’ll love: This is a practical skillet at the lower end of the price scale. Most foods easily slide off the nonstick surface.

What you should consider: The curved surface isn’t ideal for all foods, and the nonstick coating can scratch.

Worth checking out

Lodge Skillet

What you need to know: With proper cooking steps and care, this quality cast-iron skillet won’t disappoint.

What you’ll love: The cast iron is pre-seasoned and manufactured by a company known for quality cookware. It is built to last, even when cooking at high temperatures.

What you should consider: Using it takes a little trial and error if you aren’t used to cooking with cast iron. Food can burn or stick fairly easily.

Prices listed reflect time and date of publication and are subject to change.

Check out our Daily Deals for the best products at the best prices and sign up here to receive the BestReviews weekly newsletter full of shopping inspo and sales.

BestReviews spends thousands of hours researching, analyzing and testing products to recommend the best picks for most consumers. BestReviews and its newspaper partners may earn a commission if you purchase a product through one of our links.

For as deadly as the coronavirus pandemic was, the next one could be more nightmarish. Powerful new artificial-intelligence models, combined with novel lab tools, could soon enable rogue scientists or states to engineer a pathogen that would spread faster, resist vaccines better and kill more people than COVID-19 did. Governments, technology companies and scientific researchers should act now to lower the risk.

Nature has always had the ability to concoct nasty pathogens, from the plague to the Spanish Flu. For many decades, so have humans: The Japanese conducted brutal biological warfare experiments in World War II; both the U.S. and the Soviet Union stockpiled toxins during the Cold War, with the latter’s program continuing even after signing the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972. The Pentagon thinks Russia and North Korea continue to develop bioweapons.

But such efforts have traditionally been limited by the number of scientists trained to conduct the necessary research and the tools available for producing and distributing effective weapons. Technology is breaking down both barriers. Large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI Inc.’s ChatGPT can synthesize vast amounts of knowledge rapidly: In one experiment, a chatbot advised a group of MIT students about how to engineer four potentially deadly pathogens and where to procure the necessary DNA without detection — in an hour.

More specific AI programs trained on biological data, known as biological design tools, are even more powerful. Over time, such programs could speed the development of entirely new pathogens with deadly properties, perhaps even the ability to target specific populations. Emerging technologies — from “benchtop” synthesizers that will allow individual researchers to create their own strands of DNA, to so-called cloud labs where experiments can be conducted remotely using robots and automated instruments — will lower other hurdles to testing and producing potential weapons.

It’s worth noting that the barriers to producing and distributing a workable weapon remain quite high. But scientists say that could change in a few years, given how fast all these technologies are progressing. The time to act is now, before they reach maturity. A series of interventions would help.

Begin with the AI models. Some U.S. developers of the most powerful LLMs are voluntarily submitting them to the government for further evaluation. That’s welcome, but more scrutiny may be warranted for the riskiest models — those trained on sensitive biological data. Congress should work with AI developers and scientists to develop criteria for which models may require formal screening and what guardrails can be included in those found to pose the highest risks. While legislators should stay narrowly focused for now, stricter oversight may be warranted as the technology progresses.

The next task is to prevent any AI-designed viruses from entering the real world. Providers of synthetic nucleic acids should be required to know their customers and screen orders for suspicious DNA sequences. All requests should be logged, so new pathogens can be traced back if they’re released into the wild. Controls should also be built into benchtop synthesizers, while cloud labs should scrutinize customers and requests. Risky experiments should always have a human in the loop.

The U.S. should press other countries to adopt similar safeguards, so rogue actors can’t simply seek out less scrupulous providers elsewhere. If the Biological Weapons Convention can’t be toughened because of diplomatic frictions, like-minded countries should at least agree on a set of best practices, as they’ve begun to do with AI.

Above all, countries ought to harden their pandemic defenses so that anyone who manages to exploit loopholes in the system can’t cause extensive damage. AI itself could boost the ability of governments to detect the emergence of new pathogens, not to mention speed the development of vaccines and the production and distribution of personal protective equipment. Stronger public-health systems are critical, whether new viruses are produced by terrorists, rogue states, accidents or nature.

COVID exposed huge gaps in those defenses, too many of which remain unfilled. Governments have every incentive to head off this new threat while there’s still time.

— The Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board

Related Articles

F.D. Flam: AI can debunk conspiracy theories better than humans

David Fickling: Breaking our plastics habit is easier said than done

Katja Hoyer: Germany has gotten more conservative, not more radical

Lyle Goldstein: What can the U.S. do to stabilize its relationship with China?

Barbara McQuade: Fighting Russian disinformation must be a team sport

Scientists surprised themselves when they found they could instruct a version of ChatGPT to gently dissuade people of their beliefs in conspiracy theories — such as notions that COVID-19 was a deliberate attempt at population control or that 9/11 was an inside job.

The most important revelation wasn’t about the power of AI, but about the workings of the human mind. The experiment punctured the popular myth that we’re in a post-truth era where evidence no longer matters, and it flew in the face of a prevailing view in psychology that people cling to conspiracy theories for emotional reasons and that no amount of evidence can ever disabuse them.

“It’s really the most uplifting research I’ve ever I done,” said psychologist Gordon Pennycook of Cornell University and one of the authors of the study. Study subjects were surprisingly amenable to evidence when it was presented the right way.

The researchers asked more than 2,000 volunteers to interact with a chatbot — GPT-4 Turbo, a large-language model — about beliefs that might be considered conspiracy theories. The subjects typed their belief into a box and the LLM would decide if it fit the researchers’ definition of a conspiracy theory. It asked participants to rate how sure they were of their beliefs on a scale of 0% to 100%. Then it asked the volunteers for their evidence.

The researchers had instructed the LLM to try to persuade people to reconsider their beliefs. To their surprise, it was actually pretty effective.

Related Articles

David Fickling: Breaking our plastics habit is easier said than done

Katja Hoyer: Germany has gotten more conservative, not more radical

Lyle Goldstein: What can the U.S. do to stabilize its relationship with China?

Barbara McQuade: Fighting Russian disinformation must be a team sport

Daniel DePetris: Is nuclear arms control dead?

People’s faith in false conspiracy theories dropped 20%, on average. About a quarter of the volunteers dropped their belief level from above to below 50%. “I really didn’t think it was going to work, because I really bought into the idea that, once you’re down the rabbit hole, there’s no getting out,” said Pennycook.

The LLM had some advantages over a human interlocutor. People who have strong beliefs in conspiracy theories tend to gather mountains of evidence — not quality evidence, but quantity. It’s hard for most non-believers to muster the motivation to do the tiresome work of keeping up. But AI can match believers with instant mountains of counter-evidence and can point out logical flaws in believers’ claims. It can react in real time to counterpoints the user might bring up.

Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, has been studying the power of AI to sow misinformation and even false memories. She was impressed with this study and the magnitude of the results. She considered that one reason it worked so well is that it’s showing the subjects how much information they didn’t know, and thereby reducing their overconfidence in their own knowledge. People who believe in conspiracy theories typically have a high regard for their own intelligence — and a lower regard for others’ judgment.

After the experiment, the researchers reported, some of the volunteers said it was the first time anyone, or anything, had really understood their beliefs and offered effective counter-evidence.

Before the findings were published this week in Science, the researchers made their version of the chatbot available to journalists to try out. I prompted it with beliefs I’ve heard from friends: that the government was covering up the existence of alien life, and that after the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, the mainstream press deliberately avoided saying he had been shot because reporters worried that it would help his campaign. And then, inspired by Trump’s debate comments, I asked the LLM if immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs.

When I posed the UFO claim, I used the military pilot sightings and a National Geographic channel special as my evidence, and the chatbot pointed out some alternate explanations and showed why those were more probable than alien craft. It discussed the physical difficulty of traveling the vast space needed to get to Earth, and questioned whether it’s likely aliens could be advanced enough to figure this out yet clumsy enough to be discovered by the government.

On the question of journalists hiding Trump’s shooting, the AI explained that making guesses and stating them as facts is antithetical to a reporter’s job. If there’s a series of pops in a crowd, and it’s not yet clear what’s happening, that’s what they’re obligated to report — a series of pops. As for the Ohio pet-eating, the AI did a nice job of explaining that even if there were a single case of someone eating a pet, it wouldn’t demonstrate a pattern.

That’s not to say that lies, rumors and deception aren’t important tactics humans use to gain popularity and political advantage. Searching through social media after the recent presidential debate, many people believed the cat-eating rumor, and what they posted as evidence amounted to repetitions of the same rumor. To gossip is human.

But now we know they might be dissuaded with logic and evidence.

Related Articles

David Fickling: Breaking our plastics habit is easier said than done

Katja Hoyer: Germany has gotten more conservative, not more radical

Lyle Goldstein: What can the U.S. do to stabilize its relationship with China?

Barbara McQuade: Fighting Russian disinformation must be a team sport

Letters: ‘Sustainable’ aviation fuel? Two reasons why it isn’t

F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the “Follow the Science” podcast.