Science Court Podcast

In this final episode of Depolarizing America, hosted by Matt Simonson, we recap this semester's SciCourt trial, talk to jurors before they deliberate, and announce the verdict! Our Media Team, Matt Simonson, Jess Jurcek, and Hannah Ihekoronye, also reflect on the semester, their initial expectations, and the work they've done this year. Follow us on social media -- Instagram, Twitter and Facebook at @scicourt -- to be alerted next spring when SciCourt gavels back into session.

In this fifth episode of Depolarizing America, hosted by Matt Simonson, we will be talking with the legal pro and con teams about their confidence for the trial and what they have done to prepare. The University of Minnesota Science Court students are researching and debating whether mandatory service programs could work to create more political and racial harmony in the United States. This semester’s Science Court trial is on April 24, starting at 9 a.m. If you’re interested in attending virtually, register for the webinar at umn.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN…FX-zbR7yywchK_14R5w Follow us on social media -- Instagram, Twitter and Facebook at @scicourt.

In this fourth episode of Depolarizing America, hosted by Matt Simonson, SciCourt examines the sociology and political science of service programs. Jess Jurcek interviews David Ashley, a member of the science team, to discuss the sociological effects of service programs. Hannah Ihekoronye talks with army member and former Science Court student podcaster Luke Diamond about his experience in the military and thoughts on public service. The University of Minnesota Science Court students are researching and debating whether mandatory service programs could work to create more political and racial harmony in the United States. This semester’s Science Court trial is on April 24, starting at 9 a.m. If you’re interested in attending virtually, register for the webinar at umn.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN…FX-zbR7yywchK_14R5w Follow us on social media -- Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook at @scicourt.

The University of Minnesota Science Court students are researching and debating whether mandatory service programs could work to create more political and racial harmony in the United States. In this third episode of Depolarizing America, hosted by Matt Simonson, SciCourt examines educational opportunities and marketing volunteer service programs. Jessica Jurcek and Simonson interview members of the science and legal team. Jennie Lim discusses the importance of motivation and skill development for successful volunteer programs. Madeleine Stankiewicz talks about how the legal con team plans to market the volunteer service program and prepare for trial. Follow us on social media -- Instagram, Twitter and Facebook at @scicourt -- and if you are interested in serving on our jury to decide this case, apply at z.umn.edu/scicourt-jury by April 5, 2021.

The University of Minnesota Science Court students are researching and debating whether mandatory service programs could work to create more political and racial harmony in the United States. In this second episode of Depolarizing America, hosted by Matt Simonson, SciCourt examines the public health and psychology of volunteer and mandatory service programs. Matt Simonson and Hannah Ihekoronye interview members of the science team. Philip Dowdell discusses the impact of mandatory service programs on public health. Manix White talks about the role psychology plays in the effectiveness of service programs. Follow us on social media -- Instagram, Twitter and Facebook at @scicourt -- and if you are interested in serving on our jury to decide this case at the end of April 2021, apply at z.umn.edu/scicourt-jury.

The University of Minnesota Science Court students will research and debate this semester whether mandatory service programs could work to create more political and racial harmony in the United States. In this first episode of Depolarizing America, hosted by Matt Simonson, SciCourt explores historic efforts to combat polarization both inside and outside the United States. Hannah Ihekoronye and Jess Jurcek interview two members of the legal team, Andrew Bremner and Nishant Satpathy, to discuss their current research regarding U.S. government programs post-WWII as well as foreign countries' programs and policies. What programs have worked and what have not? The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this episode belong to the interviewees. Science Court cannot verify the statement regarding Peace Corps 50% effectiveness abroad. We can verify that public trust in the military has increased post-WWII, according to Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx Follow us on social media -- Instagram, Twitter and Facebook at @scicourt -- and if you are interested in serving on our jury to decide this case at the end of April 2021, apply at z.umn.edu/scicourt-jury

What happened at Hamline University? Who had the best arguments? What in the world is Thoriam?

Nuclear energy: is it too good to be true? Find out a little about the environmental impact of nuclear engineering on the environment- and whether it's the clean energy source we should be investing in.

Nuclear energy has a pretty bad reputation- radioactive materials, nuclear meltdowns- most people don't really trust the safety of nuclear power plants. Most people might just be unfairly biased against nuclear power, and we'll discuss it in the latest podcast about the health and safety of nuclear engineering.

The ScienceCourt team was lucky enough to sit down with MPR host and former television reporter Kerri Miller to discuss their research and arguments. Gear up, because the team is ready for court!

We've all heard of nuclear power, but how much does the average person really know about it? How important is it in the energy industry? And what is the current status of nuclear power here in the US? In this episode you'll get a crash-course in the state of nuclear power in the United States, and with it a good idea of why we're taking it to court.

Welcome back for year 2 of the science-court podcast! Find out what we’ve been up to in the first few weeks of class, and what we’ll be learning about and sharing with you for the rest of the semester. (Hint hint: this year’s going to be powerful!)

The trial is over and the jury is deliberating. With a couple last minute questions from the jury, the very first SciCourt Trial is DONE Professor Tadmor was ecstatic that his vision for this class was a success! The jury went into deliberation and will have a verdict on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018.

After 12 weeks of research, practice and preparation, SciCourt has finally reached the courtroom! The trial began with Professor Ellad Tadmor giving an overview of what SciCourt is and why it is relevant in today's society. After 10 years of thinking about a class like this, Tadmor said the time to do this class was now. And so… it begins!

The finalists from last week are 1) drug price regulation and, 2) one-to-one technology for K-12 students in school. They are being put to the test by their teams today. Let’s see how they stack up. Each team was given 20 minutes to present their case and a 10-minute discussion period. Unlike the last week’s presentations, the purpose of the presentations this week was not to prove that your Drug Prices (final presentation)case is superior, but to explain to the class whether or not the case would be a good fit for SciCourt. Remember, there are several key elements that make a good case for SciCourt. The teams faced some challenges and were forced to recognize flaws in their cases while they were presenting. It wasn’t always comfortable or easy, but it was fascinating to watch. Concerns arose about how to limit the scope of a huge issue like drug prices without over simplifying the topic. On the other case, there were questions about if there would enough public interest in one--to-one technology for K-12 school kids, but that team seemed to be gaining ground. Each potential case also had its own strengths. In the end, there could only be one winner. Once again, it was up to an electronic vote. Everyone in the class pulled out their phones or computers and punched in their decision.

Science Court has officially begun! The students have been split into groups of two and each team has come up with a potential case to be tried in SciCourt. Case topics include: - privatized prisons - immigration laws - mandatory recycling - online behavioral targeting - direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceutical drugs - ceasing subsidies for nonrenewable resources - sanctuary cities - regulation of drug prices - technology in K-12 schools In total there were nine potential case ideas, but only two will make it to the final round!

Science Court is more than just a class, it’s a tool for social change. We live in a time filled with polarization and distrust. SciCourt is an Honors Seminar offered at the University of Minnesota attempting to create a place where debate on controversial issues is based on facts and where a decision on the issue is guaranteed. To achieve this goal, SciCourt takes on the form of a mock trial with a few key changes: - Instead of putting people on trial, SciCourt puts the issues society faces in the hot seat. - All the evidence presented during the trial must be scientifically sound and agreed upon by both sides of the case, to insure that all argument is truly based on fact. - Instead of a random jury selection, a heterogeneous jury is picked to maximize a diversity of opinions. Each semester students prepare and try a SciCourt case.The students are split into three teams. The Science Team collects research on the case, prepares and presents it in an accessible manner for the jury. The Legal Team is divided into two sides to argue the case. Each side will review the evidence, come up with a strategy for their side, and argue the case in court. The Media Team is responsible for creating media to keep the public engaged and informed.