Podcast appearances and mentions of Adam Rutherford

Welcome to Episode 157 of The Scale Model Podcast Sponsored by CultTVMan and Sean's Custom Model Tools HostsStuartGeoffBrent BristowTerry Thanks to our latest Patreon and Buy Me a Coffee Supporters:Peter Fay Check out our What We Like page for lists of what we like. ***************************************LATEST NEWS ***************************************MAILBAGWe want to hear from you! Let us know if you have any comments or suggestions scalemodelpodcast@gmail.com.***************************************LATEST HOBBY ANNOUNCEMENTSTakom planning 1/35th scale Sherman HVSS & the Super ShermanAn early Apache & big bumblebee from Trumpeter in May.An oversized monitor & another what-if in May from HobbyBoss.Kotare's 1/32 Bf 109K-4 available for pre-orderWill not be available via US distributors  Eva Model's new 48th Super Hornet landing gearHasegawa May AnnouncementsThe USS Stevens DD-479 in 350th from I Love Kit What's new at Scalemates.com ***************************************SPONSOR AD #1Cult TV Man***************************************TOPICVinyl cutting with Brent BristowSome of Brent's work. ***************************************SPONSOR AD #2Seans Custom Model Tools***************************************WHAT'S ON THE BENCHStuart - Got the decals done on the Tamiya 1/48 Sherman Firefly. They went on very well.Geoff - had the grandkids for the weekend and did two”weekend builds” with two of them (the third wanted to draw). One grandson chose the ancient Revell 1/72 PT 109 and my granddaughter chose the even more ancient Revell Nautilus nuclear submarine. He wanted a more realistic scheme, but she wanted pink, purple, red and yellow…! A lot of fun!Terry - No changes. Not much progress. Doing plenty of yard work now, spring is springing.Brent - Not much time for things, Ultra 7 ship from Hasegawa. UltraHawk.  A couple of busts, including a Keatan Batman. Both sculptures by Jeff Yeager ***************************************WHAT WE ARE READINGStuart - NadaGeoff - really just either too busy or too exhausted to focus on reading, but looking forward to doing so soon!Terry - Finished Baxter's Moon Seed. I think I like this the best of the trio. Now I'm reading Adam Rutherford's A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived. It's a few years old, but highly regarded. It examines the history of humans via our DNA. I'm also still reading The Apothacary Diaries novels in the background.Brent - Auto Biography Geddy Lee from Rush. Salem's Lot by Stephen King***************************************THINGS WE'VE SEENOmask e-shop, foam masks for wheel bays, intakes etcReskit with another massive number of new items, 174 on its FB post. Lots of figures, arms, carrier deck accessories etc.Squadron Models TOS Enterprise colors.Tony Wootson's Mosquitocon report.Snapping TurtleEmerald City Council***************************************THE LAST WORDFor more modelling podcast goodness, check out other modelling podcasts at modelpodcasts.comPlease leave us a positive review if you enjoy what we're doing!Check us out: FaceBook, YouTube, and our very own website. Inbox reviews are available at http://blackfire.ca/We also have merchandise now. Check it out on Redbubble 

We take a brief break from revolutionary ideas for a special live episode of PPF recorded in front of an audience at the Regent Street Cinema in London. David talks to writer and journalist Helen Lewis about Network (1976), a film still best remembered for its catchphrase: ‘I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Just how prophetic is that cry of rage in the age of Trump? What does the film say about the continuing power of television in the era of social media? And who or what does it remind us of: Ye, Tucker Carlson, Russell Brand, WWE wrestling… or is it about something else entirely? Out now on PPF+: the second part of David's conversation with Adam Rutherford about Darwin and the most revolutionary idea of them all. To get this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening sign up now to PPF+ https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus Next time: J. S. Mill and Free Speech w/Fara Dabhoiwala Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David talks to geneticist and science writer Adam Rutherford about the book that fundamentally altered our understanding of just about everything: Darwin's On The Origin of Species (1859). What made the idea of natural selection so different from the theories of evolution that preceded it? How did Darwin arrive at it? What changed when he published his theory and why is it, in so many ways, the most revolutionary idea of them all? Out tomorrow on PPF+ Darwin Part 2: Adam Rutherford explores how Darwin's ideas evolved after 1859 and how the revolution in thinking that he started has continued to this day. To get this and all our bonus episodes plus ad-free listening sign up to PPF+ now https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plus Next time: PPF Live recorded at the Regent Street Cinema: Network w/Helen Lewis Past Present Future is part of the Airwave Podcast Network Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How much is tech guru Bryan Johnson willing to put his 19-year-old son through in his quest to avoid dying? Why 33% of surveyed Gen Z-ers say they prefer the army to run the country? What happens to the West Bank during a Trump administration?Basia Cummings is joined by scientist and broadcaster Adam Rutherford, plus Tortoise's Cat Neilan and Stephen Armstrong, as they battle to pitch the top story.**Get tickets for our next News Meeting live on Wednesday 29th January here: https://www.tortoisemedia.com/our-events/the-news-meeting-live/book ** Listen to the ‘Immortality Bros: The business of living forever' here: https://lnk.to/XSGGvM ** Listen to Jordan Peterson and the making of man here: https://lnk.to/YAYX7Y Host: Basia Cummings, editor at TortoiseEmail: newsmeeting@tortoisemedia.comProducer: Casey MagloireExecutive producer: Rebecca Moore Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

To kick off our new series on revolutionary ideas past, present and future David talks to two regular PPF contributors – the philosopher Lea Ypi and the scientist Adam Rutherford – about what makes an idea truly revolutionary. Do revolutionary ideas change the world? Can the world be changed without them? Can bad ideas ever be revolutionary ideas? And where should we be looking for revolutionary ideas today? Sign up to our free fortnightly newsletter to get more ideas, clips, reading suggestions and extra insights to accompany this and all our series. Join our mailing list now: https://www.ppfideas.com/newsletters Next Time: The History of Revolutionary Ideas: Socrates w/Agnes Callard Past Present Future is part of the Airwave Podcast Network Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam Rutherford joins Michael Rosen to make sense of the heavily-loaded and often unscientific language that we use to talk about genetics, inheritance, ancestry and race. Adam is a geneticist, science writer, and lecturer in Biology and Society at University College London. His work tries to make sense of what our genes do (or don't) tell us about our similarities and our differences. He writes about this stuff in many of his books, including ‘How To Argue With A Racist' and ‘Where Are You Really From?'Subscribe to the Word of Mouth podcast and never miss an episode: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b006qtnzProduced for BBC Audio Bristol by Becky Ripley

As authored by Adam Rutherford.

Roy L Hales/Cortes Currents - Modern geneticists have shown us that the past is much closer than most of us realize. We carry the genetic coding from previous generations in our DNA and it can be traced back 200,000 to 300,000 years. Adam Rutherford went further, proclaiming everyone with European roots descends from Charlemagne (as well as his most humble followers). His point being that the number of your direct ancestors doubles every generation you count backward. By the time you count back 33 generations—about 800 to 1,000 years ago—you have more than 8 billion ancestors. By way of contrast, the population of England is believed to have only been about 2 million in 1,000 AD. At that point you had 4,000 ‘ancestors' for every living person. This means your genealogy is populated by the same people counted over and over again through different lines of descent. If you are of English ancestry, something of even greater antiquity like the Stonehenge artefacts currently being exhibited at the Royal BC Museum in Victoria is definitely about your heritage.

Brian Cox and Robin Ince dig into de-extinction asking, could we and should we resurrect creatures of the past? They are joined by geneticist Adam Rutherford, palaeontologist Susannah Maidment and comedian/virologist Ria Lina.Extinction has played a significant role in shaping the life we see on Earth today. It is estimated around 95% of species to have ever existed are already extinct - but could any of these extinctions be reversed? Our panel explore the different methods being pursued in these resurrection quests, including back-breeding, cloning and genetic engineering. They take a close look at the case of the woolly mammoth and the suggestion they could be returned to the Arctic tundra. Some claim the mammoth is the key to ecosystem restoration, but our panel have some punchy opinions on whether this Jurassic Park fantasy is even ethical.Producer: Melanie Brown Executive Producer: Alexandra Feachem Researcher: Olivia JaniBBC Studios Audio Production

Mark is joined by scientist, writer, and broadcaster Adam Rutherford in this special extended episode. Together, they discuss eugenics, Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, nature versus nurture, how right wing Americans influenced Hitler and many other fascinating topics.  If you enjoyed this interview then please buy a copy of Adam's book “Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics”, It would make an excellent Christmas gift and can be ordered on amazon right now using this link: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Control-History-Troubling-Present-Eugenics-ebook/dp/B08WC6493L  Get ad-free extended episodes, early access and exclusive content on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/wtfisgoingonpod Follow What The F*** Is Going On? with Mark Steel on Bluesky/X @wtfisgoingonpod Follow Elliot Steel @elliotsteelcom Follow Adam @AdamRutherford Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The UK high street has appeared to be in a near perpetual state of distress since the birth of self-service shopping in the 1950s. Since then, local authorities approving out-of-town developments in the 1970s, the rise of the supermarket, the internet and the recent Covid lockdowns, have all taken their toll on town centres. Adam Rutherford talks to three guests about the changing nature of the high street.Annie Gray explores the long and varied history of shopping districts in The Bookshop, the Draper, the Candlestick Maker, from medieval marketplaces to the purpose-built concrete precincts still standing today. The urban designer and strategic planner Vicky Payne believes the high street is far more resilient than people think. Her research has looked at the innovative work being done across the country, from Bournemouth to Barnsley, to revitalise town centres. And the food writer Angela Hui shines a light on the central role that migrants have played – from running corner shops to restaurants. Her Chinese takeaway installation, inspired by her experiences growing up behind the counter of her parents' business in Wales, forms part of the All Our Stories exhibition at the Migration Museum, Lewisham Shopping Centre, until December 2025.Producer: Katy Hickman

For our latest bad idea with an interesting history David talks to the geneticist and science writer Adam Rutherford about what's wrong with Nobel Prizes. Why do we revere the winners of the science prizes when we know how contrived the other prizes are? What makes us so attached to this relic of an outmoded idea of scientific progress? And what happens when someone is struck down with ‘Nobelitis'?Looking for Christmas presents? We have a special Xmas gift offer: give a subscription to PPF+ and your recipient will also receive a personally inscribed copy of David's new book The History of Ideas. PPF merch available too! Find out more at https://www.ppfideas.com/giftsNext up on Bad Ideas: The Marketplace of Ideas Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For our latest bad idea with an interesting history David talks to the geneticist and science writer Adam Rutherford about what's wrong with Nobel Prizes. Why do we revere the winners of the science prizes when we know how contrived the other prizes are? What makes us so attached to this relic of an outmoded idea of scientific progress? And what happens when someone is struck down with ‘Nobelitis'? Looking for Christmas presents? We have a special Xmas gift offer: give a subscription to PPF+ and your recipient will also receive a personally inscribed copy of David's new book The History of Ideas. PPF merch available too! Find out more at https://www.ppfideas.com/gifts Next up on Bad Ideas: The Marketplace of Ideas

Adam Rutherford gets to grips with the crisis in adult social care and asks, whose responsibility is it to fix it? David Goodhart, from the Policy Exchange think tank, writes about the huge changes that have been wrought on family life over the past 60 years and how they have impacted the way in which we live and care for each other. In his new book, The Care Dilemma, he argues that we are in desperate need of a new policy settlement that not only supports gender equality, but also recognises the importance of strong family and community bonds, and the traditional role women have played as carers. Bringing us her own personal story from the frontline of adult social care is Kathryn Faulke. She worked for years in a senior role at the NHS and then became a home care worker. In Every Kind of People she tells the stories of individuals who are part of the system, the cared-for and the carers, and shows how these issues affect us all. This is a story about real lives and real people, revealing the challenges, and the benefits, of working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Every Kind of People will be Radio 4's Book of the Week, starting on Monday 28th October.So how can we improve the lives of those who require care and also support the carers themselves? Anna Coote is Principal Fellow at the New Economics Foundation and has written extensively on public health policy, public involvement and gender and equality. She believes in taking practical action to change the way we work and value time and believes in our ability to build a fairer and more sustainable social security system – both for ourselves and for future generations.Producer: Natalia Fernandez

Spoiler alert! At the end of the fourth season of Emily in Paris, the protagonist sets off to go to Rome. In response, the French President Emmanuel Macron has promised that “we will fight hard” to keep Emily in Paris in France. Why does he care so much? A recent study suggests that 38 per cent of all visitors to Paris name the show as one of the reasons for visiting. Inspired by this factoid, we started thinking about the ways in which TV can influence us. We examine how Star Trek inspired mobile phones – and the outfit of one of our panelists. Plus, we find out more about the impact Dana Scully from The X Files had on a generation of girls. And what does psychology say about fandom?But how can science influence the films? We speak to Dr Adam Rutherford, a geneticist, broadcaster, and, importantly, scientific advisor for movies. What does that last role involve? Which films get the science right? And is scientific accuracy important for a Hollywood blockbuster?Also in the programme, we hear about the mysterious recent earthquakes in Ethiopia, and Unexpected Elements listeners with visual impairments get in touch to share the secrets of what they can see inside their heads. And finally, we take a look at the surprising connection between cricket and statistics.Presenter: Marnie Chesterton with Andrada Fiscutean and Christine Yohannes Producer: Florian Bohr with Alice Lipscombe-Southwell and Anna Charalambou Sound engineer: Cath McGhee

Major storms all get names: Milton, Katrina, Ian, Sandy etc. Why do we name storms? Do the names of storms ever get used again for other storms? Find out as we start this episode with a brief look at the tradition of naming major storms. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-do-hurricanes-get-their-names-who-chooses-and-why-list/ What is it that makes us human and separates us from all the other animals on the planet? The answer will surprise you because a lot of characteristics you may think are uniquely human are not. Yet there are other things that do make us unique that you may have never considered. Here to sort it all out and make you think differently about what it means to be a human is Adam Rutherford. He is a science writer, broadcaster, and author of the book The Book of Humans: A Brief History of Culture, Sex, War, and the Evolution of Us (https://amzn.to/3YsxLyF) At some point our ancestors stopped grunting and started using words to communicate. And those words started to affect how we think. So, how did that all happen? Where did our words come from? Why do some words seem so arbitrary while other words sound like the word they are describing? All this is what Steven Mithen is here to discuss. He is an archaeologist and professor of early prehistory at the University of Reading. He has written more than 200 hundred articles and books, his latest book is called The Language Puzzle: Piecing Together the Six-Million-Year Story of How Words Evolved (https://amzn.to/4dDd8E1). People have theories of what should and should never be put down the garbage disposal. Consumer Reports actually did some tests and came up with some interesting recommendations. Listen as I reveal if eggshells and chicken bones and a bunch of other things should or should not be put down there. https://www.consumerreports.org/appliances/garbage-disposals/foods-you-can-cant-put-down-a-garbage-disposal-a1074300549/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The best-selling historian William Dalrymple presents India as the great superpower of ancient times in The Golden Road: How Ancient India Transformed the World. He argues that for more than a millennium India art, religions, technology, astronomy, music and mathematics spread far and wide from the Red Sea to the Pacific, and its influence was unprecedented, but now largely forgotten.China's significance has long been celebrated and understood, with reference to the ancient trading routes linking the east and west. The historian Susan Whitfield is an expert on the Silk Roads. She talks to Adam Rutherford about the extraordinary discovery of manuscripts in a cave in Dunhuang, in Northern China, which provide a detailed picture of the vibrant religious and cultural life of the town. An exhibition of the manuscripts, A Silk Road Oasis: Life in Ancient Dunhuang, runs at the British Library until 23rd February 2025.But what of India's cultural and artistic influence and expression in modern times? Shanay Jhaveri is the new Head of Visual Arts at the Barbican and curator of their new exhibition, The Imaginary Institution of India: Art 1975-1998 (October 2024 until January 2025). This landmark group show explores the way artists have responded to a period of significant political and social change in India in the 20th century.Producer: Katy Hickman

To kick off our new series on counterfactual histories David talks to the geneticist and science writer Adam Rutherford about whether ‘What Ifs' make sense in science. If one person doesn't make the big discovery, will someone else do it? Are scientific breakthroughs the product of genius or of wealth and power? And how might the world have been a completely different place if the Haber-Bosch process had not been developed in Germany in 1913?Sign up now to PPF+ to get ad-free listening and all our bonus episodes: 24 bonuses per year for just £5 a month or a £50 annual subscription www.ppfideas.com Next time: What if… the French Revolution had happened in China? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Aesop is probably the most famous author from antiquity, judging by the ongoing sales of his fables about animals. It should be easy to do a show about him, thinks Natalie. But it turns out that everything we know, or think we know about Aesop, is contradicted somewhere. He may have been Thracian, Phrygian or Ethiopian; mute - or talkative; clever, provoking and possibly blasphemous. It's a complicated story, and fables aren't even a Greek invention. With guests Edith Hall and Adam Rutherford, Natalie also takes advice from comedian Al Murray.Rock star mythologist' and reformed stand-up Natalie Haynes is obsessed with the ancient world. Here she explores key stories from ancient Rome and Greece that still have resonance today. They might be biographical, topographical, mythological or epic, but they are always hilarious, magical and tragic, mystifying and revelatory. And they tell us more about ourselves now than seems possible of stories from a couple of thousand years ago.Producer...Mary Ward-Lowery

Something different for our last episode on the Great Political Fictions as this time David talks to the person who wrote it: Tim Rice, the lyricist of the epic musical about the life of Eva Peron, Evita (co-written with Andrew Lloyd-Webber). Where did the idea for such an unlikely subject come from? Why has it struck a chord with politicians from Thatcher to Trump? What does it say about the relationship between celebrity, populism and power?Sign up now to PPF+ to get ad-free listening and all our bonus episodes – including a new bonus episode on Philip Roth's The Plot Against America www.ppfideas.com Next time: Adam Rutherford on counterfactual science to kick off our new series on ‘What Ifs…' Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube!   FULL TRANSCRIPT: Wilmer Leon (00:00): So here's a question. How does the false construct of race, and yes, it is a false construct or the real constructs of culture and cultural identity factor into our opposition to or support for a political candidate. Let's find out Announcer (00:26): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:33): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode of connecting the dots, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions about the broader historic context in which most events occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events and the impact that these events have on the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is, as I stated, how does the false construct of race and it is a false construct and or the real issues of culture and cultural identity factor into our opposition to and support for candidates for insight. Let's turn to my guest, Dr. (01:35) Chantel Sherman is a historian and journalist whose work documents deconstructs and interprets eugenic themes in popular culture, identity formation among African-Americans and reproductive apartheid in carceral spaces and within marginalized communities. Publisher of Acumen Magazine, author of In Search of Purity, eugenics and Racial Uplift among New Negroes, 1915 and 1935, as well as popular eugenics in television and film. Also, she's a novelist of Fester and Spill. Dr. Chantel Sherman, welcome back. Good morning. Thank you for having me. And as always, thank you for joining me. And I got to add, she's a very, very dear friend as well, so I get to call her Chantel, before we get to the question posed in the open, A viewer of our last discussion reached out to me and wanted us to elaborate on the issues of eugenics in medicine because many of us know some things about the Tuskegee study as well as Ms. Henrietta Lacks, but there's an awful lot more to eugenics and medicine than just those two issues. So starting there, particularly with the Tuskegee experiment, I elaborate, clarify what you know to be some of the misunderstandings about that, a little bit about Henrietta Lacks and then where are we with eugenics in medicine? Shantella Sherman (03:10): Sure. It's a loaded question because it actually has, the response is almost a series of volumes, quite frankly, but to synthesize this understanding, eugenics means what you're trying to do is create better people. And in order to create better people, you have to know what they're made of, what makes good stock, what makes good genes. And so what we've tried to do in this country through eugenics is to create better people by restricting who can and who cannot have children incarcerating people performing sterilizations for sterilizations on folks who we deem as unfit. And so it's not just about the body, but it's the body politic. So if I determine that you're poor, for instance, it's believed that poverty is in your DNA diseases are automatically in your DNA. And so black people as a whole, were considered to be contaminated. We are still considered to be largely contaminated. (04:17) We are a bad gene pool, we are a subhuman group according to science and eugenics. So based on this, studying any type of disease means studying black people, and sometimes it means injecting them with certain things. So with Tuskegee, there's been a bit of a revisionist history about these are black people who had syphilis and we simply did not treat them in order to see the development of the disease or the course of the disease over years. The truth of the matter is many of these men were injected with syphilis, and that's the original documentation that we don't necessarily look at. We have to get to a point where we're looking at the entire scope of information and data. Alabama, Tuskegee was not the only place where these syphilis studies were taking place. The serological studies were taking place in six different states and they were all connected to sharecropping or farming communities, sharecropping communities where the black people there could not necessarily leave of their own free will. (05:23) And then based upon that, you had a population that you could study, you could inject with different things. I've seen studies where folks are literally looking at how pesticides work by spraying cotton fields and leaving the black people who are working in the cotton fields in the fields so that as they develop lung conditions, you now start to talk about how black people don't have the capacity to breathe in certain places or they have bad lungs or these other things as if they're genetic, when the truth of the matter is you are experimenting on them. And so we've been the Guinea pigs unwittingly in this country for a long time, but because the stroke and the core of the information is based upon black people being somehow contaminated anyway, being less human, then we become like the lab rats or the little white mice in the labs where constantly we're having things tested on us and we don't necessarily know this. Then the scope of that becomes black people are 10 times more likely to have this. They're 10 times more likely to do this or to die of these conditions, or their behaviors lend themselves to these particular things. Wilmer Leon (06:39): When you said make better people, it was inferred, but I want to state the obvious. When the Nazis were trying to make the superior race, they were not doing this for the betterment of mankind, even though in their warped racist minds, they thought, so this was not altruistic by any stretch of the imagination. They were trying to make better white people at the expense of people of color. Is that hyperbolic on my Shantella Sherman (07:22): No, it's on point. I mean, the fact of the matter is if you consider non-white people to be subhuman, there we go. Or a subspecies. Let's pull this into America. When you say American, you're not talking about black people, you're talking about white people. That's why you have to add these hyphens, African-American, because America is the culture. It is also the race. It is also the health. It is also the patriotism. It is also the citizenship. And so this language becomes loaded. So when you say American, I'm looking at things that are talking about the American birth rate. The American birth rate is not going down when we're talking about black people or Hispanic people. So where in America is the birth issue? It's an American issue. It's a white issue. Wilmer Leon (08:15): It's a very white issue. And I'm quickly trying to put my hands on a piece by Dr. Walters here. I think I have it that speaks to this in the political context where, well, I can't find the quote, but he basically talks about, it's very important to understand that, oh, here we go. This is from white nationalism, black interests, and so this is your eugenics. On the policy side, if a race is dominant to the extent that it controls the government of the state defined as the authoritative institutions of decision-making, it is able to utilize those institutions and the policy outcomes they produce as instruments through which it is also structures its racial interests. Given a condition where one race is dominant in all political institutions, most policy appears to take on an objective quality where policymakers argue they're acting on the basis of national interests rather than racial ones. So that's Dr. Walters telling us, if I can just cut to the chase, when white folks run the show and they speak in the national interest, they're talking about their interests, not ours, and that's absolutely okay. Alright, Shantella Sherman (09:55): That's it. Wilmer Leon (09:55): So two other points about Tuskegee that I think are very important for people to understand. I know there were black nurses involved and weren't there also black physicians involved? Shantella Sherman (10:08): Absolutely. Wilmer Leon (10:09): And there is some question about whether there was actual consent. How much of this did they actually know or were they dupes? Isn't that a question that gets posed? Shantella Sherman (10:24): It's a question that's posed often because the belief is that if there's a black person in the room that they're going to side for black people, they're going to defend, they're going to try and help. But the reality is when we're talking science, we're talking medicine and science on behalf of the nation, on behalf of American Americans, we want to make sure that we have a healthy pool of black people as well. So it benefited and it benefits currently many black leaders to hold onto these eugenic things and these eugenic tropes and these eugenic theories where even though we don't talk about sterilizing people in the same way we did, then you still hear people say, black people, even this person has too many kids, they don't need to have any more kids. They're on welfare already. So what do you do? You Wilmer Leon (11:18): Give them Ronald Reagan's welfare queen, Shantella Sherman (11:20): Right? Well, right. If a white person says this, it's racist. If a black person says she already has 10 kids, she doesn't need anymore. She can't afford 'em, now she's neglecting them. We start with this other thing and it becomes, so what do we do? Give her no plan or something. And if that doesn't work, go ahead and give her a hysterectomy. That's eugenics. Wilmer Leon (11:41): An example of that on the other side is Octo mom. Shantella Sherman (11:45): Exactly, Wilmer Leon (11:47): Exactly. She got a TV show or she was trying to get a, there were people who were saying, oh, this woman is out here tripping and something needs to be done. But there were also those that wanted to glorify her, put her on television in order to generate revenue, Shantella Sherman (12:11): Generate revenue, but also public opinion, where she was one, a single woman, she already had one child that she was having trouble supporting. Then it became who should have access to IVF and all these other things, and then who's going to pay for all of these eight now nine children that she has? And it was like, what is she going to do with them and dah, dah, dah, dah. But you give the duggars one, she's single. If it's the Duggars who are just full of all types of deficiencies over here, I'm using eugenic terms. I'm sorry. All of a sudden it was like, right, give them a TV show. Give them money, give them this, give them that. Because what you're doing with television is programming people to believe some people need this, some people don't. If this was a black female in Chicago, in the Robert Taylor homes years ago and she had 10 or 11 kids, you'd be running her up a flagpole at this point and talking about the degeneracy and her kids are going to be this and there's no father in the house and all of these other things. (13:09) So when you push this politically and you start talking policy, this is what you're concerned about. We should be concerned about on a local, national, and even an international scale. And so as you start to talk about candidates, we have to have a clear understanding of where our potential leaders fall, whether they're black or white, because black people are also Americans. And so we're living the American dream, and I don't want these people living next to me and I don't want a prison next to me and I don't want halfway house over here, and I don't want the school of kids over here and I don't want this, this, this and this. And that's an American thing, even if the person or the kids or the people I'm talking about happens to be brown just like me. Wilmer Leon (13:57): So to wrap up the Tuskegee, what are the two biggest misnomers about Tuskegee that you want this audience to have a better understanding of before we get to Henrietta Lacks? What do you want people to understand about Tuskegee? Shantella Sherman (14:13): The Tuskegee was not the only place, and I don't even like it being named, that it was the Eugenics records office. Serological studies. And you had five other places, five other places other than Tuskegee, where these serological tests were being done and they did not necessarily stop. Wilmer Leon (14:34): Oh, meaning that they're still ongoing. I know they were going well into the seventies at least. Shantella Sherman (14:43): And if Tuskegee is the only one that they're talking about, what makes you think that? The serological studies that were taking place in Mississippi and in Tennessee, in Georgia, just in North Carolina. In North Carolina, and again, there's a whole record of this, but we don't talk about that and we don't talk about the black people intrinsically involved in these studies and in this research, Wilmer Leon (15:08): Henrietta Lacks, if you would elaborate, Shantella Sherman (15:13): One thing that we don't discuss with Henrietta Lacks is that the fact of the matter is that she was at Crownsville, she was in Maryland. Once again, you must make the connection between eugenics and these carceral spaces, either asylums places where you need to have a mental rest. I don't like even calling them. It's a home for the mentally ill. This person may have been having menopausal symptoms. They have women in there, they were reading too much. There's a Howard University professor and his name Escape Smith, the moment high ranking Howard University professor. He was caught up in Crownsville at some point and died there. And Wilmer Leon (15:52): For those that don't know, what is Crownsville? Shantella Sherman (15:54): Crownsville was the Maryland, it's, we would say asylum now, but it was a place for people who were feeble minded or had mental health issues. And you could be put there for any of a number of reasons. But once you were there, this was the one specifically for black folks. So a whole black neighborhood was cleared in order to put this asylum there and to let you know what they thought of black people, they made the black people who were supposed to be the patients actually build the hospital itself. And it remained open for quite a while, but it was a place of torture. It was a place of experiments. And Henrietta Lacks ended up there. And so while people are, she's telling people, okay, I'm having fibroid issues. The potential cancer issue, once you're in these spaces, you don't have rights over your own body. (16:45) So the experiments and the biopsies and the whatever else are also taking place in these spaces. And so that's where she was when all of this transpired, grabbing her cells, studying her cells. If you knew the cells could give us the cancer treatments that we have today, were you actually trying to treat her or were you trying to advance science? And so we have to start looking at who were some of the black doctors that were there, who were the other universities? You have universities that are attached to these asylums. And so it's not just, even if you're talking to Tuskegee, it's not just Tuskegee as the area, it's Tuskegee, the university, it's Howard or it's me, Harry. It's black institutions as well. And you have to look at this. Some of this is a class issue, but it's always a consciousness issue. You all right? Wilmer Leon (17:40): And just so people know that Henrietta Lacks, she was the first African-American woman whose cancer cells are the of the hela cell line, which is the first immortalized human cell line, and one of the most important cell lines in medical research. And a lot of people made a lot of money, Shantella Sherman (18:05): Still are Wilmer Leon (18:06): Hundreds of millions of dollars off of her body. And up until recently, her family did not receive any type of compensation for the illegal use of her body. And I want to put it in the context of body because when you talk about cells and people go, oh, cells, what the hell? No, it was her body that they used to create an incredibly valuable, some would say invaluable. You really can't even put a value on it. And up until recently, her family, I can see you want to go ahead. Go ahead. Shantella Sherman (18:52): Well, when you start talking about the value of black bodies, we can go currently, as of last year, the children that were involved, there was a situation in Philadelphia, 1985 where it was a group of what they called militant resistant black folks, the Africa Family Wilmer Leon (19:12): Move Shantella Sherman (19:12): Movement community. They were in a lovely community. And so they had this move project that they were doing, this is their thing. And you had a black mayor at this point who said, Wilmer Leon (19:23): William, good, Shantella Sherman (19:24): There you go, mayor. Wilmer Leon (19:26): Good. Who was bad? Shantella Sherman (19:28): I'm sick of having to deal with this. And instead of charging the house which had children in his whole family communal type of space, he said, let's drop a bomb, get a helicopter to drop a bomb on the house. Which of course ended up spreading. It tears up the entire neighborhood. But here's the point with this, two of the children that died in the bombing, somehow their bodies were sold given over to the University of Pennsylvania for study for research. Because the idea is, is there a difference in the brain and the mentality of a resistant black family and their children, their progeny that we need to be aware of? So now you have a university studying the brains and the body parts of dead children. The family does not know. The family did not know until last year that the university didn't even know that the bodies were sitting on the shelf Now Wilmer Leon (20:30): Because some of the other children survived and are now in their thirties and forties. Absolutely. Shantella Sherman (20:36): Absolutely. Absolutely. So they had to give those but become, we're going to give you the bodies back so they can be interred. What were you doing with these children? You were studying them, you're studying them not just as cadavers. They were being used in the classroom for what purpose though? And so I think that we need to really grapple with the fact that there's a value to black bodies, even if there's not a value to black people. The culture is amazing and this and this, but there is a value to black bodies that we don't talk about. And so there are folks that are, you have dollar signs on you when they see you, they have dollar signs on your womb, they have dollar signs on you as you matriculate through life and you navigate different systems. And the goal is to extract as much as possible while we are just kind of not paying attention to any of it. Wilmer Leon (21:34): There is the adage, you are a product of your environment. And so people will look at me, look at you. And how did you all become PhDs? Well, they haven't met your mother. I've had the blessing. They haven't met your parents. They haven't met my parents. We are products of our environment. So when you look at the children in the Africa family from move in Philadelphia, those children, there was nothing biologically different that made them one way or another. They were products. They were raised a certain way just as they want to talk about black on black crime, ignoring the fact that crime occurs everywhere. You tend to commit crime in the space that's closest to you against those that are closest to you. And that poverty is one of the greatest contributors to a criminal element. Not psychosis, not phenotype. And final point as they talk about black crime, who did the mafia commit most of its crime against other Italians? Who did the Polish Mafia? Who did the Russian mob? Who does the Israeli mob commit crime against those that are closest to them, but we don't understand it in that context. Shantella Sherman (23:19): Wiler, I'm going to throw this in here real quick. The University of Pennsylvania has a long history of studying black folks, especially ones that they consider to be degenerate types. For years, I did a series for Acumen Magazine called the Crack Baby Turns 30. And it looked at a study, a longitudinal study that the University of Pennsylvania was doing where they actually studied the children, the newborn babies that were left at the hospital by women who were crack addicted at that point. And they had these terrible lines in their notes saying things like, these children don't look you in the face. They are born with a pathology. They will be criminals and they will be murderers. And they don't even cry like real babies. They're like animals, okay, 30 years on and they're studying these kids every month 30 years later, they come back and say, each one of those children provided they were given to an aunt, a grandparent or someone else, and they were loved on and taken care of. (24:21) They turned out just fine. None of them have been in prison. None of them have committed crimes. None of them have had out welock babies, most of them. I think they said 90% of them have been to college. Alright. So it automatically tells you that the nature versus nurture is really just a dream. It's a dream sequence in some madman's laboratory where you're going to try and make a case by creating an environment where you're defunding this and unhinging people and then saying, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy or this is all about the numbers and these are the stats and this is where this goes. And it is simply not true. Wilmer Leon (25:04): Some may have heard me tell this story before, but nature versus nurture, really quick example, I went to a private Catholic high school in Sacramento, Christian brothers high school and had to pay tuition to get there. So whether it was hook or by crook, I can obviously afford to be there. I'm there. So the guidance counselor at the time, Mr. Patrick O'Brien sees me wearing a Hampton sweatshirt and I'm walking down the hall and he says, Wilmer, what is that? And I said, oh, this is the sweatshirt from the college I'm going to go to. And he says, you're going to college? I said, yeah, Mr. O'Brien, I'm going to college. He said, Wilmer, have you ever thought about trade school? I said, no, I have never thought about trade school. He says, well, why not? I said, because honestly, Mr. O'Brien, I don't want to have to take the ass whooping that I'm going to take if I go home and tell my parents I'm not going to college. Now there's nothing against going to trade school, but in my house. Shantella Sherman (26:13): Exactly. Wilmer Leon (26:14): That was not an option, Shantella Sherman (26:16): Not one. So Wilmer Leon (26:21): It was all a matter of environment. And so people look at my son now who just graduated from Hampton, and the boy understands he has two options, conform or perish. So it's not a miracle, it's an environment. It's a level of expectation that is set. It's a matter of standards that must be maintained and understanding if you follow the path, life is great. If you deviate from the path, you might have a problem on your hands and you have to make a decision, do I want this problem or do I? That's all. Am I wrong? Shantella Sherman (27:12): No, I mean it's spot on. And I think that again, we understood this 50 years ago in a way that we are not passing that information down now. So the fact that someone can come to me now with eugenic thoughts and tell me if a black child hasn't learned to read by the time they're in the third grade, they have automatically lined themselves up to go to prison. Who came up with that foolishness? Wilmer Leon (27:38): Wait a minute, I'm one of those kids. I'm one kids. Shantella Sherman (27:45): Come on now. Wilmer Leon (27:46): I was reading well below grade level when I was in the third grade and they had shifted, and that was the time when they had shifted how they were teaching reading away from phonics to sight words. Fortunately for me, my parents, we had a very dear friend, Mrs. Bode, Mrs. Gloria Bode, who was a reading specialist, she would come to the house three times a week after dinner. She taught me phonics. And within Goy, it wasn't even a month, I went from reading below the third grade level in third grade to reading at the seventh grade level. All she did was teach me phonics. Shantella Sherman (28:40): Exactly, exactly. So the fact that you can add fake science over here with the eugenic themes, add it to policy, trickle it into the school system, add some funding issues with this, it's like I need you to understand that's what public libraries are for. I need you to understand that every child learns at a different rate. I need you to understand that if there's calamity all around this child outside in the neighborhood, they're not listening for concentration purposes and it may be hindering them. There are things that we knew and we knew how to meet those challenges to ensure that the children in this great space would be able to matriculate. We haven't gone bonkers. So why is it that we are feeding into this and actually accepting that it's true? And then getting on television and saying yes, as a black psychologist, it is true that if black kids don't start reading, you have black people who don't know how to read until they are adults, but they've never committed crimes and they didn't turn into degenerates. So why are we leaning this 10 toes down? It really is a fact. Wilmer Leon (29:47): I know some of those people who became very productive individuals and education became very, very important for them because they understood the value of what they didn't have. And they instilled in their children who went on to college and went on to get master's degrees and other advanced degrees, and many of those kids didn't even realize until after they got out of school that their parents couldn't even read. Shantella Sherman (30:13): Many people went to their graves as black people and white people who never learned to read period, but that was not a part of their character. If you can't read, you're automatically going to become a criminal. That's not the way this works. It's not the way it works. So the fact that we bought into this again tells me that we're moving back into these eugenic themes without, it's the popular social eugenics that the average everyday person is just like, yeah, that makes sense. It does not. Wilmer Leon (30:43): It only makes sense if you don't have any sense. So moving into these popular eugenics themes, getting to now the question that I opened the show with, how does the false construct of race and yes, race is a false construct or the real constructs of culture and cultural identity factor into our opposition to or support for a political candidate. And that all centers around, and I'll state the obvious here at right now, the presumed democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, whose father is Jamaican, whose mother is Indian, and she in some circles is considered to be an African-American woman. I've heard her referred to as such. I've also heard her in many current commercials referred to as an Indian-American woman. And I want to stress this is not a judgmental conversation. Shantella Sherman (31:54): No. Wilmer Leon (31:55): Let me throw it to you, Dr. Sherman. Shantella Sherman (31:59): The issue at hand warmer is that however many of those boxes she chooses to check that show diversity or Wilmer Leon (32:06): Check for her Shantella Sherman (32:08): Either way, either way, all of those lend themselves to the greater eugenic conversation, which is she is non-white. Okay, 1924, racial integrity, that act coming out of Virginia said there are only two races. Skip the Monga, Loy Caucusi. We're going to scratch all of that. There are only two races, white and non-white and the fact that she's also female, that's another thing that we have to deal with. Public perception, American public perception, sometimes global public section of what it means to be any of these things or an amalgamation of all of these things. And some people may be offended by the term amalgamation, a mixture. We're all a mixture of a bunch of other things. What does that mean? And so each one of these people who are definitive about whiteness and Americanism and patriotism, they're questioning as they did with Obama citizenship. They're questioning her womanhood at this point. They're questioning as Wilmer Leon (33:15): They did with Michelle Obama. Shantella Sherman (33:17): Exactly. They're questioning. But on this side, how many kids does Kamala have? And then the fact that, Wilmer Leon (33:26): Didn't JD Vance call her a cat woman because she doesn't have any biological children of her own? Shantella Sherman (33:31): What is that exactly? Wilmer Leon (33:34): Wait a minute. I got to mention when I mention his name, we always must say for those who don't know, JD Vance is now Donald Trump's vice presidential nominee. He's the same guy who about three years ago compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. So one has to ask the question, how does the guy who three years ago called another guy Adolf Hitler, wind up standing next to that guy as his vice presidential nominee. He didn't even call him Mussolini. He called him Hitler Shantella Sherman (34:07): And pay attention to the fact that when Kamala, Kamala was named as Joe Biden's running mate, once again, I heard the senator call say, okay, now we are going to have aunt your mama in the White House. This woman doesn't look like aunt your mama, no connections whatsoever. But all of a sudden this is what folks are thinking of you in these spaces all along. And so the nastiness of it starts to come out the thing. Wait Wilmer Leon (34:40): A minute, and that takes me to Tiger Woods when he first won the master's tournament and the year after the master's tournament, the winner gets to determine the menu for the player's dinner. And Fuzzy Zeller says, oh, we going to have fried chicken tonight. Shantella Sherman (34:58): Fried chicken and watermelon. Wilmer Leon (35:00): There you go. Shantella Sherman (35:01): Yeah. So again, my question is if we are that removed from the plantation at this point, why are you constantly trying to throw people back onto it? Or these are the only references that you're coming up with when you can clearly see in front of you that this isn't the case, it's the Fair State University, their whole thing, their memorabilia collection that they have of racist items that came up 1870 and moving forward. And it was like while we are saying they're racist, these are the things that keep peace in many white minds. I need an anama salt and pepper shaker. I need an anama cookie jump. I need to put her face on the pancake box. I need to have two little black kids as the icons or the folks that I'm using for gold dust soap powder and for this and for that and for the other. (36:00) And so in researching how labels and emblems and mascots were created, you start to find that when white people feel uncomfortable in this country, they tend to hold onto the things that they did love about black people. And so that hasn't changed. We're going to show Kamala dancing and we're going to show her doing all of these things, loving cats, the things that make white people feel good and feel comfortable and feel wholesome and feel whole. She is a part of our group. And at the same time you have black people who are going, but she's married to someone who's not black. Wilmer Leon (36:40): I was asked that question, I won't mention the woman's name who said to me, Wilmer, why do black men, Hey Kamala Harris. And I said, I don't know that black men do hate Kamala Harris. I haven't seen any data. I said, but let me pose this to you. Why does she hate black men? And it was what I said, well, she didn't marry her brother. And I said, so I'm not equating the fact that she didn't marry a brother to say that she hates black men. I am just posing that as a ridiculous premise to your ridiculous premise and riddle me that and I couldn't get an answer. Shantella Sherman (37:28): No, we are still stuck in an antebellum mindset. Many folks are just still stuck there. And so it doesn't make sense that I can walk into a room and someone is waiting for me to flip some pancakes or am I the cleaning lady? Am I here for any type of servant position? Nothing wrong with servants, but when you visually look at a person and you start to assess them, not my character, not any of these other things, but sight, you're seeing me for the first time. If your reaction is to put me into this particular position, you need to ask yourself why. This is something that as the commander in chief, potential commander in chief of this country, that she's going to have to face down in the same way that President Obama had to. But she's also going to have this added level of this is a female who does not have children and all of these other, she's suspicious to folks. She's suspicious to the nation. And that is simply unfair and it's unfounded, but it's how we do things here a lot of times. Wilmer Leon (38:40): So let's take the other side of this because when she first announced that she wanted to be president in this, after Joe Biden stepped down, the narrative was she's earned it. She deserves it. I think it was Simone Sanders Townsend who was saying, and some of her other surrogates who were saying, what does the Democratic, what problem does the Democratic party have with wanting a black woman at the top of the ticket? It was all about her being an AKA. She went to Howard and she can do the electric slide. We were falling into that same mindset in terms of rallying the troops around her instead of asking the questions, where does she stand on Gaza? What's she going to do about Ukraine? What's her policy on Cop city? Where is she on the George Floyd Act and policy issues? And when we started listing policy issues and wanting her to articulate where she stands on policy, then the question becomes, why are you hating on the sister? Why do you hate black women? No, I don't hate black women. I know that AKAs Howard University and I have two degrees from Howard, so I ain't hating on Howard and being able to do electric slide that ain't going to feed the bulldog. Shantella Sherman (40:16): Well, and the truth of the matter, I don't believe our percentage is 13% still because it's just not fathomable we've been producing. So I'm going to say the black population is country. Let's say it's at about 18% right now. Alright? You still have the whole rest of the country that to some extent mentally and emotionally, you're going to have to reunite in the same way Obama had to reunite them because they had blown apart with even the thought of having a black man in office. Okay, you're going to have to suture us back together. Wilmer Leon (40:54): Donald Trump was the reaction to Barack Obama. Shantella Sherman (40:58): Absolutely. And the belief that even at this point, I still have people saying, Barack Obama is running the White House behind Biden all this time. And I'm going, are you serious? So it doesn't matter the truth. The truth doesn't matter at this point. It's what you feel. And I'm telling people it's not about what you feel. Your feelings don't enter into the facts at this point. Thank you. I need you to start talking about the fact that the housing in this country is so deliberately greedy and ridiculous that working people are living in homeless shelters. All right? I need you to talk. College Wilmer Leon (41:33): Professors in California are living in their cars. Shantella Sherman (41:38): I need you. And this is across the country and quite frankly across the globe. So I need you to talk to me about investing and divesting in certain things. I need to know where Kamala stands on certain things. I haven't really heard. I don't know what her platform is on certain things. I would love to have someone talk to her rather than having Megan thee stallion up dancing with her. I don't care about that. I don't want to hear about that right now. You're telling me people are blowing me up about Project 2025, which by the way is nothing but the NATO group and some other folks from 1925 still trying so much conservative policy. This isn't new. Wilmer Leon (42:14): It's not new. It's called New Gingrich's Contract with America. Shantella Sherman (42:18): Thank you. Nothing on that list is new. Nothing on it is new. So it's like even if it were true, and I understand that a lot of it is not true. It wasn't in the 880 page document that most people haven't read. When I started sifting through it, it was like that didn't happen. That's not in the document. That's not there. These are proposals. And do you know how many think tanks put out proposals every time there's about to be a change of leadership? So it's like don't get up in arms. This is something that we always face. But in the meantime, can you tell me where if this were something that was about to take place, where are your local leaders positioned on this? Because we got Biden in office right now, but you still can't afford to get a bag of potato chips for less than $4 or $5 right now. What is going on with the cost of living and the American dream? Why are you having corporations buying up housing so that the average person can't afford 'em? Wilmer Leon (43:10): BlackRock, Shantella Sherman (43:12): Help me out. Wilmer Leon (43:14): People don't understand that As a result of the Covid crisis and the mortgage crisis and all of these homes that people were put out of BlackRock and other venture capitalist companies were buying up the housing stock and they weren't putting the housing stock back on the market for sale. They were putting the housing stock back on the market for rent. Absolutely Shantella Sherman (43:45): For rent. And if you're charging, there's nothing, I'm going to say it on the record, there's nothing inside Washington DC that's worth $5,000 a month as a two bedroom apartment. Nothing. Nowhere in this city is it worth it. But those are the going rates. And so we can look at this. Go ahead, I'm Wilmer Leon (44:02): Sorry. And as Vice President Harris is on the stump saying, Donald Trump is a convicted felon. And as a former prosecutor, I know how to deal with felons. I know that personality well, when you had Steve Mnuchin in your sights when he was the bankster in California and your staff brought you a thousand felonies committed by the man, you didn't pursue the case against Steve Mnuchin who wound up being our Secretary of Treasury under Donald Trump. So don't hate Malcolm said, when my telling you the truth makes you angry, don't get angry at me. Get angry at the truth. I don't do the electric slide. I'm not an A KAI am in the divine nine, but I don't do that. And so those things don't matter to me, Dr. Sherman, Shantella Sherman (45:00): It's going to have to matter to us what the policies and standpoints are that Kamala Harris brings to the table. I just want to know her positions on things. I have the lesser of two evils true as it appears, and I believe she would make a wonderful president, but I would love to know where she stands on all of these issues that are also international issues that are also, I've been trying to get someone from the state of California, a representative, and I don't have to call the person's name to talk to me about the sterilizations that are being forced on black and Spanish women inside California penitentiaries for the last eight years. And I can't get a callback. So I want you to understand that it's not about blackness. It's about I need you to make sure that my American dream isn't a nightmare, that you get to blame on Donald Trump or anybody else. We have black elected officials. We're not holding anyone accountable and we're not holding them accountable from the moment we elect them. You're not asking the proper questions, and so you Wilmer Leon (46:04): Won't get the right answer. Shantella Sherman (46:06): I want Kamala Harris to win. I put on the T-shirt, all of that. But in the meantime, I want to know where she stands on some things that impact my quality of life and the quality of life for the folks who are around me. I've crossed 50 years old at this point, so I'm trying to figure out if I had to go lay down and retire somewhere, is there a patch of dirt in the woods for me that you want going to then come through and arrest me for being homeless on and lock me up for it? That's a reality. They're locking up homeless people. It's their laws in certain states now. And these states have black representatives. No one's talking about this. We are talking about the suits that people are wearing and their connections and affiliations with other things that don't benefit us at the moment. Wilmer Leon (46:51): And rappers Shantella Sherman (46:52): Well, and just while you dancing, when it comes time to pick your kid up from the daycare center, are you going to find out that they've raised the rates? So you got to pay $3,500 a month for the kid to go to the daycare? Wilmer Leon (47:04): And two things. One is we keep hearing that we can't afford to provide quality daycare to people across the country, but we can send a trillion dollars to Ukraine. See, budgets are numeric representations of priority. Shantella Sherman (47:26): And also add to that, even if we didn't have the money, we had the consciousness, we had the heart to say that the grandmother in the neighborhood who was opening her home should still be able to do that without being licensed to a point where she has to pay $2,500 to the city and go to a class for eight. She raised 10 kids and 15 grandkids. She knows what she's doing. You've kept us from being able to have that communal space. Now that's not just, I want some money that's being vindictive. You're setting up the parameters, the variables that are going to lend to the things that you're talking about as black people and poor people. You're creating poverty. That's what you're doing right now. Wilmer Leon (48:11): Norway can do it, Finland can do it. Denmark can do it. They're doing it. Shantella Sherman (48:19): Anyone who is for their citizens can and will do it. The difference here is that we're not working together. We've always been fighting against each other. It's the infighting. I want my kids to be able to have it, but not your kids. I don't want immigrant kids. I don't want my kids around the Spanish kids. They're going to learn Spanish and it's too many of 'em and they're undocumented and they can have diseases, and I don't know what they're into. Well, the same thing was said about black people coming into white spaces. So if we're going to do America, we got to do America for everyone, and we got to make sure that these policies don't hurt this person in order to make me feel better. And in the long run, end up hurting me as well. Wilmer Leon (48:58): My current piece is you're with her, but is she with you? And the premise of the piece is, and I say this in the piece, it's not about her. It's about us. And what are we going to demand of her relative to us? Because that's what policy politics is all about. It's about policy output. It's not about the Divine nine and Howard University and the electric slide. It's about policy output. She went to the Cara comm meeting as vice president and try to convince the leaders of those Caribbean nations to be the minstrel face on American imperialism to invade Haiti. How does a black woman whose father is from Jamaica believe that our invading Haiti is a good idea? She didn't go alone. She went with Hakeem Jeffries and some other folks, Linda Thomas Greenfield. How do these black people, how do these black people buy into imperialist, neo-colonial policies like that? And so I make that to take us back to the eugenics question and the identity Shantella Sherman (50:26): Question, and I'll throw that to you because it's all about the fitness of the individual person or the group. And so Haiti has always been the bastard black child that even black folks don't want to claim a small minority of black folks always down for Haiti, always. I'm there with you. But there are all these people who are still, you want to glamorize Africa, but you won't set foot there. You want to go to Africa, but you don't want to stay there. You don't understand the politics, the culture, the language, the faith, none of it. But since it's been tagged onto you as African-American, you claim it. But again, when you get down to it, we still have eugenic thoughts as black people about who is fit and unfit, who is worthy, who is unworthy. And it's about nothing related to character. It is about nothing related to morality or how people handle you or them being good people. (51:27) It's all about the same things that white people use the litmus test to define you. And so we cannot get away from that as easily as we think and things like this. When we get into a space like this, it magnifies it and we start to see ourselves and it does not look good. It doesn't look good on us at all. Haiti, poor black people, folks living in the projects historically by colleges and universities, not the elite eight, the big eight, but the rest of 'em, the ones that we don't really want to talk about this in them other states that we don't want to deal with, alright? We don't want to deal with that. There are things that we need to discuss to make sure that HBCUs and the Divine Nine still exists. If the federal government starts pulling money back. We've had the heirs desegregation case. (52:20) We've had a similar case in Maryland where basically HBCUs are being said to be anti-white at this point. And in order to get the money that these HBCUs won for having been discriminated against with funding, it's being said, in order to get the money, you now have to have five to 10% of your student population be minority. That minority has to be white. So now you are giving free education to white students in order to get the money that's owed to you from having been discriminated against in the first place. You have to understand in street terms, we've been in a trick bag for a minute, right? And we need to stop playing games. It's late in the day. You need to heal your line. Alright, I'm going back to Hurston. Heal your line. You need to understand that you're about to get caught up in the very trap that you've been setting and you're not paying attention. You're simply not paying attention. We haven't been paying our alumni fees like we're supposed to. Our schools are still dependent on federal government funding and state funding. We are not standing alone. So we need to make sure that our leadership also understands that, that we need to have practical solutions and policies so that we're not reacting to things, but literally charting a course and setting it and staying on that course. Wilmer Leon (53:44): What are you demanding? And two things to your point about funding and HBCUs, the HBCUs in Maryland won a case against the Maryland government for not properly funding those HBCUs. As the state had funded, the predominantly white institutions went all the way to Maryland Supreme Court and the schools won. The Republican governor, Larry Hogan refused to give them the money that the court awarded and forced those institutions to negotiate a lower number. I don't remember what the numbers were off the top of my head, but Shantella Sherman (54:33): What? Yes, sir. What again? The exact same thing happened in Mississippi. And that's why I said that was the heirs desegregation case. And it was the exact same thing. The money that came down to fund the Mississippi schools, they gave the HBCUs less money when they disseminated. And it was like, okay, Mississippi won the HBCUs won the case, but the content, the little fine print said, we are going to give you the money, but now you are required at this point to add 10% of your population needs to be minority on a black campus that's not black students. And they said, we can pull in some Africans and some people that still fit. No, you need to have some white students on this campus now. So that was the quote. That's how they got around it. And it was like, wow, these are the nasty tricks that I'm talking about. And so if it happened in Mississippi and it's happened in Maryland, where else is this happening? Can I get leadership to understand this is how you tie black hands behind the backs of citizens that actually want to go to school. Wilmer Leon (55:45): Final thing, symbolism. And again, I'm getting back to ethnicity and cultural identity as it relates to Vice President Harris. And I'm not picking on her, she just is the poster child of this in the moment because there's an awful lot of symbolism that is being used here. And again, they rather be symbolic than talk about substantive policy output. Shantella Sherman (56:22): The symbolism goes to the heart of the nation. Whose nation is it? Whose America is it that's which one of the presidents? Wilmer Leon (56:39): Well, you mean we want, we want, oh Shantella Sherman (56:41): No, no, Coolidge, Calvin Coolidge. Okay, whose country is it anyway? And so you literally, you're having white Americans say, this is ours and we've allowed you to be here, Wilmer Leon (56:56): Tom Tancredo, and we want, and the Tea Party, which was the precursor to Donald Trump. We want our country back. Shantella Sherman (57:06): So again, but how have you lost it? Wilmer Leon (57:09): Who has it? Because I don't have it. Tom Tan credo. If you're listening, if you're watching, I don't have your country. Shantella Sherman (57:18): And again, so that's how you start again. You're going to see an explosion of language about women having babies and birth control and all this. And again, it's this. They're having natal conferences once or twice a year where people are talking about we need to get the country back. And getting the country back means we need white women to have babies and they're not having them. And so based on that alone, any white female who's out here supporting Donald Trump and all of these policies, they don't necessarily understand what you're about to do is send yourself back into the house because there's a good white man that needs the job that you're sitting in. You need to be producing babies bottom line. And if you're not, you serve no purpose. Now to the nation, that is a Hitler esque thing, but Hitler got it from us. So that is a Francis Galton thing. Wilmer Leon (58:11): In fact, thank you very much because you and I had talked about that Francis Galton father of modern eugenics, there's a book Control the Dark History and troubling present of Eugenics just by Adam Rutherford. Talk about Francis Galton and talk about Adam Rutherford's book. Shantella Sherman (58:32): Just the idea First Rutherford's book is an amazing examination. I think that it's something that pulls together a lot of the research from different spaces and different years and to synthesize it the way he has it makes it make sense to the average person, which is critical at this point. It's not talking above folks head. So you get to the critical analysis of we need these birthing numbers. Statisticians started coming in and Galton is right here in the middle of this. And you have the eugenics record office who are literally charting birth rates and they're trying to figure out with immigration, emancipated black people. And then you end up with Chinese people and all these other folks that are coming in. And then you start having women who decide they're not going to stay at home. These rates matter and they have mattered for the last 150 years because whoever has the birth numbers, when we start talking politics, these are voting blocks. (59:32) And if I can put you under duress, if I can incarcerate you and then tell you based on the fact that you're in prison, you are no longer a citizen, so you are not able to vote because you have a felony charge. That is a reality for those black men who are huddled in prisons. But the other part of that reality is that because during the reproductive height of their lives, they're in prison, it means that they're not reproducing children. And so there's a duality to having black men and Spanish men and locked into these prisons and degenerate white men. We don't want babies from them anyway. Wilmer Leon (01:00:08): And the fastest growing cohort in prisons are women. Shantella Sherman (01:00:13): And when the women go into the prisons, they are automatically taken before what used to be the sterilization board. They're given a physical examination. If you're a black woman, a Spanish woman, and you have fibroids, they're going to tell you, we're not going to manage your fibroids while you're here. We're just going to recommend that you have a hysterectomy. Or they may not even tell you. So great documentary Belly of the Beast looks at the California state Penitentiary system and they're just ad hoc deciding to sterilize black and Spanish women without their consent and without their knowledge because they said, once we open you up, it's easier just to go ahead and snip you than to worry about having to pay for your children, either ending up in prison, being slow and retarded mentally having to go to special schools or having to pay through the welfare system because they're not normal. Because you're not normal. You're breeding criminals. And so we have to look at these things. I think Rutherford did a great job, but Galton has been talking about, he started talking about this when he coined the phrase, we were already talking about this and the black bodies on plantations started this whole, let's check the women's bodies and see what they can manage and hold as far as their fecundity, as far as they're being able to breed the next crop of Americans. Wilmer Leon (01:01:28): Are those eugenic practices relative to women of color in California? Prisons still going on as you and I are speaking right now. Shantella Sherman (01:01:38): Absolutely. Wilmer Leon (01:01:40): So our vice president, Kamala Harris, who is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee is from Berkeley, was the DA in San Francisco, was the attorney general in the state of California, was the senator from California. I haven't heard anybody ask her this question. Shantella Sherman (01:02:05): I have not heard anyone ask Wilmer Leon (01:02:10): Anybody Shantella Sherman (01:02:10): Elected official. You've only had the Congressman Ell from North Carolina who got reparations for folks who had been sterilized, many of them black in North Carolina. He's since passed away. Virginia asked that people come forward if they had been sterilized, but people couldn't come forward because they didn't know they'd been sterilized. You took them in and told them that they had an appendicitis. So they didn't know that the reason why they didn't produce children is because when they went into the hospital, you decided to do a hook and crook on 'em. They didn't know. So based on just that information, you have very few people in the state of Virginia to come forward and to receive the money. California is now offering some reparations to folks. But if you're in those penal systems, it's still going on. You don't have control over your body. Wilmer Leon (01:03:08): And I want to be very clear to say, I'm not for those that just heard me ask that question and Wilmer, why are you blaming her for this? I'm not. I'm saying I haven't heard anyone ask her this question again because it's not about her. It's about us. And what are we as a political constituency? What are we going to do? What are we going to demand? What are we going to get if we are responsible for putting her in office, which everybody says Democrats can't win without black people. Speaker 4 (01:03:55): Okay, Wilmer Leon (01:03:56): All right. Speaker 4 (01:04:00): Again, I think that she would make an amazing president again. I simply want to know what her policies are. I want to know how she's going to fight against and how she's sizing up her time in office. And that's what I want to hear from her. That's it. Wilmer Leon (01:04:19): Dr. Chantel Sherman, I am so appreciative of you joining me today, as always, dear. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, Speaker 4 (01:04:27): Thank you. Anytime, Wilmer Leon (01:04:29): Folks, thank you all so much for listening and watching the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon, and my brilliant, brilliant friend and guest, Dr. Chantel Sherman. Stay tuned for new episodes each week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, would greatly, greatly appreciate it. Follow me on social media. You can find all the links below to the show there. And remember, folks, that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge talk without analysis is just chatter. And you can tell by this, we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you all again next time. Until then, I am Dr. Wier Leon. Have a great one. Peace.

Jonathan Agnew talks to Dr Adam Rutherford. The scientist, educator and author regularly appearing on television and radio, and along with Dr Hannah Fry hosts the hugely successful BBC Sounds podcast “The Curious Cases of Rutherford & Fry”.From the TMS commentary box at Trent Bridge they discuss Adam's style when playing cricket, the lack of scientific testing to fully understand how and why a cricket ball swings, and which TMS regular is Aggers loosely related to?

The History of Bad Ideas: TaxonomyFor the latest episode in our series about the hold of bad ideas, we welcome back the geneticist Adam Rutherford to talk about Linnaean taxonomy, a seemingly innocuous scheme of classification that has had deeply pernicious consequences. From scientific racism to social stratification to search engine optimisation, taxonomy gets everywhere. Can we escape its grip?Sign up now to PPF+ to get ad-free listening and bonus episodes to accompany every series. Coming soon: two bonus bad ideas just for PPF+ subscribers www.ppfideas.com Next time on The History of Bad Ideas: Helen Lewis on women against the enfranchisement of women. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How does our understanding of genetics shape the health of the public? In this month's episode, our experts dive into the exciting world of genetics, exploring the latest technological breakthroughs and innovations. They discuss not only the value of these advancements but also the ethical considerations surrounding them, particularly in how they can enhance the health of the public. Dr Adam Rutherford (bestselling author, broadcaster and lecturer in genetics and society at UCL) shares his wealth of knowledge on the evolution of genetics, and the common misconceptions that persist in the field. Adam delves into the historical context of genetics and its entanglement with eugenics, reminding us of the ethical considerations that must accompany scientific advancement. Prof George Davey Smith, a clinical epidemiologist and director of the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, discusses the impact of genetics on the health of the public. He highlights the potential of genetic data to revolutionise healthcare and offers a critical perspective on the consumer genetics market. Listen for an in depth look at the complexities of genetic diseases, the implications for health policy, and the ethical dimensions of genetic research. Public Health Disrupted with Rochelle Burgess and Xand Van Tulleken is produced by Annabelle Buckland at Decibelle Creative / @decibelle_creative

A Cilla Black impersonating, somewhat lonely, diabolo wielding child Suzi Ruffell grew up to be a brilliant comic and tap dancing extraordinaire. She and Harry discuss what it was like to be working class, dancing on The One Show and it is our first play of The Intergenerational Quiz! Dr Adam Rutherford was our expert telling us all about DNA, you can buy his book and find links to his podcasts and radio shows on his website - www.adamrutherford.com Get in touch with your jokes: harry@arewethereyetpod.co.uk Producer Neil Fearn Website: www.harryhill.co.uk Instagram: @mrharryhill YouTube: @harryhillshow A 'Keep it Light Media' production All enquiries: HELLO@KEEPITLIGHTMEDIA.COM Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For the first episode in our new series about the hold of bad ideas David talks to the geneticist and science broadcaster Adam Rutherford about eugenics: from its origins in the 19th century through its heyday in the 20th century to its continuing legacy today. Is eugenics bad science, bad morality, bad politics – or all three? What are the fears that keep drawing people back to trying to control the consequences of human reproduction? And is a new age of consumerist eugenics upon us?For ad-free listening and bonus episodes – including more bad ideas – subscribe to PPF+ www.ppfideas.comNext time on The History of Bad Ideas: Helen Thompson on the Gold Standard Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

London, and the river that runs through it, is at the heart of the new play London Tide, an adaptation of Charles Dickens' Our Mutual Friend. Ben Power has adapted the novel and co-written original songs with the singer-songwriter PJ Harvey. He tells Adam Rutherford that although it combines the savage satire and social analysis of the original, it is, in essence, a love letter to the capital. London Tide is playing at the National Theatre until 22nd June.The award-winning architect Amanda Levete reflects on the challenges of designing buildings and public spaces in major historic cities around the world – taking into consideration the aesthetics of the built environment, whilst meeting the needs of the community and tackling sustainability.Amanda Levete considers the Pompidou Centre in Paris to be one of the twentieth century's most iconic buildings and an inspiration for her own architectural practice. The journalist Simon Kuper takes stock of his adopted city, as Paris prepares for the Olympics. In Impossible City he explores today's ‘Grand Paris' project which aims to connect its much famed central areas with its neglected suburbs.Producer: Katy Hickman

In our final episode David and Lea discuss liberation movements, from post-colonial liberation to women's liberation, gay liberation and animal liberation. What, if anything, do these movements have in common? Is liberation about equality or is it about difference? And who needs liberating next – children?You can hear our bonus episodes for this series by signing up to PPF+ www.ppfideas.com In the first bonus episode – available now – David and Lea answer listeners' questions about AI, technology, online surveillance and brains-in-a-vat: what happens to freedom if we're living in a computer simulation?Coming next our brand new series: The History of Bad Ideas, beginning with Adam Rutherford on eugenics. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Adam Rutherford is a scientist, writer, broadcaster and President of Humanists UK.He is a Lecturer in Biology and Society at University College London, where he teaches the history of eugenics, race science, genetics, and science communication.He is one of the UK's most well-known science communicators and in 2021 was awarded The Royal Society David Attenborough Award in recognition of his contribution to strengthening public confidence in science through radio, TV, films, talks and books, and in particular, for challenging racist pseudoscience.His BBC programmes include Start The Week, Inside Science and The Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry. He's written several books including 'A Brief History Of Everyone Who's Ever Lived', 'How To Argue With A Racist' and 'Control: The dark history and troubling present of eugenics'.https://www.adamrutherford.com/https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/people/dr-adam-rutherfordhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Rutherfordhttps://twitter.com/AdamRutherfordhttps://www.youtube.com/live/hIIgAIB5AWw?si=Cgj0Q8DATkF2ucRdNOTES: When Adam mentions 'the Hammersmith Apollo with Brian and Robin', he's talking about an annual science, comedy and music charity event in London held at the Eventim Apollo (which depending on your age you actually refer to as the Hammersmith Odeon or the Hammersmith Apollo, rather than its current name) or at the Royal Albert Hall, hosted by Professor Brian Cox and comedian Robin Ince.Trump's Obsession with Genetic Superiority and Bloodlines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6iSgqFahoMNick Bostrom's paper ‘Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards' (pdf): https://nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.pdfElon Musk Is Totally Wrong About Population Collapse (paywall): https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-population-crisis/The Cluster F Theory Podcast is edited by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada.Subscribe for free to The Cluster F Theory Podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theclusterftheory.substack.com

We're a nation obsessed with genealogy. Millions of us are gripped by TV shows like 'Who Do You Think You Are', where genealogists show celebrities their famous ancestors - like Danny Dyer being descended from Edward III, the first Plantagent King! But what if Danny doesn't get exclusive bragging rights? With the help of mathematician Hannah Fry and Habsburg Royal Historian professor Martyn Rady, population geneticist Dr Adam Rutherford sets out to prove that we're all descended from royalty, revealing along the way that family trees are not the perfect tool for tracing your heritage. But can it really be true? Can we all be descended from Henry VIII or Charlemagne!?

As we approach the conclusion of 2023, we reflect on a year that not only signifies our 10-year anniversary but also marks another chapter of The G Word. Throughout the year, guests have joined us fortnightly to share their research, stories, and aspirations for the future of genomic healthcare.  In this special end-of-year episode, Naimah Callachand sits down with Dr Rich Scott, Interim Chief Executive Officer at Genomics England, to look back on the last decade of Genomics England. Tune in as we revisit memorable moments from the 2023 podcast episodes through key quotes, reflecting on the transformative journey of Genomics England. Join us for this insightful recap and a glimpse into the exciting future ahead!  Below are the links to the podcasts mentioned in this episode, in order of appearance:  Adam Rutherford, Laurence Hurst, Cristina Fonseca and Vivienne Parry: Public views on genetics - what have we learnt?  Dr Jack Bartram: Can genomics improve our understanding of childhood cancers?  Helen Webb, Lizzie Mordey, Kirsty Russell and Prabs Arumugam: How can advances in genome sequencing support patients through their sarcoma journey? Vivienne Parry and David Bick: Which conditions will we look for initially in the Generation Study?   Dr Nicola Byrne: What are the challenges of data governance in the digital age?  Chris Wigley: The journey to the Human Genome Project and beyond with Dr Francis Collins   “We're also looking to the future where, as I say, we're proud of the impact that there already has been, and the NHS Genomic Medicine Service is the first national healthcare system to offer whole genome sequencing and that is extraordinary. Thinking about how we can broaden our impact is a really important part of that, and that's thinking about how we can be supportive of genomic technologies broader than just whole genome.”    You can read the transcript below or download it here: Reflecting-on-2023-transcript.docx   Naimah: Welcome to the G Word. Rich: We're in an extraordinary time. The power to analyse genomic data has changed enormously. These are big changes in terms of the, sort of, analytics that AI could bring and the potential to work not just within the UK but with other countries and other big initiatives to make sure that we're answering the questions as best we can. Naimah: I'm your host Naimah Callachand and today we'll be hearing from Rich Scott, Interim CEO for Genomics England. He'll be sharing insights with us from the last year, and we'll be revisiting key moments from earlier podcasts in the year featuring some of the voices that have shaped our discussions. If you enjoyed today's episode we would love your support, please like, share and rate us on wherever you listen to your podcasts. Now let's get into the interview. So, this year we celebrated our ten-year anniversary and as 2023 comes to a close we want to reflect on our achievements not just in the last year but over the last ten. So, Rich first of all can you talk us through where we started in 2013 and where we are now? Rich: It's amazing really to think about how much things have changed in terms of genomics in clinic and in hospitals and then for us as Genomics England over the last ten years. So, actually thinking back ten years ago was only ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, and when one thinks about what one could do in clinic and those questions you could answer using genomics in clinic. We could see what was coming, we could see these new technologies, next generation sequence in coming, but it was much more dependent on very targeted testing. And now with, you know, our founding project, the 100,000 Genomes Project that Genomics England was founded to deliver in partnership with the NHS we asked the first big question if you like which was how can whole genome sequencing play a role in routine clinical care. And that's now played out where evidence from the project, what we've learnt, the infrastructure we've built, and also evidence from around the world that through the NHS Genomics Medicine Service has now put that into practice and we're working in partnership to help them deliver it. So, it has gone from an idea where we could see this new technology, this potential, to a position where now patients in the NHS with cancer or with rare conditions have whole genome sequencing as a routine part of their clinical care where that's in that national genomic test directory that NHS England have set up. Naimah: Earlier in the year we heard from Dr Adam Rutherford, geneticist, author and broadcaster who commented on how the public perception of genetics and science has evolved over the last few decades. “I've been doing this a long time and I think that when it comes down to it, genetics which is a relatively young science and really in a sophisticated way, you know, a mere few decades old, but what is it at its absolute core, it's thinking about families, it's thinking about inheritance and it's thinking about sex. And these have been the major preoccupations of humans for thousands of years, and it's only really in the last century, really only in the last 30 years or so, that we've had a sophisticated understanding of how these things work, if indeed we have had at all.” Naimah: Let's get back to Rich. Rich, I've already touched briefly on it, but can we dive a bit deeper into the 100,000 Genomes Project and can you tell me a bit more about how it started. Rich: Yes, so the 100,000 Genomes Project as I said was there to ask what role can whole genome sequencing play in understanding medical conditions, you know, is it ready for clinical prime time. And also how can we link routine clinical care to research so that we're not just asking questions with today's knowledge, but we can continue to build that knowledge for the future. So, the 100,000 Genomes Project was driven by that idea that people realising, the government realising and the NHS forming a partnership with us Genomics England to explore that question in real depth. And it's not just about the clinical aspects and the scientific questions, it has also been working with participants and the public to understand how we could do that. And through the 100,000 Genomes Project we worked particularly with patients with cancer and rare conditions to see how we could help make diagnosis and improve care. And also with their consent make their data available in our secure, trusted research environment so that researchers could continue to look for answers that we couldn't answer today, and we continue to do that work for those participants now. Naimah: Next we're going to hear from an interview with Dr Jack Bartram, a Consultant Paediatric Haematologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. He spoke about the significance and impact of integrating genomics into routine clinical care in diagnosing cancer in children. “If I look back and if I reflect on the last three years, you know, we could probably accurately say at least a quarter of patients it has given us additional information which is either aided in diagnosis or like I had said help risk stratify a patient or potentially reveal a target for a therapy that we didn't know of before. And what this has led to and what we've seen over the last three years or so is that we have actually changed management of patients based on this. So, definitely we've got examples where we scan clarify the diagnosis, we've changed the risk category, or we've identified for example that an unexpected cancer predisposition in a family which has then led onto screening for the family which can then give the family the knowledge to try and do things to either modify the risk of cancer in the family or at least screen for it so they can detect things early to prevent things presenting too late.” Naimah: Okay, now let's talk a little bit about some of the initiatives at Genomics England. Can we talk about how they've progressed and what they might look like in the future. Rich: Yeah, so we really are on a journey both as an organisation but with all of those partners that we work with across the UK system. And one of the great things I think about genomics and genomics in the UK is that the ecosystem that we're in and the strong partnerships that we can form to ask these really big questions. So, if you like when we formed as an organisation we had the questions that we're asking around diagnostic use of whole genome sequencing in the 100,000 Genomes Project. And if you like in our second chapter as we've moved on to support the NHS in delivery of life clinical care we also have been thinking about the other big questions that we need to address. And those have played out and we've been really fortunate to gain the funding and to work in partnership with the NHS and others on these big questions. So, firstly our newborn genomes programme, secondly our diverse data programme and then our cancer 2.0 initiative. And each of them have big questions behind them so that we're saying, you know, where could genomics better support healthcare and move forward and improve care for everyone. Our vision at Genomics England is a world where everyone can benefit from genomic healthcare and each of them is pushing those boundaries, asking those questions in different ways. For the newborns programme the big question is should every newborn baby be offered whole genome sequencing driven particularly by that potential to identify more treatable severe genetic conditions at birth, and if so how should we do that. Again, developing evidence in and around really broadly across the clinical and scientific aspects, but also engaging and understanding public attitudes how we might do that. And really understanding how that might impact on the healthcare system, how it might be delivered in clinical care. For the diverse data initiative we recognise the challenges historically that there have been because of the inequity in terms of the communities who have been engaged with and included in genomic research. And the diverse data initiative aims to both understand where we are today but also to make sure for example the national genomic research library is at least representative of the UK population so that we can work towards again that word that's in our vision, everyone, a world where everyone can benefit from genomic healthcare. And in the cancer 2.0 initiative we've been exploring two really promising areas in terms of cancer genomics. Firstly, exploring different sequencing technologies and in this case partnering with the NHS to work on the Oxford Nanopore technology which we think is really promising in terms of use in diagnostics to speed up and better diagnose and treat cancers. And also looking in our multimodal element of our cancer 2.0 initiative at bringing in a broader range of data alongside the genomic and clinical data that participants in our programme consent to us holding in our trusted research environments. And bringing in image data, images of their tumours on the histopathology slides that are looked at traditionally down a microscope but scanning those at very high resolution and with uniformity between participants working with NPIC to do that. And also bringing in imaging, so radiology type imaging, of tumours so that that data is there to drive new discovery. And working in partnership with academics and with industry for example insitro to understand how we can both bring that data together usefully, put the right tools next to it and then allow that discovery so that our participants know that we're looking not just on what we know today but to improve things for the future. Naimah: Rich mentioned some of our initiatives here at Genomics England. And now we're going to hear from some G Word guests on how these programmes can make a difference for those with a genetic diagnosis. We spoke to Lizzy Mordey, a clinical trials co-ordinator, whose husband Steve sadly passed away last year after receiving a sarcoma diagnosis. Lizzy commented on the pivotal role whole genome sequencing can play in receiving a quicker diagnosis on the identification of suitable treatments for patients with sarcoma. “Personally, I would hope for quicker diagnosis, and I know that's super hard to do and I think as we've discussed before on this call it's such a rare thing and it, kind of, often doesn't fit the standard clinical pathway and that's one of the reasons why it's so frustrating. So, anything that we can do on that front that I think would be hugely valuable to anyone experiencing a journey like what me and Steve went through, and yes advances like genome sequencing are really amazing in supporting that. Yes, as I mentioned as well any information about types of treatment, you know, the diagnosis is important but then the other aspect of getting a diagnosis and a specific diagnosis is understanding what's most likely to help.” Naimah: Next we're going to hear from David Bick who is a principal clinician for the Newborn Genomes Programme at Genomics England. He spoke about the generation study which is being delivered in partnership with the NHS. “I'm doing this because I imagine a day when all over the world we will find and treat children before they get ill. This is one of the most wonderful programmes to be involved with because I can see that future. I want there to be a healthcare system. I really want to help children stay healthy and really live their best lives, that's what's so exciting for me.” Naimah: Now let's get back to the interview with Rich. You mentioned all of the partnerships there and also one important one is with the NHS. As you know the NHS also celebrated its 75th anniversary year as well as our tenth anniversary. And I wondered if you could tell me a bit more about that relationship with Genomics England and the NHS and how we're working together.  Rich: Our relationship with the NHS is absolutely critical. So, as we're thinking about what we can do to enable better genomic healthcare we're so fortunate in this country to have a national healthcare system. And for us and for our work at Genomics England it's absolutely critical to work hand in hand with NHS England both in supporting their live clinical services so we enable their national whole genome sequencing service through the Genomic Medicine Service and also as we work through all of our patient facing research. So, as we did for the 100,000 Genomes Project, as we are for our Newborn Genomes Programme and so forth co-designing these programmes so that the evidence that we're able to generate is relevant in the UK for our healthcare system but also that national scale is just so extraordinarily powerful. And I think we're really lucky for many reasons, the UK genomics ecosystem, it's richness, the investment that has come from government and from the NHS in genomics and the recognition of its importance and from funders, and then that ability to ask questions at national scale. And when you look internationally I think that's the piece that people are often most jealous of in terms of the power of the questions that we can ask together with the NHS so that we can do exactly what we want to do which is transform care so that it's better in the future. Naimah: Rich highlighted the importance of our relationship with the NHS in transforming patient care. Louise Fish, CEO of Genetic Alliance UK commented on the importance of joined up care following diagnosis to support them throughout their lives. “So, there is a lot more we need to do to work with the NHS to make sure that the care from the health service is joined up and co-ordinated for people. And then beyond that how does the co-ordination reach out to education, to housing, to benefits, to social care. The bit that almost should be simplest is if the NHS has someone who understands your child's condition. But it should be possible for their school to be in touch and to find out how that condition is going to affect them and what support the school might need to put in place through an education health and care plan, but those links out to the other services aren't there either. So, for us there is a lot of work to do that's not just around the diagnosis but it's about ensuring that lifelong care and support is delivered in a co-ordinated way. And as more people are getting genetic diagnosis through this amazing, kind of, clinical advances how do we make sure there is also investment into the clinical services that are going to support people throughout their lives.” Naimah: One of the key factors in supporting Genomics England to deliver this important work and all of our initiatives is the participants and the trust that they have in us. I wondered if you could share a bit more on this, so how Genomics England works with their participant panel. Rich: Yes, so I think one of the things I'm proudest about at Genomics England and it was established about the time I was arriving at the organisation is the participant panel who are a group of our participants who represent a broader participant across the national genomic research library. And they're a part of our governance, which governance sounds like a boring word, our relationship with the participant panel and their role in our governance is absolutely critical. They are the people whose data we are the custodians of, and we have a responsibility to them to live up to their expectations and also to make sure that they're driving the decisions that we're making. An example is how we setup the access to data for researchers. So, I mentioned that the way the national genomic research library works and a model that we developed through engagement with the public and with the input of our participants is that people can visit the de-identified data in our trusted research environment, but they can't take it away. They come and look at the data, they carry out their research which is on approved projects that is exploring healthcare questions. Those researchers have to go through an access process overseen by an independent access review committee that has our participants on it. So, they are making the decisions about the sort of research that they are comfortable with and that they want to be done on their data, and I think that's really critical. It has also been a real pleasure to work with our participants as we design future programmes either on for example finding further answers or looking for better treatments for people who are already in the national genomic research library, already a part of our participants or to help us design future programmes, for example our Newborn Genomes Programme. Our participants as well as engagement with potential future participants and the public more broadly has been absolutely critical in guiding us on how we do that. It's a team sport what we're doing in many different ways. That's with our broader ecosystem, it's with our participants, and that means this isn't about some people going away and sort of thinking up what sounds like the right programme and using all of their knowledge and expertise and producing something which is set in stone. This is about dialogue and engagement and using that to understand the right way of us approaching the questions we are and responding to what we hear. And our participant panel are absolutely critical in that. Naimah: And maybe it would be good now to discuss a bit about the new challenges that we're currently facing such as AI and issues with data sharing and data protection. Can you comment a bit on that. Rich: Yeah, so genomics is a fast moving area. We're really proud of the impact that we've had already, but we also recognise that at the moment we can only use genomics in a particular number of clinical situations. And even within those we can only help a certain proportion of patients. And what our participants say to us is that we need to be restless if you like and not accept where we are today. I think it's quite easy to merely celebrate progress but it's really important to also then ask where we need to be going next. I'm always guided by our participants thinking about what the new technologies are and what the different ways of approaching these scientific questions is critical. We're in an extraordinary time, genomic technology has changed enormously. The power to analyse genomic data has changed enormously. These are big changes in terms of the sorts of analytics that AI could bring and the potential to work not just within the UK but with other countries and other big initiatives to make sure that we're answering the questions as best we can. That brings with it as with all of these areas questions about how you best do things and how you balance the importance of privacy, data privacy, with the benefits of being able to look across larger number of research participants to find answers that you just wouldn't otherwise. Likewise with AI there is the potential for us to both speed up current processes but also ask broader questions that we can't yet using some of these technologies. Doing that in conversation with our participants and the public to understand how to best balance the different benefits and also clarify where there are, sort of, very clear expectations that we shouldn't exceed is really important. And I think that's one of the things that puts us in such a strong position is that confidence that our participants are guiding us and often, and speaking as a doctor myself, it's interesting the medical community is often quite paternalistic, quite cautious and quite narrow in what they might think their participants would want. What we like to do is be driven by what our participants want and expect, and I think that has been really important for us in our history up to now as an organisation and increasingly in the future. Naimah: Yeah, and I think you've really highlighted how Genomics England were trying to keep the participants at the heart of everything that we do. Dr Nicola Byrne, the National Data Guardian for health and adult social care in England spoke about challenges with sharing health data and the importance of transparency and accountability in how data is used to support better outcomes from health and care services. “So, it's absolutely important that people feel that they can share that information and then feel confident that any information they do share is going to be used in ways that are safe, appropriate and ethical. Whether that's for their own care or thinking about the benefit of other people in future through research, innovation and planning.” Naimah: Well, let's get back to the interview for some final reflections with Rich. So, we've been looking back at our achievements over the last ten years, and I'll be keen for us to look at what's next. So, we've touched on it, but let's take some time to reflect on the research that has taken place across the global genomic landscape for example and, you know, what we've done here at Genomics England. Rich: The world has changed a lot in ten years. We've learnt a lot ourselves as an organisation and the researchers that work with our participants data and the national genomic research library have done extraordinary work. So, to give you a flavour of the sorts of things that I guess have changed in terms of what we can enable them doing in terms of research and research work. When participants data enters the research library they're consenting to their genomic data sitting there alongside deidentified clinical data from their longitudinal health records. As I said through our multimodal cancer initiative we're also now able to bring in image data for our cancer participants. And increasingly, and this is something that Matt Brown, our chief scientist, was talking a lot about at our research summit in September, was bringing in additional modalities of data alongside that. So, for example, in our rare disease participants bringing in proteomic, transcriptomic and long read data alongside the current sets of data. It means that that resource becomes even more powerful and able to answer a broader set of questions and able to ask questions across a broader set of data in terms of what might be useful for improving the understanding of medical conditions and improving clinical care. So, for example, there has been amazing work over the last few years on cancer and the mutational signatures that are there in tumours. For example, Serena Nik-Zainal's group understanding the patterns of mutation that are there in tumours driven by the underlying biology, not just because it helps us understand how things have happened, but also because it helps us understand about prognosis and how to treat conditions. We've got really exciting early insights from the work on the image data, that multimodal data, working as I said with academia and also looking at the work that insitro are doing. Recognising patterns between you can see down the microscope of a tumour and the genomics. To understand some of those processes that we've just not been in a position to explore before. And I think one of the really powerful pieces of work that is ongoing and will continue to is the ability for researchers and teams within Genomics England to continue to look for answers as our knowledge improves. So, some of the research work that we're doing is discovering some new fields if you like of understanding. We also know that each year literally hundreds of new genes linked to rare conditions are identified. So, enabling research that allows us to go back and look in our existing participants data to see if that new knowledge, that new knowledge about gene to condition links or better understanding of genomic variation means that we can keep looking for and finding things relevant to people who at the moment are research studies, 100,000 Genomes Project, or the Genomic Medicine Service initial testing with today's knowledge or the knowledge of today or whenever their test was couldn't identify because of the limitations of knowledge. Now we can go back and identify through by sharing likely insights of clinical importance with NHS laboratories. We can then pass those findings back to participants and that has been the case in more than 2,000 of our 100,000 Genomes participants already and it's enormously powerful. I think as we think about the direction of travel in the future, I think thinking about how we make sure that the breadth of questions that can be addressed for our participants in the national genomic research library is even broader, is really important. And that's, as I say, something that's particularly bringing in other types of data alongside has been a really important part of. We're also looking to the future where as I say we're proud of the impact that there already has been, and the NHS Genomic Medicine Service is the first national healthcare system to offer whole genome sequencing and that is extraordinary. Thinking about how we can broaden our impact is a really important part of that, and that's thinking about how we can be supportive of genomic technologies broader than just whole genome. So, for example,  panel and exome data and thinking about some of those other modalities of data like transcriptomes is really important as well for us. And that's something that we're exploring at the moment how we best do that, how we might do that. Also thinking about the range of settings that genomics is currently playing a role and we can see a future in five to ten years' time where rather than genomics being something where it plays a role in a small proportion of healthcare encounters where it could be impactful, over a much larger proportion, perhaps even up to a half of all healthcare encounters through, for example, pharmacogenomics potentially. And our Newborn Genome Programme is developing evidence that will help us understand whether that whole genome sequencing should be offered to all newborns. Potentially in research studies like Our Future Health are asking questions around the value of integrated or polygenic risk scores. Through those sorts of elements we can see genomics playing a role much more broadly both in terms of the number, proportion of clinical settings where it's relevant, much more towards it being a routine part of healthcare, but also across the lifetime at different stages and thinking about the value of genomic data if you like through the life course as something that can be looked at repeatedly increasingly without requiring specialist knowledge from the clinical teams so that it can have the impact it can. And thinking about how we might play a role in developing that evidence but also supporting the infrastructure through our expert knowledge in the management of coherent national genomic data sets. And also having that dialogue in public about how genomic data might be used and working out how we generate evidence that can drive policy change. I think there is enormous potential in the future and we in the UK I think remain uniquely placed to explore those sorts of questions. Naimah: So, we'll wrap up there and that brings us to the end of our podcast for 2023. Thanks to Rich Scott for sharing his reflections on the last ten years of Genomics England and his aspirations for the future. Moving into the new year we'll leave you with a powerful quote from our podcast with Dr Francis Collins who is renowned for his landmark discoveries and leadership in the Human Genome Project.  “My dream Chris is that we come up with in the next decade a scalable approach to every genetic disease where you know the mutation.” You can find all of the podcast episodes mentioned in this podcast plus many more on our website www.genomicsengland.co.uk or on your favourite podcast app. We look forward to bringing you some new episodes with more exciting guests in the New Year but do get in touch if you have any topics you would like us to cover. I've been your host Naimah Callachand, and this episode was edited by Mark Kendrick at Ventoux Digital. Thank you for listening.  

One of Early Modern Europe's most powerful families, the Habsburgs shared a physical trait so distinctive that it came to be regarded as a badge of honour - the large, jutting jaw that was a result of family inbreeding. But that was only part of their physiological challenges.In this episode of Not Just the Tudors, Professor Suzannah Lipscomb talks about genetics, inbreeding and the sad fate of the Habsburgs with Dr. Adam Rutherford, author of A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Stories in Our Genes.This episode was produced by Rob Weinberg.Discover the past with exclusive history documentaries and ad-free podcasts presented by world-renowned historians from History Hit. Watch them on your smart TV or on the go with your mobile device. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code DANSNOW - sign up now for your 14-day free trial http://access.historyhit.com/checkout?code=dansnow&plan=monthly.We'd love to hear from you! You can email the podcast at ds.hh@historyhit.com.You can take part in our listener survey here.

Andrew Copson speaks to award-winning writer, comedian, and former doctor Adam Kay who shares the beliefs that have shaped his life and career. From the original values of the NHS, to questions about its future, he lifts the lid on one of the UK's most cherished institutions, founded by humanist Nye Bevan, and offers a glimpse into the challenges facing patients, healthcare workers, and the NHS as a service.   Adam's new book, Kay's Incredible Inventions, is out now: https://www.waterstones.com/book/kays-incredible-inventions/adam-kay/henry-paker/9780241540787   He is a patron of Humanists UK: https://humanists.uk/about/our-people/patrons/adam-kay/   In May 2023, Humanists UK held an 'In Conversation Event' with Adam Kay, hosted by its President, Adam Rutherford: https://humanists.uk/2023/05/17/humanists-uk-presents-adam-kay-with-the-voltaire-lecture-medal/ What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by. Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member:  You can follow Humanists UK on Twitter (X), Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review! What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

Andrew Copson chats with geneticist and author of How to Argue With a Racist Adam Rutherford about the motivations behind a career spent challenging false claims from religion and pseudoscience. From unshackling ourselves from the constraints of evolution, to charting the trajectory of our long history, it's a reflective discussion that emphasises our common humanity and capacity to build a better society.    Adam Rutherford is the current President of Humanists UK. He delivered Humanists UK's 2019 Voltaire Lecture, How to argue with a racist, which became the basis for his 2020 bestselling book of the same name: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYf-xNsIb2I   What I Believe was the title of two separate essays by the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the philosopher EM Forster in the early 20th century. These two humanists set out their approach to life, their fundamental worldview, in a way that was accessible to all. In this podcast, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, Andrew Copson, speaks to humanists today to understand more about what they believe, to understand more about the values, convictions, and opinions they live by.    Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non religious people to advance free thinking and promote a tolerant society. If you'd like to support the podcast or find out more about the humanist approach to life or the work that we do, please visit humanists.uk. If you like what you see, please consider joining as a member: https://humanists.uk/   You can follow Humanists UK on Twitter (X), Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – and please remember to leave a 5 star review!     What I Believe is produced by Sophie Castle.

Dr Adam Rutherford is a geneticist, a broadcaster and science populariser and his latest book, aimed at young people, examines evolution, what race really is, and what makes us human. Broadcaster and author Kate Humble will be sharing the inspiration behind her new book which sees her on a quest to define what makes a house a home. And Peeps Nicol - who after being diagnosed with MS and then being widowed - wanted to find a new hobby. Peeps recently became a powerlifter and now at 71 years of age she's deadlifting heavy weights. We'll be hearing her story. All that plus the Inheritance Tracks of chef and author Tom Kerridge. Presenters: Nikki Bedi and Olly Mann Producer: Gareth Nelson-Davies

Celebrating 200 years of cricket in Corfu, Simon Hughes is joined by members of the touring Authors cricket team - Ed Smith, geneticist Adam Rutherford and historian Peter Frankopan to talk the science of selection, unravelling unconscious bias and the impact of climate change on cricket Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

One of Early Modern Europe's most powerful families, the Hapsburgs shared a physical trait so distinctive that it came to be regarded as a badge of honour - the large, jutting jaw that was a result of family inbreeding. But that was only part of their physiological challenges.In this episode of Not Just the Tudors, Professor Suzannah Lipscomb talks genetics, inbreeding and the sad fate of the Hapsburgs with Dr. Adam Rutherford, author of A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Stories in Our Genes.This episode was produced by Rob Weinberg.Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free original podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians including Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Lucy Worsley, Matt Lewis, Tristan Hughes and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code TUDORS. Download the app on your smart TV or in the app store or sign up here >You can take part in our listener survey here >For more Not Just The Tudors content, subscribe to our Tudor Tuesday newsletter here > Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this edition of Parallax Views, geneticist Adam Rutherford joins us to discuss his new, timely book Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics. British philosopher John Gray, author of Stray Dogs, praised Control saying, "[Rutherford's] scientific demolition of the eugenic project is brilliantly illuminating and compelling. His book will be indispensable for anyone who wants to assess the wild claims and counter-claims surrounding new genetic technologies." Believe it or not, the idea, or pseudoscientific mindset as Rutherford refers to it, of eugenics did not die with WWII and the atrocities of the Nazi Third Reich. In fact, elements of it still linger in the culture today. This is why Rutherford wrote Control, a book that attempts to explore the history of eugenics, the opposition to it, and the scientific problems with it from the perspective of an accomplished geneticist. In this conversation we discuss not only the history of eugenics, but also the opposition to it from Christian like G.K. Chesterton, eugenics and H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, tackling modern eugenicist thinkers like Richard Lynn who offer an intellectual, pseudo-academic sheen to eugenics and the ways in which Rutherford believes we should pushback on their claims, and a even a brief discursion into Adam's work with filmmaker Alex Garland on the Natalie Portman-starring sci-fi movie Annihilation. All that and more on this edition of Parallax Views!

Krauter, Ralfwww.deutschlandfunk.de, Forschung aktuellDirekter Link zur Audiodatei

The economic historian and former trader Anne Murphy looks back at the Bank of England in the 18th century. In Virtuous Bankers she shows how a private institution became ‘a great engine of state' and central to Britain's economic and geopolitical power. Anne Murphy tells Adam Rutherford that both its inner workings and outer structure had to command the respect of the general public. Interest was a fact of life long before the involvement of central banks and goes back as far as ancient Mesopotamia. In Price of Time the financial historian and Reuters' commentator Edward Chancellor explores its long history and warns of the financial instability caused by years of low interest rates. Far from benefitting the majority of individuals, the ultra-low rates following the banking crash in 2008 have proved a boon for bankers, financiers and corporate stakeholders. After the crash, the businessman David Fishwick was concerned that few people or small businesses in his home town of Burnley could get access to credit. His challenge to the traditional high street banks was to set up his own banking enterprise which became Burnley Savings and Loans – a story told in a Channel 4 series and the film Bank of Dave (on Netflix). He argues for a return to banking as a means to serve and grow the local economy. Producer: Katy Hickman

Inspired by Charles Darwin's ideas about evolution, the theory of eugenics arose in Victorian England as a proposal for ‘improving' the British population. It quickly spread to America, where it was embraced by presidents, funded by Gilded Age monopolists, and enshrined into racist laws that became the ideological cornerstone of the Third Reich. Despite this horrific legacy, eugenics looms large today as the advances in genetics in the last thirty years—from the sequencing of the human genome to modern gene editing techniques—have brought the idea of population purification back into the mainstream. Today's guest, Adam Rutherford, author of “Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics” calls eugenics “a defining idea of the twentieth century.” Eugenics has “a short history, but a long past,” Rutherford writes. With roots in key philosophical texts of the classical world that formed the basis of the Nazi worldview and the rationale for genocide, eugenics still informs present-day discussions and beliefs about race supremacy and genetic purity. It remains an eternal temptation to powerful people who wish to sculpt society through reproductive control.

Adam Rutherford asks what ordinary life was like in the Soviet Union and how far its collapse helps to explain Russia today. Karl Schlögel is one of the world's leading historians of the Soviet Union. In his latest book, The Soviet Century: Archaeology of a Lost World (translated by Rodney Livingstone), he recreates an encyclopaedic and richly detailed history of daily life, both big and small. He examines the planned economy, the railway system and the steel city of Magnitogorsk as well as cookbooks, parades and the ubiquitous perfume Red Moscow. The historian Katja Hoyer presents a more nuanced picture of life in East Germany, far from the caricature often painted in the West. In Beyond the Wall: East Germany, 1949-1990 she acknowledges the oppression and hardship often faced by ordinary people, but argues that this now-vanished society was also home to its own distinctive and rich social and cultural landscape. But what did it feel like to live through the fall of communism and then democracy? These are the questions Adam Curtis looked to reveal in his 7-part television series, Russia 1985-1999 TraumaZone (available on BBC iPlayer). The archive footage from thousands of hours of tapes filmed by BBC crews across the country records the lives of Russians at every level of society as their world collapsed around them. Producer: Katy Hickman

If you've claimed welfare benefits in Europe lately, there's a decent chance that authorities have used an algorithm to assess whether you might be trying to scam the system. The problem? All kinds of discrimination are baked into these calculations. This week we speak to Gabriel Geiger, one of the journalists behind an international investigation into these ‘suspicion machines'. We're also looking back at a week of highs and lows for Europe's climate policy, and celebrating Pompeii's fluffy new recruits.  You can find the various pieces published as part of Lighthouse Reports' ‘suspicion machines' investigation here and follow Gabriel on Twitter here. The Guardian graphic that Dominic mentioned, explaining why it's so hard to power ships with electricity, can be found here. This week's Isolation Inspiration: 'Lessons' by Ian McEwan, Traute Lafrenz's obituary, and 'A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived' by Adam Rutherford. Thanks for listening! If you enjoy our podcast and would like to help us keep making it, we'd love it if you'd consider chipping in a few bucks a month at patreon.com/europeanspodcast (many currencies are available). You can also help new listeners find the show by leaving us a review or giving us five stars on Spotify. 00:22 The highs and lows of modern technology 02:52 Good week: Europe's maritime fuel deal 10:45 Bad week: The great combustion engine flop 19:33 Interview: Gabriel Geiger on Europe's suspicion machines 36:11 Isolation Inspiration: 'Lessons' by Ian McEwan, Traute Lafrenz's obituary, and 'A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived' 40:05 Happy Ending: Pompeii's fluffy new recruits Producer: Katy Lee Mixing and mastering: Wojciech Oleksiak Music: Jim Barne and Mariska Martina Twitter | Instagram | hello@europeanspodcast.com

Control is a book about eugenics, what geneticist Adam Rutherford calls “a defining idea of the twentieth century.” Inspired by Darwin's ideas about evolution, eugenics arose in Victorian England as a theory for improving the British population, and quickly spread to America, where it was embraced by presidents, funded by Gilded Age monopolists, and enshrined into racist American laws that became the ideological cornerstone of the Third Reich. Despite this horrific legacy, eugenics looms large today as the advances in genetics in the last thirty years (from the sequencing of the human genome to modern gene editing technique) have brought the idea of population purification back into the mainstream. Join us when Dr. Adam Rutherford examine his book Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics on this installment of Leonard Lopate at Large.

The theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli celebrates the life of an ancient Greek philosopher, in Anaximander And The Nature Of Science (translated by Marion Lignana Rosenberg). He tells Adam Rutherford that this little known figure spearheaded the first great scientific revolution and understood that progress is made by the endless search for knowledge. Anaximander challenged conventions by proposing that the Earth floats in space, animals evolve and storms are natural, not supernatural. The travel writer Kapka Kassabova has gone searching for ancient knowledge about the natural world in her latest book, Elixir: In the Valley at the End of Time. The Mesta River, in her native Bulgaria, is one of the oldest inhabited rivers in Europe, and a mecca for wild plant gatherers, healers and mystics. In Dvořák's lyric opera the eponymous hero Rusalka is a water spirit who sacrifices her voice and leaves her home for the love of a Prince. In a new contemporary staging at the Royal Opera House (21 February–7 March 2023) the co-directors Ann Yee and Natalie Abrahami foreground the uneasy relationship between nature and humanity, and the latter's destruction of what it fails to heed. Producer: Katy Hickman Image credit: Asmik Grigorian in Natalie Abrahami and Ann Yee's Rusalka, The Royal Opera ©2023 Laura Stevens

One of the most powerful justifications for racism in the 20th century was eugenics. Based on pseudo-scientific certainties cherry-picked from the messy world of genetics and behaviour, belief in eugenics led to some of the most profound horrors humans have ever experienced. So why are so many aspects of race science coming back alive today? […]

Eugenics is seen as a 19th-century idea put into horrific 20th-century practice. But the attraction to breeding “better” humans has a long and persistent history, says Adam Rutherford. The geneticist and science podcaster explains, in conversation with host Nahlah Ayed.

In this classic show from the archives, atheist scientist Adam Rutherford and Christian biochemist Fazale (Fuz) Rana of Reasons To Believe, discuss the scientific advances in attempting to create simple synthetic life in the laboratory and how this research may be of benefit.   Fuz contends that the amount of ingenuity and intelligence required to produce life in the lab lends strong support to the view that life on earth is a product of an intelligent mind. Adam Rutherford, author of the book "Creation: The Future of life" disagrees. First broadcast 2013.   • Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: https://pod.link/267142101 • More shows, free eBook & newsletter: https://premierunbelievable.com • For live events: http://www.unbelievable.live • For online learning: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/training • Support us in the USA: http://www.premierinsight.org/unbelievableshow • Support us in the rest of the world: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/donate

Was the emergence of the first self-replicating organism a result of design or the blind forces of nature? In today's show from the archvies, Adam Rutherford is an atheist scientist whose book "Creation: The Origin of Life" claimed to show a naturalistic explanation for how life arose. Fazale (Fuz) Rana is a biochemist with Reasons To Believe. He values scientific research into origins but believes that Rutherford's explanation was a dead-end, and that design was still the best explanation. First broadcast 2013.   • Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: https://pod.link/267142101 • More shows, free eBook & newsletter: https://premierunbelievable.com • For live events: http://www.unbelievable.live • For online learning: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/training • Support us in the USA: http://www.premierinsight.org/unbelievableshow • Support us in the rest of the world: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/donate

In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a book about the evolution of non-human animals by natural selection. In its wake, a political idea arose — eugenics. Reading Darwin's book, Sir Francis Galton proposed that humans should be bred to give more "suitable" characteristics a "better chance of prevailing." Today, producer Rebecca Ramirez talks to Adam Rutherford about his new book, Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics, which traces the inextricable link between political ideology and science, and the enduring shadow of eugenics.