Podcasts about carnegie institution

Philanthropy and rare disease are the topics in this week's show, after a global news review with Sasha Kehoe. Philanthropy for Brain Research and Rare Disease What would you do if you had a spare €10,000 or more to donate? Well, the University of Luxembourg has just opened up a new fund to tackle Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and Rare Diseases. You could become part of their ‘Champions Circle' and get to know the researchers, the cutting edge development and help shape the future for so many people in the world with these conditions. Research is expensive and philanthropy can be targeted giving, where you get to make a difference during your lifetime.  Naturally another way to give is to leave a legacy through your will. As an entirely separate aside, it is always a good idea to leave a written will. The act of writing one can crystallise what matters most to you once you're gone, and therefore perhaps what matters most to you whilst you live.  Philippe Lamesch created and leads the Fundraising Office at the University of Luxembourg. His own background is in biological sciences, firstly at Namur in Belgium, followed by research at the and then the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University. https://www.uni.lu/en/about/fundraising/how-to-donate/ Daniela Ragni, Director of the André Losch Foundation, talks about his legacy.  Given that he didn't have his own children, he created the foundation with a mission is to support youth, education and social inclusion. They work in partnerships with people and organisations over a number of years to make real and lasting changes within our community.  Daniela herself spent a couple of decades working for non-governmental organisations trying to raise money and now finds herself on the other side of the this equation, developing relationships with organisations and individuals who need financing for their ideas for the social good of the community, always with a focus on young people.  https://www.loschfondation.lu Rare Disease Associate Professor Dr. Carole Linster's scientific work has made her the leading researcher on rare childhood disease in Luxembourg. Her biomedical science studies started in UC Louvain in Brussels, followed by the prestigious de Duve Institute there, followed by UCLA in California. Here she discovered enzymes that plants depend on to produce vitamin C. Carole and co-workers also discovered several new enzymes of human metabolism, involved in the breakdown of metabolic side products that become toxic when left to accumulate. In collaboration with researchers from Australia, the US, and the UK, the Linster group identified a novel infantile rare neurodegenerative disorder that is caused by the deficiency of one of those metabolite repair enzymes (NAXD).  Carole talks about the fundamental global research that is necessary in order to tackle rare disease, which is not really that rare by definition. It is extremely time consuming for talented scientists to write proposals for grants and other fund opportunities. For this reason again, the idea of university led funds, or partnerships with organisations such as André Losch which can extend over years, takes some pressure off the constant need to ‘ask' for money. Sip of Self-Care Dr. Laura Riordan flew over from Lisbon to join our conversation. She is an Executive and Career Transitions Coach with a Ph.D. in psychology and over 20 years of coaching experience. Through her work of creating the Sustainable Mom methodology, Laura has extended her knowledge to the world of Raregivers - caregivers within families of Rare Disease. From 2019, Laura has developed retreats for rare caregivers to find relief in a supportive community and bolster their self-care practices to sustain themselves and their families at home. Laura talks about the need to look after one's own well-being in order to support a child with a chronic condition. We talk about the diagnosis odyssey, on average 5-8 years with a rare disease. This limbo in itself is a source of immense pain and stress for a family, layering on top financial stressors when often one parent has to give up work to care for a child. The Raregiver's guide trains caregivers and medical professionals on the Raregiver's methodology, a research-based stress relief methodology shared through peer-to-peer support groups and emotional witnessing workshops. The Raregivers organization is singularly focused on providing necessary mental health and wellness services to raregivers - from sustainable psychosocial training and transformative retreats to a connective peer-to-peer multilingual network. Raregivers currently supports over 22,000 rare families across 33 countries. https://www.raregivers.global Get in touch  You can contact Lisa on her website or through LinkedIN. Watch all her shows on RTL Play. Listen on Today Radio: Saturdays at 11am, Sundays at noon, and Tuesdays at 11am. Please do subscribe to the podcast, rate and review.

The science of genetics took a wrong turn in the early 20th century and it ran through Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island. Here overlooking a former whaling port, Dr. Charles Benedict Davenport created the Eugenics Record Office and served as director of the Carnegie Institution's Station for Experimental Evolution. From these posts he promoted and pushed the Eugenics Movement in the US and throughout the world. Historian and attorney Mark Torres has explored the far reaching and sinister influence of Davenport's activities in his new book Long Island and the Legacy of Eugenics: Station of Intolerance (Arcadia Press). It is not the story of a fringe movement but of “the rage of the age.” Eugenics, which sought to control the development of the human race through such means as selective breeding, segregation, and forced sterilizations, was touted by politicians, intellectuals, academics, and even Supreme Court justices. In his work, Torres traces a sinister strategy that included legislative control, the trappings of academic credentials, and partnerships with like-minded movements like the emerging Nazi Party in Germany. On today's interview you'll hear more about the people involved, the power they wielded, and their surprising, ultimate fate. Further Research Mark Torres Long Island and the Legacy of Eugenics (Arcadia Publishing) Eugenics Record Office Collection (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) Audio Footnotes: Episode 138: Long Island Migrant Labor Camps with Mark Torres Music Intro music: https://homegrownstringband.com/ Outro music: Capering by Blue Dot Sessions CC BY-NC 4.0

Living organisms seem exquisitely organized and complex, with features clearly adapted to serving certain functions needed to survive and procreate. Natural selection provides a compelling explanation for why that is so. But is there a bigger picture, a more general framework that explains the origin and evolution of functions and complexity in a world governed by uncaring laws of physics? I talk with planetary scientist and astrobiologist Michael Wong about how we can define what "functions" are and the role they play in the evolution of the universe.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/12/16/299-michael-wong-on-information-function-and-the-origin-of-life/Michael Wong received his Ph.D. in planetary science from Caltech. He is currently a Sagan Postdoctoral Fellow at the Carnegie Institution for Scienceʼs Earth & Planets Laboratory. He is in the process of co-authoring two books: A Missing Law: Evolution, Information, and the Inevitability of Cosmic Complexity with Robert M. Hazen, and a revised edition of Astrobiology: A Multidisciplinary Approach with Jonathan Lunine.Web siteCarnegie web pageStrange New Worlds podcastWong et al. (2023), "On the Roles of Function and Selection in Evolving Systems."Wong and Prabhu (2023), "Cells as the First Data Scientists."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This interview is an episode from ‪‪@The-Well‬, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the ‪‪@JohnTempletonFoundation‬. Watch Hazen's next interview ►   • Are non-living things… evolving? Yes,...   What can minerals tell us about the Earth's evolving colors? According to mineralogist Bob Hazen, they reveal an incredible history. Thanks to new research, we now know that minerals play immense roles in technology, agriculture, and the very origin of life itself, even down to our planet's colors. Hazen explains the mineral roadmap of Earth's transformation – starting as a black basalt-covered planet, evolving into a blue ocean world, transitioning to a red rusted landscape, and finally becoming the green, lively planet we know today. Hazen elaborates on how minerals have been essential in processes like plate tectonics and biomineralization, exemplifying the co-evolution of the geosphere and life. Using the knowledge that each and every mineral serves as a time capsule, we are able to better understand the 4.5 billion-year history - and potential future - of our Earth. ------------------------------------------------- About Robert Hazen: Robert Hazen is a renowned American mineralogist and geologist, known for his pioneering work in mineral evolution and mineral ecology. He is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and a Professor of Earth Sciences at George Mason University. Hazen has written over 400 articles and 25 books, contributing research as a profound leader in mineral evolution and mineral ecology. His studies delve into the complex interactions between minerals and life, contributing to our understanding of Earth's history and the potential for life on other planets. Hazen is also a passionate educator and science communicator. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About The Well Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life's biggest questions, and that's why they're the questions occupying the world's brightest minds. Together, let's learn from them. Subscribe to the weekly newsletter ► https://bit.ly/thewellemailsignup ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Go Deeper with Big Think: ►Become a Big Think Member Get exclusive access to full interviews, early access to new releases, Big Think merch and more ►Get Big Think+ for Business Guide, inspire and accelerate leaders at all levels of your company with the biggest minds in business ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This interview is an episode from ‪‪@The-Well‬, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the ‪‪@JohnTempletonFoundation‬. How did mineral evolution shape our planet? Robert Hazen, a renowned mineralogist, shares his fascinating insights into the co-evolution of minerals and life on Earth. Science has shown us that the universe started with a mere few dozen minerals, and those have since evolved into thousands. This discovery has proven that evolution does not only apply to living systems, like flora and fauna, but is relevant to non-living systems as well. Hazen highlights a deeper connection between these living and non-living systems, emphasizing that all evolving systems share three critical characteristics: interacting components, the generation of new configurations, and a selection mechanism. Whether it's atoms and molecules forming minerals, genes in living organisms, or musical notes creating new compositions, these principles apply universally. When considering how living and non-living systems evolve alongside one another, we can begin to understand how truly connected all of the universe's systems may be. Thanks to this knowledge, we may be closer to discovering our place in the cosmos. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- About Robert Hazen: Robert Hazen is a renowned American mineralogist and geologist, known for his pioneering work in mineral evolution and mineral ecology. He is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and a Professor of Earth Sciences at George Mason University. Hazen has written over 400 articles and 25 books, contributing research as a profound leader in mineral evolution and mineral ecology. His studies delve into the complex interactions between minerals and life, contributing to our understanding of Earth's history and the potential for life on other planets. Hazen is also a passionate educator and science communicator. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About The Well Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life's biggest questions, and that's why they're the questions occupying the world's brightest minds. Together, let's learn from them. Subscribe to the weekly newsletter ► https://bit.ly/thewellemailsignup ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Go Deeper with Big Think:- ►Become a Big Think Member Get exclusive access to full interviews, early access to new releases, Big Think merch and more ►Get Big Think+ for Business Guide, inspire and accelerate leaders at all levels of your company with the biggest minds in business ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This interview is an episode from ‪@The-Well‬, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the ‪@JohnTempletonFoundation‬. Watch more from Robert Hazen ►   • The missing law of nature, and how we...   According to leading mineralogist Bob Hazen, minerals may hold the key for discovering if we actually are alone in the universe. He highlights how Earth's dramatic increase in mineral diversity—from 2000 to over 6000 types—aligned with the emergence of life, which drastically altered our planet's atmosphere and chemical processes. Knowing this, scientists can now look for specific clues in minerals as they study other planets. If another planet, such as Mars, were to have similar biosignatures, it could be a clear indicator that it harbored life at some point in time. This method would not only help us discover if life existed on other planets, but, depending on the specific similarities, could tell us how closely this life resembled our own, and could prove how unique humanity truly is. ------------------------------------------ About Robert Hazen: Robert Hazen is a renowned American mineralogist and geologist, known for his pioneering work in mineral evolution and mineral ecology. He is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and a Professor of Earth Sciences at George Mason University. Hazen has written over 400 articles and 25 books, contributing research as a profound leader in mineral evolution and mineral ecology. His studies delve into the complex interactions between minerals and life, contributing to our understanding of Earth's history and the potential for life on other planets. Hazen is also a passionate educator and science communicator. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About The Well Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life's biggest questions, and that's why they're the questions occupying the world's brightest minds. Together, let's learn from them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Go Deeper with Big Think:- ►Become a Big Think Member Get exclusive access to full interviews, early access to new releases, Big Think merch and more ►Get Big Think+ for Business Guide, inspire and accelerate leaders at all levels of your company with the biggest minds in business ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This interview is an episode from ‪@The-Well‬, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the ‪@JohnTempletonFoundation‬. You may be familiar with the “arrow of time,” but did you know there could be a second one? Dr. Robert Hazen, staff scientist at the Earth and Planets Laboratory of Carnegie Science in Washington, DC, thinks that a single arrow of time may be too limiting. A second arrow, which he dubs “the law of increasing functional information,” takes evolution into account. Specifically, Hazen explains that evolution seems to not only incorporate time, but also function and purpose. Consider a coffee cup: it works best when holding your coffee, but it could also work as a paperweight, and it would not work well at all as a screwdriver. Hazen explains that it appears the universe uses a similar way of evolving not only biology, but other complex systems throughout the cosmos. This idea suggests that while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder. Hazen suggests that these two “arrows” – one of entropy and one of organized information – could very well run parallel to one another. If true, this theory could be groundbreaking in the way we perceive time, evolution, and the very fabric of reality. ----------------------- About Robert Hazen: Robert Hazen is a renowned American mineralogist and geologist, known for his pioneering work in mineral evolution and mineral ecology. He is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and a Professor of Earth Sciences at George Mason University. Hazen has written over 400 articles and 25 books, contributing research as a profound leader in mineral evolution and mineral ecology. His studies delve into the complex interactions between minerals and life, contributing to our understanding of Earth's history and the potential for life on other planets. Hazen is also a passionate educator and science communicator. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About The Well Do we inhabit a multiverse? Do we have free will? What is love? Is evolution directional? There are no simple answers to life's biggest questions, and that's why they're the questions occupying the world's brightest minds. Together, let's learn from them. Subscribe to the weekly newsletter ► https://bit.ly/thewellemailsignup ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Go Deeper with Big Think ►Become a Big Think Member Get exclusive access to full interviews, early access to new releases, Big Think merch and more ►Get Big Think+ for Business Guide, inspire and accelerate leaders at all levels of your company with the biggest minds in business ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As humanity sets its sights on venturing beyond the confines of Earth, it is immensely important to acknowledge that the journey to space is not merely a technological feat, but a profoundly human endeavour. From pinpointing destinations to preparing flight plans, from developing generational ships to designing habitats, from selecting teams to establishing communities, there is a crucial element that must not be overlooked: the human dimension. From fostering a sense of community and shared purpose among spacefarers to grappling with the enforcement of laws and the establishment of governance structures in extraterrestrial settlements, addressing these aspects is essential for the success and sustainability of our off-world endeavours. Erika Nesvold's insightful book “Off-Earth: Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space” serves as a timely reminder that space exploration isn't solely about the scientific and technical aspects—it's about grappling with the very human dilemmas that accompany such endeavours. In the episode of Bridging the Gaps, I speak with Dr Erika Nesvold. Dr Erika Nesvold is an astrophysicist who has worked as a researcher at NASA Goddard and the Carnegie Institution for Science. She is a developer for Universe Sandbox, a physics-based space simulator. She is a co-founder of the nonprofit organisation the JustSpace Alliance. Erika is the creator and host of the podcast Making New Worlds. We began by discussing the significance of understanding the human aspect of space exploration. The book covers a wide variety of topics and in our discussion we touch upon ethical, social and legal complexities that must be understood and adopted or redeveloped for our extraterrestrial settlements. We also discuss the concepts and principles that can be borrowed from the laws and charters devised during humanity's exploration of open seas and oceans. Central to our discussion is the importance of initiating a dialogue now to foster an understanding of how our humanity intersects with the challenges and opportunities presented by space exploration. This understanding, we discuss, is fundamental in shaping a future that upholds ethical principles and fosters social equity. Complement this discussion with “A Traveller's Guide to the Stars” with Physicist, Author and Nasa Technologist Les Johnson available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2023/03/a-travellers-guide-to-the-stars-with-physicist-author-and-nasa-technologist-les-johnson/ And then listen to ““The Next 500 Years: Engineering Life to Reach New Worlds” with Professor Christopher Mason available at: https://www.bridgingthegaps.ie/2022/05/the-next-500-years-engineering-life-to-reach-new-worlds-with-professor-christopher-mason/

In this week's episode, both of our storytellers give us behind the scenes glimpses into why they do what they do. Part 1: While constantly staring at Mercury's craters for NASA's MESSENGER mission, a picture of the Galapagos Islands captures Paul Byrne's attention. Part 2: While serving in the navy to get his engineering degree, David Estrada is struck by the level of poverty he witnesses on the tiny island of East Timor. Paul Byrne received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in geology from Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, DC on NASA's MESSENGER mission, the first spacecraft to orbit the planet Mercury. He later joined the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas, and then moved to North Carolina State University as an assistant and then associate professor. He became Associate Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis in 2021. His research focuses on comparative planetology—comparing and contrasting the surfaces and interiors of planetary bodies, including Earth, to understand planetary phenomena generally. His research projects span the Solar System from Mercury to Pluto and, increasingly, to the study of extrasolar planets. He uses remotely sensed data, numerical and physical models, and fieldwork on Earth to understand why planets look the way they do. David Estrada is originally from Nampa, Idaho. From 1998 to 2004 he served in the United States Navy as an Electronics Warfare Technician/ Cryptologic Technician – Technical. David achieved the rank of Petty Officer First Class in 2003 before receiving an honorable discharge and returning to Idaho to pursue his undergraduate education at Boise State University (BSU) where he was a Ronald E. McNair scholar. After completing his Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from BSU in May of 2007, he began graduate studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) under the direction of Professor Eric Pop. David received his Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from UIUC in 2009, and his Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering at UIUC in 2013. David then joined Prof. Rashid Bashir's Laboratory of Integrated Bio Medical Micro/Nanotechnology Applications as a Visiting Postdoctoral Researcher before moving to the Materials Science and Engineering Department at Boise State University. David is the recipient of the NSF and NDSEG Graduate Fellowships. His work has been recognized with several awards, including the Gregory Stillman, John Bardeen, and SHPE Innovator of the Year awards. His research interests are in the areas of emergent semiconductor nanomaterials and bionanotechnology. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dr. John Mulchaey, Carnegie Science's Deputy for Science and the Director and Crawford H. Greenewalt Chair of the Carnegie Science Observatories, talks about eclipses and why they are important for scientific discoveries.

Dr. John Mulchaey, Carnegie Science's Deputy for Science and the Director and Crawford H. Greenewalt Chair of the Carnegie Science Observatories, talks about eclipses and why they are important for scientific discoveries.

“Dune: Part II” is one of the year's most highly anticipated films, and it picks up where the first film left off: with Paul Atreides escaping into the desert on the planet Arrakis. It's a scorching-hot world that's covered in dunes, and home to giant, deadly sandworms.Obviously “Dune” and its setting are fictional, but could there be a real planet that resembles Arrakis? And if so, could it sustain life?Science Friday host Ira Flatow talks with Dr. Mike Wong, astrobiologist and planetary scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, about what Arrakis' atmosphere is like, the search for life in the universe, and what sci-fi films get wrong—and right—about alien planets.Universe of Art is hosted and produced by D. Peterschmidt, who also wrote the music. The original segment was produced by Rasha Aridi. Our show art was illustrated by Abelle Hayford. Support for Science Friday's science and arts coverage comes from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Do you have science-inspired art you'd like to share with us for a future episode? Send us an email or a voice memo to universe@sciencefriday.com.

Could A Planet Like Arrakis From ‘Dune' Exist?“Dune: Part II” is one of the year's most highly anticipated films, and it picks up where the first film left off: with Paul Atreides escaping into the desert on the planet Arrakis. It's a scorching-hot world that's covered in dunes, and home to giant, deadly sandworms.Obviously “Dune” and its setting are fictional, but could there be a real planet that resembles Arrakis? And if so, could it sustain life?Ira talks with Dr. Mike Wong, astrobiologist and planetary scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, about what Arrakis' atmosphere is like, the search for life in the universe, and what sci-fi films get wrong—and right—about alien planets.Preparing Astronauts For The Loneliness Of A Mars MissionNASA is preparing to send humans to Mars. Although the launch date has been pushed back over the years, the agency says it wants to get there in the 2030s. And it has a lot on its to-do list. NASA needs to build new rockets, new habitable living spaces, new spacesuits, and new radiation shielding, just to name a few items.But what if the one of the biggest challenges of these missions is not the engineering, but the mental health of the astronauts? Can all of the crew members get along with each other and stay alive over the course of three years in tight quarters and unforgiving environments? How will they cope with being separated from their families and friends for so long? And what lessons can they learn from astronauts who've lived on the International Space Station—and from our collective experience of isolation during the pandemic?A new documentary, out March 8, explores all these questions and more. It's called "The Longest Goodbye," and it dives into NASA's Human Factors program, which includes a group of psychologists who are trying to figure out the best way to preserve astronauts' mental health on a long and demanding mission.SciFri producer and host of Universe Of Art, D. Peterschmidt, spoke to the film's director, Ido Mizrahy, and one of its featured astronauts, Dr. Cady Coleman, about how NASA is thinking about tackling loneliness in space and what we can learn from astronauts who've already lived on the space station.Should The Aliens In “65” Have Known About Earth's Dinos?Some science fiction movies, like “Alien,” are instant classics. A good sci-fi movie weaves together themes of science and technology with a gripping narrative structure to create a memorable story that leaves the viewer with something to think about. But some (many) sci-fi movies leave the viewer with one thought: “Huh?”The 2023 movie “65” is in some ways a reversal of “Alien.” Instead of humans coming to an alien world and getting attacked by aliens, in “65,” an alien that existed 65 million years ago crash lands on Earth and gets attacked by dinosaurs. Oh, and the alien is Adam Driver. What's not to get?Sometimes, calling in a real-life scientist is the best way to wrap your head around science fiction. Dr. Lisa Kaltenegger, an astrobiologist at Cornell University, says that if there were advanced extraterrestrials near Earth during the age of the dinosaurs, our planet's life should have been no mystery to them. That's because around 300 million years ago, Earth's atmosphere had abundant oxygen and methane, two of the building blocks of life. Kaltenegger's own research has shown how Earth's atmosphere during that period would have been visible through a telescope—and indicated an even stronger potential for life than Earth's atmosphere today. She also saw “65” on a plane.Based on Kaltenegger's research, should Adam Driver have seen those dinosaurs coming? In an interview with Digital Producer Emma Gometz, she shares how telescopes can spot exoplanet atmospheres, why Jurassic Earth's atmosphere was special, and a few of her thoughts on “65.”Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

咱 ê 宇宙是有偌大？這个問題 tī 1920 年代，是 所有天文問題內底，2 个上有名 ê 天文學家 leh 諍 ê 問題，這就是歷史上有名 ê「天文大辯論」。有足濟天文學家相信講，咱 ê 銀河系 就是規个宇宙。毋過其他天文學家認為，咱 ê 銀河系 是所有星系內底 ê 其中一个。Tī「大辯論」內底，每一个論點攏講甲足詳細--ê，毋過無共識。這个答案一直到 3 年後，tī 仙女座星雲 內底揣著一粒變光星，才解決。這張相片就是證明這个答案 ê 原始玻璃底片，經過數位方式重新處理 ê 結果。Edwin Hubble 比較無仝張影像，注意著這个 光點 ê 強度會變化，煞 tī 1923 年 10 月 6 號 ê 時陣，tī 玻璃底片頂懸寫一字「變！(VAR!)」。Hubble 知影上好 ê 解說就是，這个光點是 tī 遙遠所在 ê 變光星。所以 M31 應該是 仙女座星系 才著，可能 kah 咱銀河系有成。這張 tī 100 年前做記號 ê 影像可能毋是蓋媠，毋過變光星 ê 紀錄 拍開人類智識 ê 窗仔門。這是頭一擺咱知影講，咱 ê 宇宙是大甲毋是款。 ——— 這是 NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day ê 台語文 podcast 原文版：https://apod.nasa.gov/ 台文版：https://apod.tw/ 今仔日 ê 文章： https://apod.tw/daily/20231006/ 影像：致謝 Carnegie Institution for Science 音樂：P!SCO - 鼎鼎 聲優：草莓大福 翻譯：An-Li Tsai (NSYSU) 原文：https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap231006.html Powered by Firstory Hosting

Which planets are hot? Does a planet made of diamonds exist? Why hasn't there been an astronaut on the moon for 50 years? Has a spaceship ever flown near a black hole? Are humans treating space as badly as we're treating our oceans? Students at the Gillen Brewer School interview Dr. Erika Nesvold and ask her all of these questions and more! Visit IndyKids.org to learn more about our newspaper, educational programs and how you can get involved!About Dr. Erika Nesvold:Dr. Erika Nesvold is an astrophysicist who has performed astronomy research at NASA and the Carnegie Institution for Science. She is now a developer for the astronomy video game Universe Sandbox. Erika is the author of Off-Earth: Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space, and co-founder of the space ethics nonprofit the JustSpace Alliance.She can be found on Twitter and Instagram with the easy-to-find handles @erikanesvold. JustSpace can be found on Twitter @justspaceorg and on Instagram @justspacealliance.This podcast was produced and edited by Em Löwinger. Audio recordings by Áine Pennello, and IndyKids' executive director is Isis Phillips.

In his book Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, Thomas Woodward described how early detractors of Darwin's theory criticized the way it personified nature. After all, according to Darwin, “the origin of species,” (the title of his book) occurred “by means of natural selection.” Who did the selecting? Nature.    Darwin's argument relied on an analogy between animal husbandry and what nature does when “she selects” only the fittest to survive, thus driving evolution. However, this analogy conflated the intentionality of human breeders with natural processes, implying that nature has a will and is trying to get somewhere—which is precisely the sort of intelligent causation that Darwinism supposedly refutes.     The result is a theory that often sounds suspiciously circular. Yet there are even bigger gaps in the Darwinian view of nature. The most daunting is how an intention-free universe made the leap from non-living matter to living things in the first place. This is a crucial question because, in conventional Darwinian thinking, only living things are subject to natural selection and thus evolve. The question here isn't just how the fittest survived: It's how the fittest arrived.   But what if natural selection could operate on non-living matter? What if, instead of a process limited only to biology, Darwinian evolution was promoted to a fundamental law governing all physical reality? That's exactly what some scientists have tried to do, most recently in a much-heralded paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.   Entitled “On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems,” the paper proposes a new scientific principle called the Law of Increasing Functional Information, and it's exactly what it sounds like. Lead author Robert Hazen of The Carnegie Institution for Science explains: “We see evolution as a universal process that applies to numerous systems, both living and nonliving, that increase in diversity and patterning through time.” In other words, everything evolves in a Darwinian manner, including “atoms, minerals, planetary atmospheres, planets, stars and more.”  How? According to the paper's nine authors, nonliving systems evolve toward greater complexity if they are, 1) formed from many different components, such as atoms, molecules, or cells that can be rearranged, 2) are subject to natural processes that cause different arrangements to be formed, and 3) if only a small fraction of all these configurations survives or is “selected” for “function.”  Nonliving things, by definition, don't “survive,” which is the function nature supposedly selects for in biological evolution. So, what “function” could nature possibly select in an atom or a galaxy? Believe it or not, these authors argue that existence itself is a kind of function, and that systems that tend to go on existing will be selected by nature, and that we know this, in part, because those systems do, in fact, exist.   Hazen explains:   Imagine a system of atoms or molecules that can exist in countless trillions of different arrangements or configurations. Only a small fraction of all possible configurations will “work”—that is, they will have some useful degree of function. So, nature just prefers those functional configurations.  Writing at Evolution News, intelligent design advocate David Coppedge points out the flagrant personification happening here. Nature “prefers … functional configurations?” It does no such thing, because at least according to Naturalism it has no goal, nor any notion of “function.”   In reality, the attempt to “Darwinize the entire universe,” as Coppedge puts it, is little more than a roundabout way of admitting how well-designed the universe is, and trying to come up with a force that allowed it to design itself. It's an admission that, despite nearly two centuries of claims to the contrary, the cosmos acts like it has an end in mind. It's asking us to assume a law that explains how everything came to be based only on the observation that things are. Set aside this circular reasoning for a moment and ask the real question: If there's a law, who is the lawgiver?   This theory gets us no closer to explaining the complexity, function, purpose, design, and beauty we see in the universe if they're not the handiwork of a Creator. Does nature have a preference for the kind of universe we have? Maybe so. But if “she” does, then that preference, itself, needs an explanation. Scientists trying to turn evolution into a theory of everything might expect nature to answer, “I am who I am.” But there's only One who can truly say that. Why not give Him credit for a change?  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

Researchers at Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and George Mason University say their method of searching for aliens outside the solar system is 90 per cent accurate. Lahaina wildfire: residents return to devastated homes. Musk pose...Tesla's humanoid robot does yoga. Garlic breath? Natural yogurt can fix that. Also in this episode:Lego blocks plan to make bricks from recycled bottlesSet your watch - here's date humans become extinctGreenpeace's Minecraft game to help save Amazon rainforestRewilding America's biggest tortoises on media mogul's ranch Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Robert Hazen is a mineralogist and astrobiologist based at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and George Mason University. His research interests focus on life's origins, mineral evolution, and mineral ecology. Hazen, who also had a 40-year career as a professional trumpeter, has authored more than 400 articles and 25 books on science, history, and music. Robert joins the podcast to discuss the co-evolution of life and minerals, the stories rocks can tell us if we learn to read them properly, and why humans are drawn to the search for life outside of our planet.

Agriculture-related emissions account for 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions. How will hydrogen fuel our path to net-zero agriculture? In our 9th episode, Lorenzo Rosa, Principal Investigator at Carnegie Institution for Science and Assistant Professor (by courtesy) in the School of Sustainability at Stanford University, explains how hydrogen and ammonia will help us decarbonize the agriculture industry to feed the world sustainably

Dr. Michael Wong is a Carnegie Postdoctoral Fellow at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Earth & Planets Laboratory working with Robert M. Hazen, Shaunna M. Morrison, Peter Gao, and others. His primary scientific interests are planetary atmospheres, habitability, biosignatures, and the emergence of life. He is also co-authoring a revised edition of the textbook Astrobiology: A Multidisciplinary Approach with Professor Jonathan Lunine. Dr. Wong's other passions include photography, writing, public speaking, graphic design, and playing a variety of team sports. He hosts a podcast called Strange New Worlds, which examines science, technology, and culture through the lens of Star Trek. Please check out these links from the episode: Strange New Worlds Website Twitter Instagram Boldly Go! Welcome to Dice in Mind, a weekly/biweekly podcast in which we explore the meaning of life through the lens of RPGs!  In each episode, we will consider everyday stuff like science, religion, philosophy, and economics…through the lens of a specific roleplaying game and its dice mechanic. If you like what you hear, consider buying us a cup of coffee or becoming a patron.  You can also join the conversation by following us on Facebook. Music by Kevin McCloud courtesy of Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0 license (https://www.youtube.com/c/kmmusic/featured).

Nuclear power plays an important role in the energy system in many big economies around the world. There are many debates related to this energy source, from energy security to addressing climate change to environmental and social justice. While some countries, like Germany, shut down the last nuclear power plants, others, like China, are still building new ones. Based on a new study published in the academic journal, Nature Energy, Ms. Lyssa Freese, a scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Carnegie Institution for Science, and the leading author of the research, discusses how phasing out nuclear power in the United States may change air pollution distribution and bring higher health risk to the low-income communities. Based on the past policy experience and the paper's main findings, what can policy makers learn to avoid the unintended consequences in the energy justice area from the very beginning of policy design and planning? She also shares some ideas on how the current climate policy may accelerate American energy transition, from Inflation Reduction Act to the new regulations on pollutants emission standards and road transport decarbonization.   

Located in Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie Mellon is a medium size institution home to about 7300 undergraduate students. In 2022, CMU accepted about 11 % of the applicant pool.  The best way to learn about Carnegie Mellon is to tell the TALES of its founders: Born in 1835 in Scotland, Andrew Carnegie immigrated to the US in 1848. According to Wikipedia - by the 1860s Carnegie had investments in railroads, railroad sleeping cars, bridges and oil derricks. He built Carnegie Steel Company which he later sold to JP Morgan in 1901 for 480 million dollars. With this sale, Andrew Carnegie surpassed Rockefeller as the richest man in America. He spent the remainder of his life as a philanthropist – and built  Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Institution for Science, Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, and of course, Carnegie Mellon University, first formed as Carnegie Institute of Technology.  Richard B. Mellon assumed the presidency of Mellon bank, after his brother, Andrew Mellon was appointed Treasury Secretary. Richard's prior experience included President of Pittsburgh Reduction Company and he was invested in the city's Coal Company. Richard and his brother Andrew made several large donations to their alma mater, University of Pittsburgh, including a large sum to create the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research, founded in 1913. In 1967 the Carnegie Institute of Technology and Mellon Institute of Industrial Research merged to form Carnegie Mellon University.   Given the backgrounds of the two men, it is no wonder that the College of Engineering is consistently ranked in the top 10 in the US and US News and World Report has the Tepper School of Business ranked as #6 this year. If you are looking for top engineering and/or business programs, CMU offers a quality education and a rich city in which to take what you learn in the classroom and apply it in a work experience.  There are TWO more cool things about CMU: First, the campus is covered in red circles that line the sidewalk at CMU. Like golden stars on Hollywood Blvd, Carnegie Mellon proudly boasts : 114 Emmy Award Winners, 43 Tony Award laureates, 9 Academy Award Winners Please NOTE: You MUST audition for the School of Drama and School of Music – your admission to the college 80% audition and 20% academic.  Second, they have an annual spring carnival. Students build incredibly colorful, innovative, and imaginative booths and super fun competitions that only the creative minds CMU students could create.  The best part of this tradition is that school shuts down for three full days so everyone can enjoy the fun.  This tells me that the college understands that college is not just about academics, but rather it is also about fun and memory making. When a college recognizes that students are rejuvenated by innovation, creation, imagination, and relaxation – they are better equipped to push through the home stretch of the school year. Click to Watch Video⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click to Read Blog⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠FREE: Download 10 Sample Essays⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠FREE: Watch Mini College Essay Training⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Book a Call with Dr. C⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Visit the website

To put it in Bill Gates' words, Ken is phenomenal at translating deeply scientific concepts for people without scientific expertise. Ken Caldeira is Senior Scientist at Breakthrough Energy and Staff Scientist at Carnegie Institution for Science. As an atmospheric scientist, he demystifies the climate impact of hydrogen leakage. Under the motto "I like to say that the questions we ask are driven by our values, the answers we get should be independent of our values”, he brings a valuable unbiased scientific perspective to the topic. 

The space around Earth is getting crowded — thousands of satellites orbit our planet. The space around Jupiter is getting crowded, too — with natural satellites. A recent spate of discoveries has brought the number of known moons to 95 — more than any other planet in the solar system. And many more probably are just waiting to be discovered. The new moons are small — no more than about five miles in diameter. And most of them are a long way from Jupiter — they take at least 11 months to make a single orbit. The discoveries were made by a group led by Scott Sheppard of the Carnegie Institution for Science. Sheppard's been involved in the discoveries of 70 of Jupiter's moons. It takes careful observations to find the moons because they're small, faint, and far away from Jupiter. Three of the newly found moons orbit in the same direction as Jupiter's rotation on its axis. They probably are chips of larger bodies that were blasted apart by big impacts. The other new moons orbit in the opposite direction. They may have been asteroids that were captured by Jupiter when they wandered close to the solar system's largest planet. The new discoveries vaulted Jupiter past Saturn, which has 83 known moons, although its numbers are likely to swell, too. And a recent study said that Saturn might have had another big moon that was pulverized by Saturn's gravity, forming the planet's rings. More about that tomorrow.  Script by Damond Benningfield Support McDonald Observatory

Ken Caldeira is a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science and is also a senior scientist at Breakthrough Energy. Ken has a wide-spectrum approach to analyzing the world's climate systems - with particular interests in modeling the Earth system and the energy transition, and in using experiments and observation to study our changing coasts and coral reefs. In this episode, Ken takes us through his fascinating journey into environmental and climate science. We dive deep into navigating political influences on environmental research, the technical and social feasibility of the energy transition, and his views on wider underrepresented climate issues.  Links: Ken Caldeira's profile  Ken's Google Scholar profile Episode chapter markers Support the showSubscribe for email updates

Un grupo de científicos liderado por el astrónomo estadounidense Scott Sheppard, de la Carnegie Institution for Science, en Washington D.C. ( Estados Unidos), descubrió 12 nuevas lunas en Júpiter. Con el descubrimiento oficial en diciembre de 2022, el planeta alcanza un total de 92 satélites naturales, el mayor número entre todos los planetas del sistema solar. Para identificar las lunas nuevas, los científicos utilizaron el Telescopio Subaru, ubicado en Hawái, además de los telescopios Víctor M. Blanco y Magalhães, ambos en Chile.

Dr. Mike Blatt is the Regius Professor of Botany at the University of Glasgow and Adjunct Professor at Pennsylvania State University. Mike is a cell biologist and physiologist who studies cells to understand how the parts fit together to accomplish important functions in plants. He is also passionate about electronics, and he has built much of the equipment they use for their work. Mike loves winter sports, especially downhill and cross country skiing. In fact, he has skied throughout most of his life is currently looking forward to an upcoming ski trip to the Alps with his father who is still hitting the slopes in his nineties! He conducted his undergraduate studies at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver and at the University of Wisconsin, Madison where he received his BS with honors in Botany and Biochemistry. Next, Mike was awarded a PhD in Plant Biology from Stanford University while working in the Department of Plant Biology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. During his graduate work, Mike received a Fullbright-Hays Graduate Fellowship to study at the University of Nürnberg. Afterwards, Mike traveled to Yale University Medical School to accept an NRSA Postdoctoral Fellowship and then to the University of Cambridge to accept a NATO Postdoctoral Fellowship. He has served on the faculty at the University of London and Imperial College London prior to joining the faculty at the University of Glasgow. Mike has received many awards and honors throughout his career, including being named a Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the James Hutton Institute, and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the premier international journal Plant Physiology. In this interview, Mike discusses his experiences in life and science.

Your mum might have told you not to look into the sun because it could send you blind - good advice. The sun's brightness can also make large objects close to it difficult to spot. A team of astronomers at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington DC borrowed a specialised camera to see if it would give them a glimpse of objects ordinarily hidden by the sun's rays - and they found something big. Really big. Carnegie's Earth and Planets Laboratory astronomer Scott Sheppard spoke to Morning Report.

Graham Richardson speaks with Fred Hahn, president of CUPE Ontario, on the provincial government's use of a legislative provision to quash the ability of education workers to go on strike. On today's show:  A conversation with Fred Hahn, president of CUPE Ontario.  We take your calls on the use of the notwithstanding clause, which has been invoked in the past by Ontario and Quebec. The federal government is planning a massive increase in the number of immigrants entering Canada. We hear from you on this.  Tonda MacCharles, an senior reporter at the Toronto Star's Ottawa bureau, on Freedom Convoy organizers testifying at the Emergencies Act inquiry.  Astronomers have spotted an undetected, possibly dangerous ‘planet killer' asteroid. Scott Sheppard, an astronomer at the Earth and Planets Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington D.C. and the paper's lead author, joins to discuss.  Caroline Weir-Greene, a Yellowknife woman born in Newfoundland. She had a horrifying revelation after taking an AncestryDNA test: She was accidentally switched at birth.

https://youtu.be/VjMYAkUq98I [I apologize for the audio trouble with the podcast.  The audio demons were busy! - Rich] Host: Fraser Cain ( @fcain )Special Guest: The first suspected exoplanet was identified back in 1988, and was then confirmed in 1992. Since then, the rate at which detection/confirmations have been made has been increasing. And JWST has already directly imaged its first exoplanet! What data are we able to gather from here on Earth? What are we able to learn about these planets from the data collected? How does exoplanet geology compare with our own geology here on Earth? Let's find out as we welcome planetary geologist Dr. Paul Byrne ( @ThePlanetaryGuy / https://eps.wustl.edu/people/paul-byrne ) to the WSH.    Paul Byrne received his B.A. in geology, and Ph.D. in planetary geology, from Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. He was a MESSENGER postdoctoral fellow at the Earth and Planets Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, DC, and an LPI postdoctoral fellow at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas. He is an Associate Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis; before coming to WashU, he was an assistant and then associate professor at North Carolina State University.   Paul's research focuses on comparative planetary geology—comparing and contrasting the surfaces and interiors of planetary bodies, including Earth, to understand geological phenomena at the systems level. Byrne's research projects span the solar system from Mercury to Pluto and, increasingly, to the study of extrasolar planets. He uses remotely sensed data, numerical and physical models, and fieldwork in analogue settings on Earth to understand why planets look the way they do. Regular Guests: Dr. Leah Jenks ( https://leahjenks.com/ / @leahgjenks ) Beth Johnson - SETI Institute ( @SETIInstitute & @planetarypan ) Dave Dickinson ( http://astroguyz.com/ & @Astroguyz ) This week's stories: - Stars stealing planets! - A new satellite annoyance? - James Webb overturning the Big Bang?? - Water worlds! - The hazards of uncontrolled reentry. - The laws of outer space.   We've added a new way to donate to 365 Days of Astronomy to support editing, hosting, and production costs.  Just visit: https://www.patreon.com/365DaysOfAstronomy and donate as much as you can! Share the podcast with your friends and send the Patreon link to them too!  Every bit helps! Thank you! ------------------------------------ Do go visit http://www.redbubble.com/people/CosmoQuestX/shop for cool Astronomy Cast and CosmoQuest t-shirts, coffee mugs and other awesomeness! http://cosmoquest.org/Donate This show is made possible through your donations.  Thank you! (Haven't donated? It's not too late! Just click!) ------------------------------------ The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Planetary Science Institute. http://www.psi.edu Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org.

The first suspected exoplanet was identified back in 1988, and was then confirmed in 1992. Since then, the rate at which detection/confirmations have been made has been increasing. And JWST has already directly imaged its first exoplanet! What data are we able to gather from here on Earth? What are we able to learn about these planets from the data collected? How does exoplanet geology compare with our own geology here on Earth? Let's find out as we welcome planetary geologist Dr. Paul Byrne, to the WSH. Paul Byrne received his B.A. in geology, and Ph.D. in planetary geology, from Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. He was a MESSENGER postdoctoral fellow at the Earth and Planets Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, DC, and an LPI postdoctoral fellow at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas. He is an Associate Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis; before coming to WashU, he was an assistant and then associate professor at North Carolina State University. Paul's research focuses on comparative planetary geology—comparing and contrasting the surfaces and interiors of planetary bodies, including Earth, to understand geological phenomena at the systems level. Byrne's research projects span the solar system from Mercury to Pluto and, increasingly, to the study of extrasolar planets. He uses remotely sensed data, numerical and physical models, and fieldwork in analogue settings on Earth to understand why planets look the way they do.  Be sure to follow Paul on Twitter! **************************************** The Weekly Space Hangout is a production of CosmoQuest. Want to support CosmoQuest? Here are some specific ways you can help: Subscribe FREE to our YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/cosmoquest Subscribe to our podcasts Astronomy Cast and Daily Space where ever you get your podcasts! Watch our streams over on Twitch at https://www.twitch.tv/cosmoquestx – follow and subscribe! Become a Patreon of CosmoQuest https://www.patreon.com/cosmoquestx Become a Patreon of Astronomy Cast https://www.patreon.com/astronomycast Buy stuff from our Redbubble https://www.redbubble.com/people/cosmoquestx Join our Discord server for CosmoQuest - https://discord.gg/X8rw4vv Join the Weekly Space Hangout Crew! - http://www.wshcrew.space/ Don't forget to like and subscribe! Plus we love being shared out to new people, so tweet, comment, review us... all the free things you can do to help bring science into people's lives.  

In Episode 95 of the Charity Charge Show, Stephen talks to Stella Kafka, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), whose mission is to advance the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society. Stephen and Stella Kafka talk about the pros & cons of switching to a virtual meeting model, joining an organization from an outsiders perspective, and AMS's mission to use science to keep people safe. As executive director of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO), a non- profit worldwide scientific and educational organization of amateur and professional astronomers, Stella Kafka utilized a combination of talent, skills, and scientific accomplishments that she now brings to her new role as AMS executive director. Kafka obtained her B.S. degree in physics at the University of Athens, Greece, and a master's and Ph.D. in astronomy, with a double minor in physics and geophysical sciences from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. After completing her Ph.D., Stella held a series of prestigious postdoctoral positions and fellowships, first at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile, where she received the National Optical Astronomy Observatory Excellence Award, then at IPAC/Caltech, and finally as a NASA Astrobiology Institute Fellow at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Stella also brings with her a wealth of managerial experience. In addition to serving as the director of two research and mentorship programs for undergraduates while in Chile, Stella managed editorial, marketing, financial, business development, operations, and production aspects of journals at the American Institute of Physics (AIP). As a journal manager at AIP, Stella successfully oversaw the launch of a new journal and served as a liaison between publishing and research communities. On top of her research and management abilities, Stella brings an international perspective to her work. After growing up in Greece, she obtained a Proficiency Diploma in the French language (she has one in English, too), pursued higher education in the United States, and worked and traveled in South America (including Chile, Argentina, and Brazil). Stella is fluent in Greek and English and speaks Spanish and French. Stella enjoys interacting with people of every age and background and has honed her communication skills through mentoring students, classroom teaching, and lectures to professional and public audiences. And then, like all good communicators, she knows when to stop and listen. Stella Kafka on in person meetings fueling powerful brainstorm sessions and problem solving: At some point in trying to understand a solution to a problem, it requires a little bit of getting out of your comfort zone and discussing aspects of science that maybe you don't know very well. I find that is much easier when speaking in person than it is virtually. I think that COVID made us more efficient and more accessible in terms of utilizing different methods of communication and increasing inclusivity. However, we're still trying to replicate those in depth, in person experiences and online technology is just not there yet. I'm not really sure what the end result will be, maybe we will actually come up with some kind of visors and virtual working places that will bridge the gap we are currently dealing with. That is our challenge. Although we aren't all the way there yet, I really like the increased efficiency and the fact that we can actually do things much faster using virtual technology.

Dr. C. Robin Buell is a Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar Chair in Crop Genomics in the Department of Crop & Soil Sciences and the Center for Applied Genetic Technologies at the University of Georgia. Robin studies the DNA of plants to better understand how plants do things like grow, respond to stress, reproduce, and evolve. Her work spans a wide variety of plants including crop plants (corn, potatoes, and sweet potatoes), medicinal plants (those that make anti-cancer drugs), and other plants with interesting properties (basil, oregano, catnip, and cat mint). In her free time, Robin enjoys tending to the vegetables in her garden, watching college basketball and football games, and spending time with her two rescue dogs. She received her BSc in biology from the University of Maryland, her MSc in plant pathology from Washington State University, and her PhD in biological sciences/molecular biology from Utah State University. Afterwards, she conducted postdoctoral research at Michigan State University and at the Carnegie Institution of Washington (Stanford University). She served on the faculty at Louisiana State University, The Institute for Genomic Research, and Michigan State University before joining the faculty at UGA last year. Robin has been elected as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement for Science and the American Society of Plant Biologists. In addition, she was awarded the 2022 McClintock Prize for Plant Genetics and Genome Studies by the Maize Genetics Cooperation Advocacy Committee. In our interview, she shares more about her life and science.

Peter E. Driscoll is a Staff Scientist in the Geophysics Group in the Earth and Planets Laboratory, Carnegie Institution for Science, in Washington, D.C. studying the dynamic evolution of Earth and planetary interiors. His research interests focus on the thermal and magnetic evolution of the Earth. Topics he has worked on include the thermal evolution of the interior, dynamics of the core, polarity reversals of Earth's magnetic field, magnetic-limited atmospheric escape, coupled surface-interior volatile cycling, the divergence of Earth and Venus, and the internal dynamics and detectability of terrestrial exoplanets. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/out-of-the-blank-podcast/support

Scientists don't really agree on a definition for life. We may recognize life instinctively most of the time, but any time we try to nail it down with set criteria, some stubborn counterexample spoils the effort. Still, can we really search for life on other worlds, or understand the earliest stages of life on this planet, if we don't know what to look for? On this episode, Steven Strogatz speaks with Robert Hazen, a mineralogist, astrobiologist and senior staff scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Earth and Planets Laboratory, along with Sheref Mansy, professor of chemistry at the University of Alberta, to learn more about how new taxonomies and a “cellular Turing test” might help us answer this essential question. “The Joy of Why” is a podcast from Quanta Magazine, an editorially independent publication supported by the Simons Foundation. Funding decisions by the Simons Foundation have no influence on the selection of topics, guests, or other editorial decisions in this podcast or in Quanta Magazine. “The Joy of Why” is produced by Susan Valot and Polly Stryker. Our editors are John Rennie and Thomas Lin, with support by Matt Carlstrom, Annie Melchor and Leila Sloman. Our theme music was composed by Richie Johnson. Our logo is by Jackie King, and artwork for the episodes is by Michael Driver and Samuel Velasco. Our host is Steven Strogatz. If you have any questions or comments for us, please email us at quanta@simonsfoundation.org. 

Brewing a great cup of coffee is what we all strive to do daily. Over the years, our own understanding of how to do this well has grown as the body of literature and content regarding brewing science has increased. Most recently one such resource has been published from someone who has applied their expertise and scientific rigor to the subject of brewing coffee, thus creating one of the most thorough treatments on the subject to date.  On today's show e are talking with the author of the new book, "The Physics of Filter Coffee", Jonathan Gagné ! Jonathan Gagné is a scientific advisor at the Rio Tinto Alcan Planetarium in Montreal, and adjunct professor at Université de Montréal. He completed his Ph.D. in astrophysics in 2015 and moved to the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C. for a 3-year postdoc as a Sagan Fellow. He came back to Montreal to start a second postdoc at the Institute for Research on Exoplanets before he was hired by the Planetarium. Jonathan's expertise is focused on brown dwarfs, young stars, exoplanets, and stellar associations. He uses various telescopes throughout the world to carry his research, from the Observatoire du Mont-Mégantic in Québec, the Infrared Telescope Facilities in Hawaii and Gemini-South in Chile. In his free time, Jonathan is also passionate about coffee brewing and has dived deeply into all many aspects of how physics affect coffee preparation for pour overs and more recently espresso. He maintains a blog of his findings and understanding of coffee physics at coffeeadastra.com, and he is the author of the book The Physics of Filter Coffee. This is a wide-ranging conversation that addresses many of the key elements that impact our brewing and how we can apply practical solutions to create wonderful coffee both at home and at at scale in the shop We cover: Motivation through frustrated brewing Beginning his experimentations in coffee Studying the most significant aspects Relying on the community and their experience Applied physics in how water moves through coffee Building and refining you mental model Accounting for the variability in coffee's behavior Tracking your brews What shops can do to improve extractions at scale Different way of thinking about batch brew Coffee freshness and extraction Recommendation for appropriate bicarb levels in water for brewing Recommended tools to assess your coffee quality Links: Jonathan's Blog : www.coffeeadastra.com Jonathan on IG: @jgagneastrocoffee Buy the book! The Physics of Filter Coffee   Related episodes:

In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, parts of the world are so dependent on Russian gas that they have no option but to continue to buy it. This week's episode looks long term plans for improving energy security, particularly in Europe where the biggest focus is on increasing renewables. Whilst this sounds like great news for the climate, Europe only accounts for 10% of the worlds' emissions. For fossil fuel rich countries like the United States, energy security policy will mean pumping more oil and gas out of the ground. We visit Bonny Island in the Niger Delta where business in Liquified Natural Gas is booming to explore how other resource rich countries stand to gain from the increase in oil and gas prices. And ask, as the world makes plans to stop purchasing Russian oil and gas, what will this mean for Russia's climate policy? Presenters Kate Lamble and Jordan Dunbar speak with contributors: Simone Tagliapietra, Senior Fellow and Energy expert at European think tank, Bruegel Laura Cozzi, Chief Modeler at International Energy Agency (IEA) Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist at Carnegie Institution of Sciences and at Breakthrough Energy Oksana Antonenko, Global Risk Analyst at Control Risks Group Researchers: Natasha Fernandes, Frances Reed and Julian Kwong Reporter: Fyneface Dumnamene is Executive Director at Youths and Environmental Advocacy Centre Producer: Dearbhail Starr Series Producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Nicola Addyman Studio Engineer: Tom Brignell

Vannevar Bush is a towering figure in US science and technology policy. A science adviser to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman during and after World War II, he mobilized the US research community in support of the war effort and was a major figure in the creation of the National Science Foundation. Although his influence on the history and institutions of US science and technology is unparalleled, the full breadth of Bush's thinking remains underappreciated today. We talk with writer and educator G. Pascal Zachary, Bush's biographer and editor of a new collection of his writings, about this remarkable polymath, the background behind his landmark report, Science, the Endless Frontier, and his surprising legacy for the information age. Links: The Essential Writings of Vannevar Bush, edited by G. Pascal Zachary. Faith & Science, an excerpt from a 1955 letter Vannevar Bush wrote to employees and supporters of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Beyond the Endless Frontier, an article series from Issues that grapples with Bush's legacy for today's science policy.

Over the last two decades, solar radiation modification has gone from an intellectual experiment to something people are seriously considering, says pioneering climate scientist Ken Caldeira during a C2GTalk. The world needs to understand what would happen if somebody felt the need to cool the Earth rapidly, and that requires the ability for scientists to do more research. "There is a case to limit knowledge acquisition if it would lead to imminent harm," says Caldeira, but this is not the case for solar radiation modification experiments. Ken Caldeira is senior staff scientist (emeritus) with Carnegie Institution for Science, and world famous for his work on the global carbon cycle and climate change. He was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report and a co-author of the 2010 US National Academy America's Climate Choices report. Caldeira also participated in the UK Royal Society's geoengineering panel in 2009. He is also senior scientist at Breakthrough Energy, which supports innovation to reach zero carbon emissions. For more, including an edited transcript, please go to C2G's website.

Today we are joined by Dr. Sara Seager. Dr. Seager is the Class of 1941 Professor of Planetary Science, Professor of Physics, and Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her past research is credited with laying the foundation for the field of exoplanet atmospheres, while her current research focuses on exoplanet atmospheres and the future search for signs of life by way of atmospheric biosignature gases. Professor Seager is involved with a number of space-based exoplanet searches including as the Deputy Science Director for the MIT-led NASA mission TESS, as the PI for the on-orbit JPL/MIT CubeSat ASTERIA, and as a lead for Starshade Rendezvous Mission (a space-based mission concept under technology development for direct imaging discovery and characterization of Earth analogs).Before joining MIT in 2007, Professor Seager spent four years on the senior research staff at the Carnegie Institution of Washington preceded by three years at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. Her PhD is from Harvard University, and her BSc from the University of Toronto. Among other accolades, Professor Seager is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a 2013 MacArthur Fellow. You can learn more about Dr. Seager and her work on her Twitter and her official website. Show Notes:Physics | Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyThe Smallest Lights in the Universe: A Memoir | Penguin Random HouseVenus | NASA Solar System ExplorationCould acid-neutralizing life-forms make habitable pockets in Venus' clouds? | MIT NewsList of missions to Venus | WikipediaVenus phosphine find: Unexplained gas hints at potential for alien life | CnetAnalysis of the characteristics of phosphine production by anaerobic digestion based on microbial community dynamics, metabolic pathways, and isolation of the phosphate-reducing strain by Fan, Niu, Zhang, Et al. | Science DirectPhosphine | Encyclopedia BritannicaLife on Venus claim faces strongest challenge yet | NaturePhosphine gas in the cloud decks of Venus by Greaves, J.S., Richards, A.M.S., Bains, W. et al. | Nature AstronomyRe-analysis of the 267 GHz ALMA observations of Venus by Snellen, Guzman-Ramirez, Et al. | Astronomy and Astrophysics James Webb Space Telescope | NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterAfter Million-Mile Journey, James Webb Telescope Reaches Destination | The New York Times‘Oumuamua | NASAGamma-ray Bursts | NASA Imagine The Universe!Dogon People | WikipediaAncient Aliens (TV Series 2009–) | IMDbLife on Venus? This rocket company is already planning a mission to have a closer look | the_byte

In this week's episode, we're hearing from Dr. Rebecca Shaw, the Chief Scientist at the World Wildlife Fund. Rebecca received her MA in environmental policy and her PhD in energy and resources from UC Berkeley. After finishing her PhD, Rebecca did a postdoc at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford, and then worked at the Nature Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund before moving to her current role at WWF.  Some of the things we talk about in this episode include: Rebecca's decision to turn down a faculty position and instead pursue a career that enabled her to combine her interests in climate change science and non-profit work  How PhD training equips you to be successful at all sorts of other careers What gives Rebecca hope when it comes to climate change (including the wonderful poem Earthrise by Amanda Gorman) Rebecca's advice for women in science Why staying positive has been a key part of what has made Rebecca successful, and how she takes care of herself to be able to stay positive The importance of constantly improving both your hard skills and your soft skills Get in touch with Rebecca: LinkedIn Twitter Get in touch with Steph: Twitter Get in touch with the podcast: Twitter Facebook Instagram Email: rootstostempodcast@gmail.com Website: rootstostempodcast.podbean.com  

The problem of the rule of law is inescapable in any society - and even more especially in the context of economic development. Policies that promote prosperity cannot be devoid of considerations for the rights of people who make up the society and the economy, regardless of all technocratic pretensions otherwise. Adam Smith himself stated that economic prosperity thus requires ''a tolerable administration of justice''. Some readers might already start objecting to my treatment of the rule of law as merely an ''instrumental variable'' of a more desirous economic end-state, whereas the more familiar treatment is that of a society governed by the rule of law as an end-state in itself. There are merits to such quibbles, but there is also plenty of evidence in modern history that the rule of law is an essential cog in the wheel of prosperity.WHAT IS ''RULE OF LAW''?''Rule of law'' is the generally accepted description for how well a political system conforms to formal rules - rather than functioning through the whims of the most powerful social or political agents. For a society to be described as one functioning under rule of law - there must be rules and those rules must be equally applied to everyone in the society. Let us call this Letter of the Law. These rules are usually expressed through the constitution of a country and enforced through the courts. But simply having rules and enforcing them does not suffice in the making of the rule of law - and it is an incomplete (however accurate) conception of it. Some rules can be drafted in bad faith or with the express purpose of protecting the interest of the political elites responsible for governance. This is why many scholars have argued that the rule of law can only be said to exist in a state that functions under rules designed to protect the civil liberties (individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.) of the people living within its territory. Let us call this the Character or Spirit of the Law. The character of the law understood as the fulfilment of constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties is the most common standard by which governance is judged to conform or deviate from the rule of law. For example, countries that routinely violate the rights of citizens in whatever form cannot be said to be governed by the rule of law, even if it has a written constitution. Consideration of the character of the law is the context to understanding the work of my guest on this episode, Paul Gowder.He is a professor of law at NorthWestern university with a broad research interest and expertise. Paul departs from this common derivation of the character of the law as rooted in liberty - and argued that for the rule of law to be broadly applicable in different societies (not dependent on the political institutions and ethical ideals of any specific society) with varying cultures and traditions of governance, it must be rooted in Equality. To understand Paul's argument, I will briefly state two important aspects that set the tone for our conversation - this should not be taken as an exhaustive summary of his work and I encourage you to check out his website and book. The first is that the rule of law as a principle regulates the actions of the state (government), and it is not to be conflated with other rules that regulate the actions of citizens. This is such an important point because one of the most egregious expressions of the law is when a government uses it to oppress citizens. Secondly, Paul outlines three components of the rule of law based on equality as 1) regularity - the government can only use coercion when it is acting in ''good faith'' and under ''reasonable interpretation'' of rules that already exist and are specific to the circumstances. 2) publicity - the law has to be accessible to everyone without barriers (''officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, ...failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public"). 3) generality - the law must be equally applicable to all. Putting all these elements together gives us a rule of law regime where everyone is equal before the law, and the state does not wantonly abuse citizens or single out particular groups for systematic abuse.I enjoyed this conversation very much, and I want to thank Paul for talking to me. Thank you guys too for always listening, and for the other ways you support this project.TRANSCRIPTTobi; I greatly enjoyed your work on the rule of law. I've read your papers, I've read your book, and I like it very much. I think it's a great public service if I can say that because for a lot of time, I am interested in economic development and that is mostly the issue that this podcast talks about. And what you see in that particular conversation is there hasn't really been that much compatibility between the question of the rule of law or the laws that should regulate the actions of the state, and its strategy for economic development. Most of the time, you often see even some justification, I should say, to trample on rights in as much as you get development, you get high-income growth for it. And what I found in your work is, this does not have to be so. So what was your eureka moment in coming up with your concept, we are going to unpack a lot of the details very soon, but what motivated you to write this work or to embark on this project?Paul; Yeah, I think for me, part of the issue that really drives a lot of how I think about the rule of law and you know, reasons behind some of this work is really a difference between the way that those of us who think about human freedom and human equality, right? I think of it as philosophers, right. So they're philosophers and philosophers think about the ability of people to live autonomous lives, to sort of stand tall against their government, to live lives of respect, and freedom and equality. And that's one conversation. And so we see people, like, you know, Ronald Dworkin, thinking about what the rule of law can deliver to human beings in that sense. And then, you know, there's this entire development community, you know, the World Bank, lots of the US foreign policy, all of the rest of those groups of people and groups of ideas, talk about the rule of law a lot and work to measure the rule of law and invest immense amounts of money in promoting what they call the rule of law across the world. But mostly, it seems to be protecting property rights for multinational investment. And I mean, that makes some kind of sense, if you think that what the rule of law is for is economic development, is increasing the GDP of a country and integrating it into favourable international networks of trade. But if you think that it's about human flourishing, then you get a completely different idea of what the rule of law can be, and should be. And so this sort of really striking disjuncture between the two conversations has driven a lot of my work, especially recently, and especially reflecting even on the United States, I think that we can see how domestic rule of law struggles - which we absolutely have, I mean, look at the Trump administration, frankly, as revolving around this conflict between focusing on economics and focusing on human rights and human wellbeing.Tobi; It's interesting the polarization you're talking about. And one way that I also see it play out is [that] analyst or other stakeholders who participate in the process of nation-building in Africa, in Nigeria… a lot of us that care about development and would like to see our countries grow and develop and become rich, are often at opposite ends with other people in the civil society who are advocating for human rights, who are advocating for gender equality, who are advocating for so many other social justice issues. And it always seems like there's no meeting ground, you know, between those set of views, and I believe it does not have to be so. So one thing I'm going to draw you into quite early is one of the distinctions you made in so many of your papers and even your book is the difference between the conception of the rule of law that you are proposing versus the generally accepted notion of the rule of law based on individual liberty in the classical liberal tradition. I also think that's part of the problem, because talking about individual liberty comes with this heavy ideological connotation, and giving so many things that have happened in Africa with colonialism and so many other things, nobody wants any of that, you know. So you are proposing a conception of the rule of law that is based on equality. Tell me, how does that contrast with this popularly accepted notion of the rule of law [which is] based on individual liberty?Paul; So I think the way to think about it is to start with the notion of the long term stability of a rule of law system. And so here is one thing that I propose as a fact about legal orders. Ultimately, any kind of stable legal order that can control the powerful, that is, that can say to a top-level political leader, or a powerful multinational corporation, or whomever, no, you can't do this, this violates the law and make that statement stick depends on widespread collective mobilization, if only as a threat, right. And so it's kind of an analytic proposition about the nature of power, right? If you've got a top-level political leader who's in command of an army, and they want to do something illegal, it's going to require very broad-based opposition, and hence very broad-based commitment to the idea of leaders that follow the law in order to prevent the person in charge of an army from just casually violating it whenever they want. Okay, accept that as true, what follows from that? Well, what follows from that is that the legal system has to actually be compatible with the basic interests of all. And what that tends to mean and I think this is true, both historically, and theoretically, is leaving aside the philosophical conceptual difference between liberty and equality, which I'm not sure is really all that important. Like I think, ultimately, liberty and equality as moral ideas tend to blur together when you really unpack them. But practically speaking, any stable legal order that can control the powerful has to be compatible with the interests of a broad-based group of the human beings who participate in that legal order. And what that entails is favouring a way of thinking about the rule of law that focuses on being able to recruit the interests of even the worst off. In other words, one that's focused on equality, one that's focused on protecting the interests of the less powerful rather than a laissez-faire libertarian conception of the rule of law that tends to be historically speaking, compatible with substantial amounts of economic inequality, hyper-focus on ideas - like property rights, that support the long-standing interests of those who happen to be at the top of the economy, often against the interests of those that happened to be at the bottom of the economy, right. That's simply not a legal order that is sustainable in the long run. Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the way that this has played out in [the] United States history, in particular. I might have a book that's coming out in December that focuses on a historical account of the development of the rule of law, particularly in the United States. I mean, it's my own country. And so at some point, I had to get talked into writing that book. And we can see that in our history right at the get-go, you know, in the United States, at the very beginning, the rule of law dialogue tended to be focused on protecting the interests of wealthy elite property holders. And this actually played a major part, for example, in the United States' most grievous struggle, namely the struggle over slavery, because slaveholders really relied on this conception of the Rule of Law focusing on individual freedom and property rights to insist on a right to keep holding slaves against the more egalitarian idea that “hey, wait a minute, the enslaved have a right to be participants in the legal system as well.” And so we can see these two different conceptions of legality breaking the United States and breaking the idea of legal order in the United States right at the get-go. And we see this in country after country after country. You know, another example is Pinochet's Chile, which was the victim of [the] United States' economics focused rule of law promotion efforts that favoured the interests of property holders under this libertarian conception over the interests of ordinary citizens, democracy and mass interests. In other words, over the egalitarian conception, and again, you know, devolved into authoritarianism and chaos.Tobi; Yeah, nice bit of history there, but dialling all the way, if you'll indulge me... dialling all the way to the present, or maybe the recent past, of course; where I see another relevance and tension is development, and its geopolitical significance and the modernization projects that a lot of developed countries have done in so many poor and violent nations, you know, around the world. I mean, at the time when Africa decolonized, you know, a lot of the countries gravitated towards the communist bloc, socialism [and] that process was shunted, failed, you know, there was a wave of military coups all over the continent, and it was a really dark period.But what you see is that a lot of these countries, Nigeria, for example, democratized in 1999, a lot of other countries either before then or after followed suit. And what you see is, almost all of them go for American-style federal system, and American-style constitutional democracy, you know. And how that tradition evolved... I mean, there's a lot you can explain and unpack here... how that tradition evolved, we are told is the law has a responsibility to treat people as individuals. But you also find that these are societies where group identities are very, very strong, you know, and what you get are constitutions that are weakly enforced, impractical, and a society that is perpetually in struggle. I mean, you have a constitution, you have rules, and you have a government that openly disregards them, because the constitutional tradition is so divorced from how a lot of our societies evolve. And what I see you doing in your work is that if we divorce the rule of law from the ideal society, you know [like] some societies that we look up to, then we can come up with a set of practical propositions that the rule of law should fulfil, so walk me through how you resolve these tensions and your propositions?Paul; Well, so it's exactly what you just said, right? I mean, we have to focus on actual existing societies and the actual way that people organize their lives, right. And so here's the issue is, just like I said a minute ago, the rule of law fundamentally depends on people. And when I say people, I don't just mean elites. I don't just mean the wealthy, I don't just mean the people in charge of armies, and the people in charge of courthouses, right? Like the rule of law depends, number one, on people acting collectively to hold the powerful to the law. And number two, on people using the institutions that we say are associated with the rule of law. And so just as you describe, one sort of really common failure condition for international rule of law development efforts - and I don't think that this is a matter of sort of recipient countries admiring countries like the US, I think this is a matter of international organizations and countries like the US having in their heads a model of what the law looks like and sort of pressing it on recipient countries.But you know, when you build institutions that don't really resemble how the people in a country actually organize their social, political and legal lives, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody uses them. You shouldn't be surprised when they're ineffective. But I mean, I think that it's been fairly compared to a kind of second-generation colonialism in that sense where countries like the US and like Germany, attempt to export their legal institutions to other countries, without attending to the ways that the people in those countries already have social and legal resources to run their lives. And so I'll give you an example that's interesting from Afghanistan. So in Afghanistan, sort of post the 2000s invasion, and so forth, some researchers, mostly affiliated with the Carnegie Institution, found that the really effective rule of law innovations, the really effective interventions were ones that relied on existing social groups and existing structures of traditional authority. And so, you know, you could build a courthouse and like, ask a formal centralized state to do something, maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, maybe people would use it, maybe they wouldn't. But if you took local community leaders, local religious leaders, gave them training, and how to use the social capital they already have to help do things like adjudicate disputes, well, those would actually be effective, because they fit into the existing social organization that already exists. So I'll give you another example. I have a student who... I had… I just graduated an S.J.D student from Uganda who wrote a dissertation on corruption in Uganda. And one of the things that he advocated for I think, really sensibly was, “ okay, we've got this centralized government, but we've also got all of these traditional kingdoms, and the traditional kingdoms, they're actually a lot more legitimate in the sociological sense than the centralized government.People trust the traditional kingdoms, people rely on the traditional kingdoms for services, for integrating themselves into their society. And so one useful way of thinking about anti-corruption reforms is to try and empower the traditional kingdoms that already have legitimacy so that they can check the centralized government. And so that kind of work, I think, is where we have real potential to do global rule of law development without just creating carbon copies of the United States. Tobi; The process you describe, I will say, as promising as it may sound, what I want to ask you is how then do you ensure that a lot of these traditional institutions that can be empowered to provide reasonable checks to the power of the central government also fulfil the conditions of equality in their relation to the general public? Because even historically, a lot of these institutions are quite hierarchical...Paul; Oh, yeah... and I think in particular, women's rights are a big problem.Tobi; Yeah, yeah and there's a lot of abuses that go on locally, even within those communities, you know. We have traditional monarchies who exercise blanket rights over land ownership, over people's wives, over so many things, you know, so how then does this condition of equality transmit across the system?Paul; Yeah, no, I think that's the really hard question. I tell you right now that part of the answer is that those are not end-state processes. By this I mean that any realistic conception of how we can actually build effective rule of law institutions, but also genuinely incorporate everyone's interests in a society is going to accept that there's going to be a kind of dynamic tension between institutions.You know, sometimes we're going to have to use the centralized state to check traditional institutions. Sometimes we're going to have to use traditional institutions to check the centralized state. Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Prize-winning political scientist and her sort of the Bloomington School of Political Economy, emphasized for many years this idea that they called Polycentrism. That is the idea that multiple, overlapping governance organizations that are sort of forced to negotiate with one another, and forced to learn from one another, and really integrate with one another in this sort of complex tension-filled kind of way, actually turns out to be a really effective method of achieving what we might call good governance. And part of the reason is because they give a lot of different people, in different levels of [the] organization, ways to challenge one another, ways to demand inclusion in this decision, and let somebody else handle that decision, and participate jointly in this other decision. And so I think that neither the centralized state alone, nor traditional institutions alone is going to be able to achieve these goals. But I think efforts to integrate them have some promise. And India has done a lot of work, you know, sort of mixed record of success, perhaps, but has done a lot of work in these lines. I think, for example, of many of the ways that India has tried to promote the growth of Panchayats, of local councils in decision making, including in law enforcement, but at the same time, has tried to do things like promote an even mandate, the inclusion of women, the inclusion of Scheduled Castes, you know, the inclusion of the traditionally subordinated in these decision making processes. And as I said, they haven't had complete success. But it's an example of a way that the centralized state can both support traditional institutions while pushing those institutions to be more egalitarian.Tobi; Let's delve into the three conditions that you identified in your work, which any rule of law state should fulfil. And that is regularity, publicity, and generality. Kindly unpack those three for me.Paul; Absolutely. So regularity is...we can think of it as just the basic rule of law idea, right? Like the government obeys the law. And so if you think about this notion of regularity, it's... do we have a situation where the powerful are actually bound by legal rules? Or do we have a situation where, you know, they just do whatever they want? And so I'd say that, you know, there's no state that even counts as a rule of law state in the basic level without satisfying that condition, at least to some reasonable degree. The idea of publicity really draws on a lot of what I've already been saying about the recruitment of broad participation in the law. That is, when I say publicity, what I mean is that in addition to just officials being bound by the law, ordinary people have to be able to make use of the law in at least two senses. One, they have to be able to make use of the law to defend themselves. I call this the individualistic side of publicity, right? Like if some police officer wants to lock you up, the decision on whether or not you violated the law has to respond to your advocacy, and your ability to defend yourself in some sense. And then there's also the collective side of this idea of publicity, which is that the community as a whole has to be able to collectively enforce the boundaries of the legal system. And you know, we'd talk a lot more about that, I think that's really the most important idea. And then the third idea of generality is really the heart of the egalitarian idea that we've been talking about, which is that the law has to actually treat people as equals. And one thing that I think is really important about the way that I think about these three principles is that they're actually really tightly integrated. By tightly integrated, I mean you're only going to get in real-world states, regularity (that is, officials bound by the law) if you have publicity (that is, if you have people who aren't officials who actually can participate in the legal system and can hold officials to the law). We need the people to hold the officials in line. You're only going to get publicity if you have generality. That is, the people are only going to be motivated to use the legal system and to defend the legal system if the legal system actually treats them as equals. And so you really need publicity to have stable regularity, you really need generality to have stable publicity.Tobi; Speaking of regularity, when you say what constrains the coercive power of the state is when it is authorised by good faith and reasonable interpretation of pre-existing reasonably specific rules. That sounds very specific. And it's also Scalonian in a way, but a lot of people might quibble a bit about what is reasonable, you know, it sounds vague, right? So how would you condition or define reasonable in this sense, and I know you talked about hubris when you were talking about publicity. But is there a minimum level of responsibility for reasonability on the part of the citizen in relation to a state?Paul; That's, in a lot of ways, the really hard philosophical question, because one of the things that we know about law is that it is inherently filled with disagreement, right? Like our experience of the legal system and of every state that actually has something like the rule of law is that people radically disagree about the legal propriety of actions of the government. And so in some sense, this idea of reasonableness is kind of a cop-out. But it's a cop-out that is absolutely necessary, because there's no, you know, what [Thomas] Nagel called a view from nowhere. There's no view from nowhere from which we can evaluate whether or not on a day to day basis, officials are actually complying with the law in some kind of correct sense. But again, I think, you know, as you said, to some extent, that implies that some of the responsibility for evaluating this reasonableness criterion falls down to day to day politics, falls down to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Like, my conception of the rule of law is kind of sneakily a deeply democratic conception, because it recognizes given the existence of uncertainty as to what the law actually requires of officials both on a case by case basis. And, broadly speaking, the only way that we're ever going to be able to say, Well, you know, officials are more or less operating within a reasonable conception of what their legal responsibilities are, is if we empower the public at large to make these judgments. If we have institutions like here in the US, our jury trials, if we have an underlying backstop of civil society and politics, that is actively scrutinizing and questioning official action.Tobi; So speaking of publicity, which is my favorite...I have to say...Paul; Mine too. You could probably tell. Tobi; Because I think that therein lies the power of the state to get away with abusive use of its legitimacy, or its power, so to speak. When you say that officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, and a failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public. So those two situations - hubris and terror, can you explain those to me a bit?Paul; Yeah. So these are really, sort of, moral philosophy ideas at heart, particularly hubris. The idea is there's a big difference, even if I have authority over you, between my exercising that authority in the form of commands and my exercising that authority in the form of a conversation that appeals to your reasoning capacity, right. So these days, I'm thinking about it in part with reference to... I'm going to go very philosophical with you here... but in reference to Kant's humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, sorry. But that is a sense in which if I'm making decisions about your conduct, and your life and, you know, affecting your fundamental interests, that when I express the reasons to you for those decisions, and when I genuinely listen to the reasons that you offer, and genuinely take those into account in my decision making process, I'm showing a kind of respect for you, which is consistent with the idea of a society of equals.As opposed to just hi, I'm wiser than you, and so my decision is, you know, you go this way, you violated the law, right? Are we a military commander? Or are we a judge? Both the military commander and the judge exercise authority, but they do so in very different ways. One is hierarchical, the other I would contend is not.Tobi; Still talking about publicity here, and why I love it so much is one important, should I say… a distinction you made quite early in your book is that the rule of law regulates the action of the state, in relation to its citizens.Paul; Yes.Tobi; Often and I would count myself among people who have been confused by that point as saying that the rule of law regulates the action of the society in general. I have never thought to make that distinction. And it's important because often you see that maybe when dealing with civil disobedience, or some kind of action that the government finds disruptive to its interests, or its preferences, the rule of law is often invoked as a way for governments to use sometimes without discretion, its enforcement powers, you know.So please explain further this distinction between the rule of law regulating the state-citizen relation versus the general law and order in the society. I mean, you get this from Trump, you get this from so many other people who say, Oh, we are a law and order society, I'm a rule of law candidate.Paul; Oh, yeah.Tobi; You cannot do this, you cannot do that. We cannot encourage the breakdown of law and order in the society. So, explain this difference to me.Paul; Absolutely, then this is probably the most controversial part of my account of the rule of law. I think everybody disagrees with this. I sort of want to start by talking about how I got to this view. And I think I really got to this view by reflecting on the civil rights movement in the United States in particular, right. Because, you know, what we would so often see, just as you say about all of these other contexts, is we would see officials, we would see judges - I mean, there are, you know, Supreme Court cases where supreme court justices that are normally relatively liberal and sympathetic, like, you know, Justice Hugo Black scolding Martin Luther King for engaging in civil disobedience on the idea that it threatens the rule of law. It turns out, and this is something that I go into in the book that's coming out in December... it turns out that King actually had a sophisticated theory of when it was appropriate to engage in civil disobedience and when it wasn't. But for me, reflecting on that conflict in particular, and reflecting on the fact that the same people who were scolding peaceful lunch-counter-sit-ins for threatening the rule of law and, you know, causing society to descend into chaos and undermining property rights and all the rest of that nonsense, were also standing by and watching as southern governors sent police in to beat and gas and fire hose and set dogs on peaceful protests in this sort of completely new set of like, totally unbounded explosions of state violence. And so it seems to me sort of intuitively, like these can't be the same problem, right, like ordinary citizens, doing sit-ins, even if they're illegal, even if we might have some reason to criticize them, it can't be the same reason that we have to criticize Bull Connor for having the cops beat people. And part of the reason that that's the case, and this is what I call the Hobbesian property in the introduction to the rule of law in the real world...part of the reason is just the reality of what states are, right? Like, protesters don't have tanks and police dogs, and fire hoses, right? Protesters typically don't have armies. If they do, then we're in a civil war situation, not a rule of law situation, the state does have all of those things. And so one of the features of the state that makes it the most appropriate site for this talk about the rule of law is this the state has, I mean, most modern states have, at least on a case by case basis, overwhelming power. And so we have distinct moral reasons to control overwhelming power than we do to control a little bit of legal disobedience, right, like overwhelming power is overwhelming. It's something that has a different moral importance for its control. Then the second idea is at the same time what I call the [...] property... is the state makes claims about its use of power, right? Like ordinary people, when they obey the law or violate the law, they don't necessarily do so with reference to a set of ideas that they're propagating about their relationship to other people. Whereas when modern states send troops in to beat people up, in a way what they're doing is they're saying that they're doing so in all of our names, right, particularly, but not exclusively in democratic governments. There's a way in which the state represents itself as acting on behalf of the political community at large. And so it makes sense to have a distinctive normative principle to regulate that kind of power.Tobi; I know you sort of sidestepped this in the book, and maybe it doesn't really fit with your overall argument. But I'm going to push you on that topic a bit. So how does the rule of law state as a matter of institutional design then handles... I know you said that there are separate principles that can be developed for guiding citizen actions, you know...Paul; Yes. Tobi; I mean, let's be clear that you are not saying that people are free to act however they want.Paul; I'm not advocating anarchy.Tobi; Exactly. So how does the rule of law state then handle citizens disagreements or conflicting interests around issues of social order? And I'll give you an example. I mentioned right at the beginning of our conversation what happened in Nigeria in October 2020. There's a unit of the police force that was created to handle violent crimes. Needless to say that they went way beyond their remit and became a very notoriously abusive unit of the police force. Picking up people randomly, lock them up, extort them for money. And there was a situation where a young man was murdered, and his car stolen by this same unit of the police force and young people all over the country, from Lagos to Port Harcourt to Abuja, everywhere, felt we've had enough, right, and everybody came out in protest. It was very, very peaceful, I'd say, until other interests, you know, infiltrated that action. Paul; Right. Tobi; But what I noticed quite early in that process was that even within the spirits of that protests, there were disagreements between citizens - protesters blocking roads, you know, versus people who feel well, your protest should not stop me from going to work, you know, and so many other actions by the protesters that other people with, maybe not conflicting interests, but who have other opinions about strategy or process feel well, this is not right. This is not how to do this. This is not how you do this, you know, and I see that that sort of provided the loophole, I should say, for the government to then move in and take a ruthlessly violent action. You know, there was a popular tollgate in Lagos in the richest neighbourhood in Lagos that was blocked for 10 days by the protesters. And I mean, after this, the army basically moved in and shot people to death. Today, you still see people who would say, Oh, well, that's tragic. But should these people have been blocking other people from going about their daily business? So how does the rule of law regulate issues of social order vis-a-vis conflict of interest?Paul; So I think this is actually a point in favour of my stark distinction between state action and social action as appropriate for thinking about the rule of law. Because when you say that the state used...what I still fundamentally think of as like minor civil disobedience...so, like blocking some roads, big deal! Protesters block roads all the time, right, like protesters have blocked roads throughout human history, you know, like, sometimes it goes big, right? Like they love blocking roads in the French Revolution. But oftentimes, it's just blocking... so I blocked roads.I participated in, you know, some protests in the early 2000s. I participated in blocking roads in DC, right, like, fundamentally "big deal!" is the answer that the state ought to give. And so by saying to each other and to the government, when we talk about the rule of law, we mean, the state's power has to be controlled by the law, I think that gives us a language to say... even though people are engaging in illegal things, the state still has to follow legal process in dealing with it, right.The state still has to use only the level of force allowed by the law to arrest people. The state can't just send in the army to shoot people. And the principle that we appeal to is this principle of the rule of law. Yeah, maintaining the distinction between lawbreaking by ordinary people and law-breaking by the state helps us understand why the state shouldn't be allowed to just send in troops whenever people engage in a little bit of minor lawbreaking and protests.Tobi; So how does the law... I mean, we are entering a bit of a different territory, how does the law in your conception handles what... well, maybe these are fancy definitions, but what some people will call extraordinary circumstances. Like protests with political interests? Maybe protesters that are funded and motivated to unseat an incumbent government? Or in terrorism, you know, where you often have situations where there are no laws on paper to deal with these sort of extraordinary situations, you know, and they can be extremely violent, they can be extremely strange, they're usually things that so many societies are not equipped to handle. So how should the rule of law regulate the action of the state in such extraordinary circumstances?Paul; Yeah, so this is the deep problem of the rule of law, you know, this is why people still read Carl Schmitt, right, because Carl Schmitt's whole account of executive power basically is, hey, wait a minute emergencies happen, and when emergencies happen, liberal legal ideas like the rule of law dropout, and so fundamentally, you just have like raw sovereignty. And that means that the state just kind of does what it must. Right. So here's what I feel about Schmitt. One is, maybe sometimes that's true, right? And again, I think about the US context, because I'm an American and you know, I have my own history, right? And so in the US context, I think, again, about, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, right.Like Abraham Lincoln broke all kinds of laws in the Civil War. Like today, we'd call some of the things that he did basically assuming dictatorial power in some respects. I mean, he did that in the greatest emergency that the country had ever faced and has ever faced since then. And he did it in a civil war. And sometimes that happens, and I think practically speaking, legal institutions have a habit of not standing in the way in truly dire situations like that. But, and here's why I want to push back against Carl Schmitt... but what a legal order can then do is after the emergency has passed...number one, the legal order can be a source of pressure for demanding and accounting of when the emergency has passed, right. And so again, I think of the United States War on Terror, you know, we still have people in United States' custody imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.September 11 2001, was almost 20 years ago. It's actually 20 years ago and a month, and we still have people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. That's insane. That's completely unjustifiable. And one of the jobs of the legal system is to pressure the executive to say, okay, buddy, is the emergency over yet? No, really, we think that the emergency is over yet. I want reasons, right, publicity again, I want an explanation from you of why you think the emergency is still ongoing. And the legal system can force the executive to be accountable for the claim that the emergency is still ongoing. That's number one. Number two is that law tends to be really good at retroactively, sort of, retrofitting things into legal order, right. And so again, I think about the Civil War. You know, after the US Civil War, lots of civil wars, sorry. American-centric person trying to fight against it. But after the US Civil War, you know, the courts took a pause. And then we have a lot of cases where they took a lot of the things that Lincoln did, they said, okay, some of them at least were illegal, some of them were legal, but only under very specific circumstances. And so they actually built legal doctrine that took into account the emergency that Lincoln faced, and then later wars, such as in the Second World War, the courts took the lessons from the experience in the American Civil War, and used that to impose more constraints. So to bring it about that the emergency actions that Franklin Roosevelt took in the Second World War weren't completely sui generis, sort of like right acts of sovereignty, but were regulated by legal rules created during the Civil War, and after the Civil War. And again, they weren't perfect, right? You know, during the Second World War, the United States interned Japanese Americans, you know, again, sort of completely lawless, completely unjustifiable, but you know, it's an ongoing process. The point is that the legal system is always... the law is always reactive in emergencies. But the reactive character of the law can nonetheless be used as a way to control and channel sovereign power, even in these sort of Schmittian emergency situations.Tobi; So two related questions, your work is interdisciplinary, because you try to blend a lot of social science into legal philosophy. But speaking of legal order and your primary profession, I mean.. for the sake of the audience parties into a lot of other cool stuff, I'm going to be putting up his website in the show notes. But speaking of legal order, and the legal profession, why is so much of the legal profession fascinated with what I would say the rule by law, as opposed to the rule of law. A lot of what you get from lawyers, even some law professors in some situations is [that] the law is the law, and you have to obey it. And even if you are going to question it, however unjustified it may seem, you still have to follow some processes that maybe for ordinary citizens are not so accessible or extremely costly, you know, which I think violate regularity, right, the way you talk about it retrospective legislation, and so many other things. So why is the legal profession so fascinated with the law, as opposed to justification for the law?Paul; Yeah, I think that question kind of answers itself, right. It's unfortunate... I mean, it's sort of natural but it's unfortunate that the people who most influence our dialogue about the way that we, you know, live in [the] society together with a state, namely by organizing ourselves with law happen to be people who are the specialists who find it easiest, right? And so I think the simple answer is right on this one, at least in countries like the United States, I'm not sure how true this is in other countries. But in the United States, the domination of legal discourse by lawyers necessarily means that the sort of real practical, real-world ways in which ordinary people find interacting with anything legal to be difficult, oppressive, or both just aren't in view, right? This is hard for them to understand.But I think in the US, one of the distortions that we've had is that we have an extremely hierarchical legal profession, right. So we have very elite law schools, and those very elite law schools - one of which I teach at - tend to predominantly produce lawyers who primarily work for wealthy corporations and sort of secondarily work for the government. Those lawyers tend to be the ones that end up at the top of the judiciary, that end up in influential positions in academia, that end up, you know, in Congress. The lawyers that, you know, see poor people, see people of subordinated minority groups and see the very different kinds of interactions with the legal system that people who are worse off have, that see the way that the law presents itself, not as a thing that you can use autonomously to structure your own life. But as a kind of external imposition, that sort of shows up and occasionally inflicts harm on you. Those lawyers aren't the ones who end up in our corridors of power. And it's very unfortunate, it's a consequence of the hierarchical nature of, at least in the US, our legal profession. And I suspect it's similar in these other countries as well.Tobi; In your opinion, what's the... dare I say the sacrosanct and objective - those are rigid conditions sorry - expression of the rule of law? The current general conception of the rule accedes to the primacy of the Constitution, right. I've often found that problematic because in some countries you find constitutional provisions that are egregious, and in other cases, you find lawyers going into court to challenge certain actions that they deem unjust, or that are truly unjust on the basis of the same constitution. Right. So what do you think is the most practical expression of the rule of law? Is it written laws? Is it the opinion of the judges? Is it how officials hold themselves accountable? What's the answer?Paul; So I think I'm gonna like sort of twist this a little bit and interpret that question is like, how do you know the extent to which the rule of law exists in a particular place? And my answer is, can ordinary people look officials in the eye, right, you know... if you're walking down the street, and you see a police officer, you know, are you afraid? Or can you walk past them and confidently know you're doing nothing wrong so there's nothing really effectively but they can do to you, right? If you're called in to deal with some kind of bureaucratic problem, like the tax office, can you trust that you exist in a relationship of respect? You know, can you trust that when you show them, actually here are my receipts, I really did have that expense, that that's going to be taken seriously? You know, if people, everybody, feels like they can stand tall, and look government officials in the eye, then to that extent, I think that the rule of law exists in a society.Tobi; Final question, what's the coolest idea you're working on right now?Paul; Oh, gosh. So like I said, I've got two books under contract right now. The first book is a history/theoretical constitutional law account of the development and existing state of the rule of law in the United States. The second book, which I'm more excited about, because it's the one that I plan to write this year, but it's also a lot harder, is I'm trying to take some of the governance design ideas that we see from the notion of rule of law development, and others such as governance development things and apply them to Private Internet platforms, right? Like, basically to Facebook. Um, I was actually involved in some of the work, not at a super high level, but I was involved in some of the work in designing or doing the research for designing Facebook's oversight board. And I'm kind of trying to expand on some of those ideas and think about, you know, if we really believe that private companies, especially in these internet platforms are doing governance right now, can we take lessons from how the rest of the world and how actual governments and actual states have developed techniques of governing behaviour in highly networked, large scale super-diverse environments and use those lessons in the private context? Maybe we can maybe we can't I'm not sure yet. Hopefully, by the time I finish the book, I'll know.Tobi; That's interesting. And I'll ask you this, a similar, I'll say a related situation is currently happening in Nigeria right now, where the President's Twitter handle or username, tweeted something that sounded like a thinly veiled threat to a particular ethnic group. And lots of people who disagreed with that tweet reported the tweet, and Twitter ended up deleting the tweet in question, which high-level officials in Nigeria found extremely offensive, and going as far as to assert their sovereign rights over Twitter and say, well, it may be your platform, but it is our country and we are banning you. How would you adjudicate such a situation? I mean, there's the question of banning Donald Trump from the platform and so many other things that have come up.Paul; Yeah, I mean, it's hard, right? So there are no easy answers to these kinds of problems. I think, ultimately, what we have to do is we have to build more legitimate ways to make these decisions. I mean, here are two things that we cannot do, right?Number one is we can't just let government officials, especially when, you know, as with the Donald Trump example, and so many others, the government officials are the ones who are engaging in the terrible conduct make these decisions. Number two is we also just can't let a bunch of people sitting in the Bay Area in California make those decisions. Like, ultimately, this is on, you know, property in some abstracted sense of like the shareholders of these companies. But we cannot simply allow a bunch of people in San Francisco, in Menlo Park, and you know, Cupertino and Mountain View, and all of those other little tech industry cities that have no understanding of local context to make the final decisions here. And so what we need to do is we need to build more robust institutions to include both global and local and affected countries, grassroots participation, in making these decisions. And I'm trying to sort of sketch out what the design for those might look like. But, you know, talk to me in about a year. And hopefully, I'll have a book for you that will actually have a sketch.Tobi; You bet I'm going to hold you to that. So, a year from now. So still on the question of ideas, because the show is about ideas. What's the one idea you'd like to see spread everywhere?Paul; Oh, gosh, you should have warned me in advance... that... I'm going to go back to what I said at the very beginning about the rule of law. Like I think that the rule of law depends on people, right? Like there is no such thing as the rule of law without a society and a legal system that genuinely is equal and advantageous to ordinary people enough to be the kind of thing that people actually support. Like ordinary people... if you cannot recruit the support of ordinary people for your legal political and social system, you cannot have the rule of law. That's true whether you're a developing country, that's true whether you're the United States, right. Like I think, you know, part of the reason that we got Donald Trump in the United States, I think, is because our legal system and with it our economy, and all the rest are so unequal in this country, that ordinary voters in the United States didn't see any reason to preserve it. Right and so when this lunatic and I mean, I'm just going to be quite frank here and say Donald Trump is a complete lunatic, right... when this lunatic is running for office who shows total disregard for existing institutions, like complete willingness to casually break the law. An electorate that actually was full of people who felt (themselves) treated respectfully and protected and supported by our legal and political institutions would have sent that guy packing in a heartbeat. But because the American people don't have that experience right now, I think that's what made us vulnerable to somebody like Donald Trump.Tobi; Thank you so much, Paul. It's been so fascinating talking to you.Paul; Thank you. This has been a lot of fun. Yeah, I'm happy to come back in a year when I've got the platform thing done.Tobi; Yeah, I'm so looking forward to that. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Climate and energy debates rest on predictions. How many years left to save the planet? How cheap will solar power get? We dive into the dirty world of making such projections. What's the difference between climate models and energy system models? What do past forecasts tell us about the accuracy of these models? Hint: there's no shortage of overconfidence.  On Episode 16 of Energy vs Climate, David, Ed, Sara, and special guest Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University debate the use and abuse of models in energy decisions, and share behind-the-scenes insight into how David and Ken helped Bill Gates learn these topics.Tune into the Youtube version of the episode. Get on the email list at www.energyvsclimate.com

What is climate change? Is it real? Is it caused by us? ARE WE ALL GOING TO DIE??? Patrick breaks it down in an unbiased fashion. Patrick Brown is a Ph.D. climate scientist and an assistant professor in the Department of Meteorology & Climate Science at San Jose State University where he teaches and conducts research on weather and climate and their interactions with society. He holds a Ph.D. from Duke University in Earth and Ocean Sciences, a Master's degree from the department he is now a faculty member in, and a Bachelors's degree from the University of Wisconsin – Madison in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. He has also conducted research at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University, NASA JPL at Caltech, NASA Langley in Virginia, NASA Goddard in Washington DC, and NOAA's GFDL at Princeton University. He has published peer-reviewed papers in Nature, PNAS, Nature Climate Change, as well as many other journals and his research has been highlighted in The Washington Post, Newsweek, The Huffington Post, The BBC and The Guardian among other places.

Dr. Andrew Fire won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2006 for the discovery of RNA interference (RNAi). Dr. Fire is the George D. Smith Professor in Molecular and Genetic Medicine, and Professor of Pathology and Genetics at the Stanford University School of Medicine. He received his AB degree in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley. He received his PhD in Biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He did training at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England as a fellow. Prior to Stanford he was part of the scientific staff at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Tune in to learn about the mechanism of RNAi, how RNAi was discovered, and the clinical applications of RNAi.

This week on the podcast the guys talk to Mykee Chanchu ( @nintupak ). Mykee works as a lab technician at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Baltimore Maryland. His lab uses zebra fish

Re-visit our intense discussion on climate change and how it impacts humans and social systems with host and SETI Institute Senior Astronomer Seth Shostak, comic co-host Eugene Mirman, and Ken Caldeira, climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science.NOTE: StarTalk All-Access subscribers can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://www.startalkradio.net/all-access/get-real-climate-change-seth-shostak-repeat/Photo Credit: NASA/John Sonntag, via http://earthobservatory.nasa.govDon't miss an episode of StarTalk All-Stars. Subscribe on:TuneIn: tunein.com/startalkallstarsSoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/startalk_all-starsApple Podcasts: https://itun.es/us/P9kphb.cStitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/startalk-allstarsGoogle Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/I2nz5bguurd5se7zu4fhnd25lk4

How many moons does Jupiter have? If you said four, you might be Galileo. If you said 69, you were right. Until the announcement this morning by the International Astronomical Union of the discovery of an additional 10 moons about the gas-giant planet. Bringing the currently known total to 79. That's a lot of moons.A research team from the Carnegie Institution for Science, the University of Hawaii and Northern Arizona University was looking in 2017 for very distant objects in our solar system, well beyond Pluto. Jupiter happened to be in the same field of view, so they also looked for any as yet unknown moons. They found 12, two of which were announced last year. Confirmation of the moons required multiple observations, and those data enabled a calculation of the moons' orbits.Nine of the dozen moons are well away from Jupiter and have retrograde orbits, meaning they go around the planet in what we'd think of as the “wrong direction.” They take about two Earth years to complete their circuits.Two new moons are closer in, go the right way, and take about an Earth year for one orbit. Those eleven moons are probably remnants of larger bodies that got broken up in collisions.The remaining moon is less than a kilometer across, further out than the two conventional moons and has a 1.5-year orbit—and the orbit is inclined. That tilt has the weird little moon crossing the paths of those outer retrograde moons. Which means an increased likelihood of a big smash-up one day.Depending on what survives from any such collision, Jupiter may then have even more moons. Or a couple fewer.—Steve Mirsky[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Now that climate change is beyond dispute, StarTalk All-Stars host Seth Shostak is joined by Ken Caldeira, climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, and co-host Eugene Mirman to talk about the impact on humans and social systems.NOTE: StarTalk All-Access subscribers can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free. Find out more at https://www.startalkradio.net/startalk-all-access/

Dr. Christelle Wauthier is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geosciences at The Pennsylvania State University. She received a Masters Degree in Geological Engineering from the University of Liege in Belgium as well as a Masters Degree in Volcanology from the University of Blaise-Pascal in France. Christelle completed her PhD in Engineering Sciences at the University of Liege and recently finished her work as a Carnegie Postdoctoral Fellow in Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Christelle is with us today to tell us all about her journey through life and science.