Podcasts about gates foundation

Today's Headlines: Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are set to testify before the House Oversight Committee today — with lawmakers traveling to their home in Chappaqua for the interviews. Meanwhile, after reporting revealed the DOJ appears to have withheld Epstein documents referencing past allegations involving Donald Trump, the Justice Department now says it's “looking into” whether anything was improperly held back.  Adding to the Epstein pile, The Telegraph reports a previously overlooked Jeffrey Epstein storage unit packed with computers, VHS tapes, address books, and alleged “training manuals.” Authorities reportedly missed it during earlier searches. Consequences, however, remain selective. A former Harvard president resigned his remaining university roles and an OpenAI board seat amid Epstein scrutiny. Bill Gates, at a Gates Foundation town hall, acknowledged past affairs that Epstein later became aware of but said he “did nothing illicit” and saw nothing illicit. At the FBI, Director Kash Patel reportedly fired at least 10 agents tied to the Jack Smith classified documents investigation after learning subpoenas had included his own communications and those of White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. In other news, Trump's surgeon general nominee, wellness influencer Casey Means, declined at her confirmation hearing to firmly reject a link between vaccines and autism and would not explicitly urge Americans to get vaccinated. “Science is never settled,” she said. That's one way to approach public health. On the corporate-national-security beat, the Pentagon is weighing whether to designate AI company Anthropic as a potential “supply chain risk” after friction with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The label could jeopardize federal contracts — a category tech companies tend to enjoy keeping. Media merger drama continues as Paramount's David Ellison sweetened his bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, potentially complicating Netflix's existing deal. And in quieter political news, Democrats flipped or held three state House special elections — one in Maine and two in Pennsylvania — expanding their Pennsylvania majority to 102–98, with one race outperforming 2024 margins by 34 points. There are three more Republican-held seats up next. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: AP News: Bill and Hillary Clinton, battle-tested, gear up for another Washington fight AP News: Justice Department says it's reviewing whether any Epstein-related records were mistakenly withheld The Independent: Contents of Epstein's secret storage locker revealed: Sex slave manuals and photos of naked women Axios: Summers leaves Harvard as Epstein reckoning rocks academia WSJ: Bill Gates apologizes to foundation staff over Epstein ties CNN: FBI Director Kash Patel ousts personnel tied to Trump classified documents probe AP News: Surgeon general nominee faces sharp questions about vaccines, birth control and qualifications Axios: Exclusive: Hegseth gives Anthropic until Friday to back down on AI safeguards The Hollywood Reporter: Warner Bros. Discovery Says It's Reviewing Sweetened Paramount Bid WGAL: Pa. Democrats hold House majority after special election wins Subscribe to the Betches News Room and join the Morning Announcements group chat. Go to: ⁠⁠⁠betchesnews.substack.com Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sen. Murray slams Trump's SOTU speech, stricter DUI law stalls out in WA legislature, and Bill Gates apologizes to the Gates Foundation over his ties to Epstein. It’s our daily roundup of top stories from the KUOW newsroom, with host Patricia Murphy. We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. Tap here to make a gift and keep Seattle Now in your feed. Got questions about local news or story ideas to share? We want to hear from you! Email us at seattlenow@kuow.org, leave us a voicemail at (206) 616-6746 or leave us feedback online.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Plus: Bill Gates apologizes to the staff of the Gates Foundation over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. And Circle reports surging quarterly profits after investors continued to seek out its stablecoin. Alex Ossola hosts. Sign up for WSJ's free What's News newsletter. An artificial-intelligence tool assisted in the making of this episode by creating summaries that were based on Wall Street Journal reporting and reviewed and adapted by an editor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send a textIn this episode of the WTR Healthcare Happenings podcast, Tim Gerdeman, Vice Chair, Co-Founder, and CMO of Water Tower Research, and Robert Sassoon, WTR's Healthcare Research Analyst, speak with Rick Pierce, CEO of Decoy Therapeutics (NASDAQ: DCOY). The conversation explores Decoy's innovative business model for developing peptide‑conjugate antivirals designed to target multiple respiratory viruses. Pierce explains how Decoy is navigating the modern era of drug development with a cost‑effective, highly efficient strategy that positions the company as a disruptive force in biotech. Central to this approach is Decoy' proprietary peptide‑synthesis technology and rapid design‑build‑test cycle, powered by machine learning. He also underscores the importance of Decoy's strategic partnerships with the Gates Foundation, Google, and NVIDIA in advancing its platform and accelerating development.

Microsoft Bill Gates is getting cooked over his connection to Epstein and his philandering. He just had to apologize to the Gates Foundation, and dropped out of an appearance at an AI summit in India. Is this the END of Gates, professionally? He'll always be Epstein's Pal Bill Gates (TM) going forward.Watch the podcast episodes on YouTube and all major podcast hosts including Spotify.CLOWNFISH TV is an independent, opinionated news and commentary podcast that covers Entertainment and Tech from a consumer's point of view. We talk about Gaming, Comics, Anime, TV, Movies, Animation and more. Hosted by Kneon and Geeky Sparkles.Get more news, views and reviews on Clownfish TV News - https://more.clownfishtv.com/On YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ClownfishTVOn Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4Tu83D1NcCmh7K1zHIedvgOn Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/clownfish-tv-audio-edition/id1726838629

Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft and a leading global philanthropist, withdrew from delivering his scheduled keynote address at the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi just hours before he was set to speak. The Gates Foundation issued a statement saying the decision was made “to ensure the focus remains on the AI Summit's key priorities,” and Ankur Vora, president of the foundation's Africa and India offices, delivered the address in his place. Gates had been initially confirmed and was in India ahead of the event, which was designed to position India as a hub for artificial intelligence development and governance.The sudden cancellation came amid heightened scrutiny over Gates's past interactions with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after recently released U.S. Justice Department documents included emails involving Gates Foundation staff and Epstein. Although Gates denies any impropriety and says he regretted associating with Epstein, the controversy drew significant attention in Indian media and public debate in the lead-up to the summit. Some commentators linked the timing of his withdrawal to that controversy, even as summit organizers and Indian officials did not directly tie the decision to the Epstein files.to c ontact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates cancels AI summit keynote address amid scrutiny over Epstein links | CNN

Sukhi Sahni and Sarab Kochhar discussed their backgrounds, careers, and values on the Minority Report Podcast. Sukhi, now freelancing and teaching, emphasized the importance of kindness and empathy in leadership. Sarab, working at the Gates Foundation, highlighted the intersection of business strategy, communication, and humanitarian efforts. Both stressed the need for leaders to stay true to their values and not confuse visibility with impact. They shared personal anecdotes to integrate cultural elements into professional life. The conversation underscored the significance of diverse voices and values in leadership and communication. Timestamp: Reconnecting and Sharing Personal Updates 0:00 Discussing Food and Cultural Connections 2:35 Introduction to the Podcast and Guests 3:50 The Importance of Leadership and Kindness 17:00 Advice for Early Career Professionals 33:57 Connecting with the Guests and Future Plans 39:02

Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft and a leading global philanthropist, withdrew from delivering his scheduled keynote address at the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi just hours before he was set to speak. The Gates Foundation issued a statement saying the decision was made “to ensure the focus remains on the AI Summit's key priorities,” and Ankur Vora, president of the foundation's Africa and India offices, delivered the address in his place. Gates had been initially confirmed and was in India ahead of the event, which was designed to position India as a hub for artificial intelligence development and governance.The sudden cancellation came amid heightened scrutiny over Gates's past interactions with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after recently released U.S. Justice Department documents included emails involving Gates Foundation staff and Epstein. Although Gates denies any impropriety and says he regretted associating with Epstein, the controversy drew significant attention in Indian media and public debate in the lead-up to the summit. Some commentators linked the timing of his withdrawal to that controversy, even as summit organizers and Indian officials did not directly tie the decision to the Epstein files.to c ontact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates cancels AI summit keynote address amid scrutiny over Epstein links | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Did the gatekeepers at the India AI Summit decide that they needed to be Gateskeepers? Was Bill Gates quietly told that he would not be welcome at a Summit that is already reeling from controversy after controversy? It does look like that. Even before the event, government ‘sources' were quoted as saying there had been a change of plan and that Gates would not be speaking. But the Gates Foundation insisted that he would address the Summit as scheduled.

Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft and a leading global philanthropist, withdrew from delivering his scheduled keynote address at the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi just hours before he was set to speak. The Gates Foundation issued a statement saying the decision was made “to ensure the focus remains on the AI Summit's key priorities,” and Ankur Vora, president of the foundation's Africa and India offices, delivered the address in his place. Gates had been initially confirmed and was in India ahead of the event, which was designed to position India as a hub for artificial intelligence development and governance.The sudden cancellation came amid heightened scrutiny over Gates's past interactions with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after recently released U.S. Justice Department documents included emails involving Gates Foundation staff and Epstein. Although Gates denies any impropriety and says he regretted associating with Epstein, the controversy drew significant attention in Indian media and public debate in the lead-up to the summit. Some commentators linked the timing of his withdrawal to that controversy, even as summit organizers and Indian officials did not directly tie the decision to the Epstein files.to c ontact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill Gates cancels AI summit keynote address amid scrutiny over Epstein links | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From global tech scandals to local politics, this episode dives into: Bill Gates & Epstein Fallout: Gates cancels India AI Summit appearance amid backlash over past associations. Prince Andrew & Royal Scandals: How the Epstein files continue to shake high-profile figures. Colbert Controversy & Election Law: FCC equal-time rules, censorship claims, and media bias. NYC Dog Debate: Pro-Palestinian activist sparks outrage over “Islamization” and banning indoor pets. Trump & Soleimani: Revisiting U.S. military revenge, Iran tensions, and historical context. AI & Surveillance: Ring's new Search Party feature, Skynet-style networks, and the risks of connected cameras. Retirement Planning: Tips from Common Sense Retirement Planning to secure your future against market swings. From politics to tech, censorship to security, this episode covers the stories everyone is talking about — and the ones you might be missing.

Things are getting messy on multiple fronts: Bill Gates canceled at India's AI Summit amid backlash over the Epstein files. Prince Andrew arrested — a reminder that elite immunity is vanishing. The Gates Foundation's tech influence in India raises global censorship concerns. Germany asserts the right to censor Viktor Orbán during Hungary's election, sparking debates about digital sovereignty. Stephen Colbert caught flouting FCC equal-time rules during a senatorial campaign. From elite scandals to global censorship to media hypocrisy, this episode breaks down why accountability is finally catching up with the powerful — and why the law applies to everyone, even TV hosts.

Note: opinions are all my own. Following Jeff Kaufman's Front-Load Giving Because of Anthropic Donors and Jenn's Funding Conversation We Left Unfinished, I think there is a real likelihood that impactful causes will receive significantly more funding in the near future. As background on where this new funding could come from: Coefficient Giving announced:  A recent NYT piece covered rumors of an Anthropic valuation at $350 billion. Many of Anthropic's cofounders and early employees have pledged to donate significant amounts of their equity, and it seems likely that an outsized share of these donations would go to effective causes. A handful of other sources have the potential to grow their giving: Founders Pledge has secured $12.8 billion in pledged funding, and significantly scaled the amount it directs.[1] The Gates Foundation has increased its giving following Bill Gates' announcement to spend down $200 billion by 2045. Other aligned funders such as Longview, Macroscopic, the Flourishing Fund, the Navigation Fund, GiveWell, Project Resource Optimization, Schmidt Futures/Renaissance Philanthropy, and the Livelihood Impacts Fund have increased their staffing and dollars directed in recent years. The OpenAI Foundation controls a 26% equity stake in the for-profit OpenAI Group PB. This stake is currently valued at $130 billion [...] ---Outline:(02:39) Work(03:50) Giving(04:53) Conduct --- First published: February 2nd, 2026 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/H8SqwbLxKkiJur3c4/preparing-for-a-flush-future-work-giving-and-conduct --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

We explore Bill Gates' history, the foundation's global health initiatives, vaccine programs in Africa, documented connections to Jeffrey Epstein, and the controversies that continue to circulate. Bill Gates and his Foundation has shaped global health, vaccine policy, and international development for decades. But when wealth and influence reach this scale, questions follow. Watch the full episode on YouTube:▶ https://bit.ly/TheoriesOfTheThirdKindYT Support the show + unlock bonus episodes:

Tonight on The Stew Peters Show, Jeff Berwick joins me to expose how Bill Gates, Epstein, and their demonic cabal plotted pandemics since 2011 for trillion-dollar profits, laundered billions through the Gates Foundation, obsessed over gene-editing Africans while testing deadly jabs on black kids, and engineered COVID as a global blood sacrifice ritual. Joining me tonight is E. Michael Jones to blow the lid off the Zionist Super Bowl psyop that's erasing the Epstein files proving our leaders are kid-eating pedophiles dragging us into nuclear war for Israel against Iran, ready to wipe out our troops. Epstein's alive, still eating child jerky in hiding. Files prove PizzaGate, Zorro Ranch kid farms, human jerky shipments, and acid baths—this cannibal network runs bolder than ever.

Melinda is on the high road about Bill's Epstein stuff, but she doesn't get a pass with the Foundation.Check this video out about the Gates Foundation in Africa https://youtu.be/4TReJ9tNZTU?si=fPKe9R5dW_LfT4qRsupport the channel: Refuel Store https://my-store-701776.creator-spring.com/

News editor Katherine Knott joins editor in chief Sara Custer for an IHE newsroom updated on federal policy. Katherine shares what she expects will be on the agenda in the negotiated rule making for accreditation and how the department will run the process. At the time of recording the government was shut down, but Katherine explains how the budget bill awaiting passage in the House is far more generous to higher ed than the White House's proposals. And rumors are swirling that the administration will unveil a second compact soon.    Thanks to our partners The Gates Foundation for sponsoring this episode. 

As governments cut back on how much they spend on global aid, the head of the Gates Foundation Mark Suzman speaks exclusively to Business Daily about how the world's poorest are being affected. He tells us world governments “should be embarrassed” that the Foundation has overtaken them to become the largest financial backer of the WHO.When governments reduce their air spend, the organisation inevitably becomes more prominent. But is there too much reliance on the Gates Foundation globally for an institution with little democratic accountability? And are its priorities the right ones? If you'd like to get in touch with the team, our email address is businessdaily@bbc.co.ukPresenter: Sam Fenwick Producer: Matt LinesBusiness Daily is the home of in-depth audio journalism devoted to the world of money and work. From small startup stories to big corporate takeovers, global economic shifts to trends in technology, we look at the key figures, ideas and events shaping business.Each episode is a 17-minute deep dive into a single topic, featuring expert analysis and the people at the heart of the story.Recent episodes explore the weight-loss drug revolution, the growth in AI, the cost of living, why bond markets are so powerful, China's property bubble, and Gen Z's experience of the current job market.We also feature in-depth interviews with company founders and some of the world's most prominent CEOs. These include the CEO of Google Sundar Pichai, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, and billionaire founder Judy Faulkner of Epic Systems, one of the world's largest medical record software providers.(Picture: Gates Foundation CEO Mark Suzman speaking at an event in New York City. Credit: Getty Images)

This special episode podcast series, presented by Piramal Foundation in collaboration with The Good Sight, focuses on the fight against lymphatic filariasis (filaria), a neglected yet debilitating public health challenge.Our guest is Dr. Bhupendra Tripathi, Deputy Director at the Gates Foundation, who has been working extensively to support the elimination of filaria and other infectious diseases in India. His work spans strengthening vaccine delivery systems, expanding equitable immunization coverage, and ensuring that no community is left behind in public health efforts.In this episode, Dr. Tripathi explains what filaria is, how it affects the human body, and who is most at risk—using simple, accessible language. We discuss the early warning signs that should never be ignored, even when symptoms appear mild. The conversation also goes beyond medical aspects to explore how filaria impacts a person's livelihood, daily life, and social dignity, and the broader economic burden such diseases place on communities and countries, as highlighted by the World Health Organization.The episode concludes with an on-ground perspective on how India and the global community are working together to eliminate filaria, highlighting coordinated efforts by governments, institutions, and development partners to turn awareness into action and solutions.This episode reinforces a powerful message: with the right knowledge, strong systems, and collective commitment, filaria can be prevented and eliminated.CreditsGuest: Dr. Bhupendra TripathiHost: Sanjay PrasadResearch: Alisha CConcept: Piramal Foundation Produced by: The Good SightFor feedback or to participate, write to us at contact@thegoodsight.org#Filaria #LymphaticFilariasis #PublicHealth #DiseaseElimination #Immunization #HealthEquity #PiramalFoundation #TheGoodSight

From Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security to founding Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security (WCAPS), Amb. Bonnie Jenkins has led a life and career of service.  In this conversation with Jackson School Director Danny Hoffman and Gates Foundation senior program officer, and former foreign service officer, Heather Hwalek, Amb. Jenkins explores the values and the structures that are required to support a diverse and effective diplomatic corps. Photo L to R: Amb. Bonnie Jenkins and Heather Hwalek

Hardware security is not a new problem, but it is rapidly expanding in both consumer and medical domains due to hyperconnectivity. Medical devices and counterfeit medicines represent a fundamental security challenge. In particular, although counterfeit medicines are not a new issue,the problem continues to worsen as counterfeiting practices become increasingly sophisticated. The counterfeiting of biomedical products poses a serious threat to patient safety, public health, and economic stability in both developed and developing countries, and many current countermeasures remain vulnerable because they provide limited security. In this talk, we will share our work on biomedical hardware security with a focus on pharmaceutical products. We present cyber-physical biomedical security technologies that encode dosage information and authentication into edible biomaterials, enabling serialization, track-and-trace, and authentication at the dosage level. This approach empowers patients to play an active role in combating counterfeit medicines. About the speaker: Young Kim is a professor in the Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering and holds the titles of University Faculty Scholar and Showalter Faculty Scholar at Purdue University. His research centers on co-creating hardware(devices) and software (models) for large-scale societal and healthcare applications. His lab develops hybrid machine learning by combining data analytics with models grounded in optical spectroscopy and light-matter interactions to move beyond big-data, compute-intensive AI and leverage engineers' domain expertise. His work spans optical imaging and spectroscopy, mesoscopic physics, meta materials, cancer research, hardware security, and global health,unified by machine learning and data analytics. His research has been funded by a diverse range of agencies, including NIH, CDC, VA, AFOSR, USAID and Gates Foundation. His primary applications are in global health and rural community health, which address large-scale societal and healthcare challenges in mutually reinforcing ways.

Trump seeks ‘decisive' options against Iran, Haiti's Transitional Presidential Council reportedly moves to oust the prime minister, Eight nations agree to join Trump's Board of Peace, Trump announces a 'framework' for a Greenland deal, The U.K. postpones local elections for 29 councils, The three former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance face trial for organizing Tiananmen vigils, An ICE memo allegedly allows agents to forcibly enter homes with administrative warrants, The U.S. officially withdraws from the World Health Organization, Deadly landslides strike New Zealand after record rainfall, and the Gates Foundation and OpenAI launch a $50 million AI health initiative in Africa. Sources: Verity.News

Scientists say research into a vaccine for HIV is further along than it's ever been.But Trump administration cuts to scientific research have set that effort back.Including a promising trial for an HIV vaccine in Africa – which was shut down altogether.NPR's Ari Daniel has the story of how researchers there refused to give up.Ari's reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Pulitzer Center. The Gates Foundation is a financial supporter of NPR. This episode was produced by Mallory Yu and Kira Wakeam.It was edited by Rebecca Davis and Courtney Dorning.Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates sits down for an extended interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He discusses The Gates Foundation's new $50m partnership with OpenAI to bring AI tools to 1000 health clinics in Africa. Plus, Gates offers his perspective on geopolitics and AI's impact on the workforce. In this episode:Andrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinCameron Costa, @CameronCostaNY Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week, we are tuning in from Davos as we report from the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. With Trump's attendance and foreign policy dominating the summit, we discuss the most important updates for the global development community, including the Gates Foundation and OpenAI's $50 million commitment to support AI-infused health programs across Africa. We examine the year's defining narratives — specifically the shift toward sovereign, country-led initiatives — and explain why the global development community's presence at Davos is vital to ensuring these voices shape the new international order. During the sponsored segment of This Week in Global Development, brought to you by Pivotal, Catherine Cheney sits down with Action for Women's Health grantee Naana Otoo-Oyortey, Executive Director at Forward UK, whose leadership brings visibility and sustainable change for women's Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR). Learn more about the awardees and explore the content series: https://pages.devex.com/boldideas.html Sign up to the Devex Newswire and our other newsletters: https://www.devex.com/account/newsletters

Dr. Nahreen Ahmed returns to the show after her fourth trip to Gaza. Dr. Nahreen is a critical care doctor based in Philadelphia and serves as a technical consultant for the Gates Foundation. Dr. Ahmed has extensive experience working in humanitarian disasters and warzones across the globe, including Sierra Leone, Yemen, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Bangladesh and Gaza.borgenproject.orgOfficial podcast of The Borgen Project, an international organization that fights for the world's poor. Clint Borgen and team provide an entertaining look at global issues, politics and advocacy.Learn more at borgenproject.org.

In this episode of the Lead Up Podcast, host Mike Harbour engages in a thought-provoking conversation with John Rossman, renowned author of 'Big Bet Leadership'. The discussion delves into John's extensive experience in leading Amazon's marketplace launch, working with the Gates Foundation, and his principles on leadership transformation. Key topics include identifying organizational hurdles to transformation, the importance of clarity, and effective communication in leadership. John shares his insights on writing detailed memos for complex decisions, the importance of hiring the right leaders for big projects, and the critical habits necessary for successful transformational leadership. For leaders looking to drive meaningful change and innovation within their organizations, this episode offers valuable strategies and actionable advice. If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to leave a 5-star review on your streaming platform. Mike encourages you to reach out to him through Mike@harbourresources.com to share your thoughts on this episode & to share some topics you would like him to cover in the future.

Collecting and analyzing student data and then acting on any findings to support student success is a struggle for many institutions. Often data is in the wrong format, inaccessible to the right teams or there are so many analytics colleges don't know where to start. Many administrators also lack the data literacy needed to make accurate, data-informed decisions. In this episode, we're sharing a discussion Inside Higher Ed Editor in Chief Sara Custer had with higher ed leaders at IHE's Student Success 2025 event. Courtney Brown, vice-president of strategic impact and planning at the Lumina Foundation, Elliot Felix, the higher education advisory practice lead at Buro Happold and Mark Milliron the president of National University bring unique experiences and perspectives to the question of how institutions can be data-driven and student centered. This episode is sponsored by the Gates Foundation.

It's one thing to enrol kids at school. But that is the beginning of their education. When they are there, they need to learn – and unless that starts with learning to read, we're failing in our duty to them. A new report, produced by a group of literacy experts and is endorsed by GEEAP, shows that improving the quality of reading instruction can sharply increase reading levels in schools in LMICs, and calls on policymakers to act. Benjamin Piper of the Gates Foundation joins Tim Phillips to talk about what works, and how it can be implemented.

This summer we're curating your 456 playlist listening to bring you some of our favourite interviews from MID and No Filter. Melinda French Gates knows everyone wants to talk about her divorce. She gets it, and she's covered it her new book, Next Day, about handling life's transitions. But also, what she wants to talk about is change. How we pick ourselves up after those big moments that knock us off course, whether it's the end of a relationship, losing a job, becoming a parent, kids leaving home, losing someone or a a big career shift. Transitions, she knows, are moments of both struggle and opportunity. French-Gates is the computer scientist, philanthropist and advocate who, along with her former husband, Bill Gates, founded the Gates Foundation, raising and donating billions of dollars to improve health outcomes for some of the most vulnerable communities in the world. After her separation, French-Gates established her own philanthropic organisation, Pivotal, to advance issues that affect women and girls. In this episode of MID she talks about how to tap into that inner whisper that becomes a roar, what her life looks like post-divorce and what she wants everyone to know about moving on 'The Next Day'. You can buy Melinda French Gates' book here. Find more MID here. CREDITS: Host: Holly Wainwright Guest: Melinda French Gates Executive Producer: Naima Brown Senior Producer: Grace Rouvray Producer: Tahli Blackman Audio Producer: Jacob Round Mamamia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the Land we have recorded this podcast on, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.Support the show: https://www.mamamia.com.auSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host Stephen Ibaraki sits down with Thomas Park, Co-Founder and Lead Partner of the BDC Deep Tech Fund, to explore leadership, innovation, and the future of Canadian deep tech.From McKinsey and the Gates Foundation to investing in AI, quantum computing, and foundational technologies, Thomas shares insights on:Consulting vs implementationVenture capital vs private equityGovernment's role in innovationScaling startups beyond research excellenceEthics, explainability, and human-centered technology

Gates Foundation co-founder Bill Gates joined POLITICO's Dasha Burns on this week's episode of The Conversation to discuss his continued support for vaccine philanthropy, the impact of government aid cuts in global health, AI, vaccine skepticism and much more. The interview took place shortly after the release of The Gates Foundation's Goalkeepers Report projects, which predicts that child deaths will rise in 2025 for the first time this century.

Special Event IFPRI Policy Seminar Shaping Food Policy in a Changing World: Research Priorities for Greater Impact Organized by IFPRI, with support from the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation December 15, 2025 In today's fast-changing world and evolving food systems, the need for evidence-based food policy has never been more urgent – demanding research that is timely, inclusive, and tailored to context. Reliable data and rigorous analysis are essential, but research must also evolve – and become more timely, more relevant, and more inclusive of diverse voices and disciplines. Strengthening how we generate, communicate, and apply evidence is key to ensuring food systems deliver better outcomes for people and the planet. Join us at IFPRI for a high-level seminar that brings together researchers, policymakers, development partners and leading food system thinkers who have helped deliver science-based impact around the world to explore: • The role of food policy research in shaping past policies, programs, and investments • Emerging research questions and challenges in a rapidly shifting global landscape • How research and outreach must adapt to strengthen pathways from evidence to impact • How research institutions can adapt to remain responsive in a rapidly changing world To mark IFPRI's 50th anniversary, the event will also celebrate the contributions of the Institute's alumni and launch the Institute's new research strategy. 00:00:00 - Inaugural Session - https://on.soundcloud.com/hQG0uzZiCahbvJl2nh 01:09:45 - Making an Impact: Successes and Future Approaches - https://soundcloud.com/ifpri/ifpri-special-event-15dec2025?si=6aa560adbae34d58b27556ff6b048009&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing#t=01%3A09%3A45 02:11:13 - Accelerating Research-to-Impact Pathways - https://on.soundcloud.com/4EYzsVYT2iJsK8ozIf 02:57:44 - IFPRI Alumni Roundtable on Food Policy Research Opportunities and Challenges - https://on.soundcloud.com/ormRkwIbioYaCBBAwV 04:19:22 - Launch of the New IFPRI Strategy - https://on.soundcloud.com/WT0KvQVucGjr81xEV1 05:59:54 - Closing Session - https://on.soundcloud.com/IUw6Lzy3Avpqe3HJRf More about this Event: https://www.ifpri.org/event/shaping-food-policy-in-a-changing-world-research-priorities-for-greater-impact/ Subscribe IFPRI Insights newsletter and event announcements at www.ifpri.org/content/newsletter-subscription

Gates Foundation co-founder Bill Gates joined POLITICO's Dasha Burns on this week's episode of The Conversation to discuss his continued support for vaccine philanthropy, the impact of government aid cuts in global health, AI, vaccine skepticism and much more. The interview took place shortly after the release of The Gates Foundation's Goalkeepers Report projects, which predicts that child deaths will rise in 2025 for the first time this century. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Howie and Harlan are joined by Basmah Safdar, a Yale School of Medicine emergency physician and an expert on sex-specific differences in cardiovascular and microvascular health, which have important implications for the understanding and treatment of heart attacks, long COVID, and other conditions. Harlan reports on Australia's ban on social media for kids, and a Medicare pilot program that will pay providers based on improved outcomes in chronic conditions. Howie unpacks the consequences of the CDC's change to its recommendations for newborn hepatitis B vaccination. Show notes: Social Media and Kids "Australia's Social Media Ban for Children Takes Effect" Health & Veritas Episode 197: Peter Hotez: Mapping the Anti-Science Machine Medicare's ACCESS Payment Model CMS: ACCESS (Advancing Chronic Care with Effective, Scalable Solutions) Model Basmah Safdar "Medical School Enrollment Reaches 100,000 Students for the First Time" Health & Veritas: Episode 176: Live at the Yale Innovation Summit 2025 "Myocardial ischemia in women: lessons from the NHLBI WISE study" "Sex Differences in COVID-19 Immune Responses Affect Patient Outcomes" "Scientists unravel mystery of sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes" Health & Veritas Episode 192: Akiko Iwasaki: What Have We Learned About Long COVID? "Basmah Safdar, MD, FACEP, Appointed Director, Women's Health Research at Yale (WHRY)" Women's Health Research at Yale "Women's Health Research at Yale: The Prologue" "History of Women's Participation in Clinical Research" "Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies" "Heart attack symptoms often misinterpreted in younger women" Harlan Krumholz: "Sex Difference in Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Young Patients" "Women's Health: More Than 'Bikini Medicine'" "Celebrating Carolyn Mazure" "Women's Health Research at Yale: Our Research"  "Current Status of Gender and Racial/Ethnic Disparities Among Academic Emergency Medicine Physicians" "New Women's Health Fund of Funds Launches to Activate $60B in Life Sciences Capital" "Closing the women's health gap: A $1 trillion opportunity to improve lives and economies" "Blueprint to close the women's health gap: How to improve lives and economies for all" "Gates Foundation pledges $2.5 billion to women's health initiatives" "Milken Institute Launches New Women's Health Network, Former First Lady Jill Biden Joins as its Chair" Women's Health Research at Yale: Pilot Project Program Funding Note: Deadline is December 22. Women's Health Research at Yale: Collaborative CDC and Hepatitis B "Panel Votes to Stop Recommending Hepatitis B Shots at Birth for Most Newborns" CDC: Hepatitis B Vaccine Safety WHO: Hepatitis B "New review finds no evidence to support delaying universal hepatitis B birth-dose vaccination" In the Yale School of Management's MBA for Executives program, you'll get a full MBA education in 22 months while applying new skills to your organization in real time. Yale's Executive Master of Public Health offers a rigorous public health education for working professionals, with the flexibility of evening online classes alongside three on-campus trainings. Email Howie and Harlan comments or questions.

It's Tuesday, December 9th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Nigerian Muslims killed 48 Christians A wave of deadly attacks in the Southern Taraba State in Nigeria resulted in the deaths of 48 Christians and hundreds of homes were reduced to ashes. Religious leaders point to Muslim terrorists as freely killing, without any intervention from the Nigerian military. In an article by TruthNigeria.com, one resident said, “We made calls to the Nigerian military, but the personnel refused to pick up. Later, they switched off their phones.”  Shockingly, Nigeria's former Chief of Defense Staff, General Lucky Irabor, recently confirmed in a news interview that certain Nigerian politicians have been financing terror in the country. Major Japanese earthquake Japan just experienced its most severe earthquake in 10 years, reports The Guardian.   According to The Independent, 23 people were injured. Yesterday's tremor hit the northern part of Honshu, registering 7.6 on the Richter scale. Japanese economy struggling Japan's economy is also taking a hit — a 2.3% annualized decline in its Gross National Product last quarter. This would be Japan's first recessionary trend since 2020. The nation's new Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, promises more government spending with a $110 billion stimulus package to fix the problem. Japanese elderly dying without known relatives Increasingly, Japan's elderly are dying without any known relatives or family relationships. This is measured by unclaimed inheritances.   Disturbingly, about $1 billion of unclaimed assets from elderly men and women, who have passed away, reverted to the Japanese federal treasury in 2024, reports The Japan Times.  That's four times the amount in 2013.  Above all, Japan needs the Gospel.  In the words of Ephesians 2:11-12,  “Remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh … were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” Cambodia and Thailand back at war As of yesterday morning, Cambodia is back at war with Thailand, following a Trump-brokered peace agreement, reports Nation of Thailand. Thailand's air force is targeting Cambodia's military operations. Russia-Ukrainian peace plan  delayed again There remains a disconnect between the United States and Europe on the Ukraine war resolution.   Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer yesterday and clarified that there was still no deal on the U.S. proposal of land swaps in Russia's favor.  China controls First World countries by lending money Now, the Chinese government has set out to control nations by loans and grants — all of which have strings attached.  That's the essence of a report from AidData.org.   Chinese loan commitments are extending into First World countries, of which the United States tops the list — followed by Australia, Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan, Angola, Brazil, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. Chinese state-owned lenders have opened up about $1 trillion of credit to high-income countries, with the United States leading the pack as the largest debtor to China. According to the report, “China remains the world's largest official creditor, lending approximately $140 billion to public sector and private sector borrowers around the globe in 2023.”   Proverbs 22:7 warns, “The debtors are servants to the lenders.” Trump cut $600 million from “family planning” groups The Trump administration cut $600 million this year from various international groups' family planning budgets.   This cut was quickly compensated for by the Gates Foundation, which recently announced another $2.5 billion to the program.  30-somethings are 10% less likely to own a home A new report finds that 30-somethings here in the United States are drawn to risky investments like Bitcoin, but less likely to buy homes. The report projected that young folks, born in the 1990s, would have a home ownership rate that will be 10% lower, upon their retirement, than their parents' generation.  Home affordability is affecting the younger buyers. Samaritan's Purse sending 12 million children Christmas gifts And finally, Samaritan's Purse Operation Christmas Child is well under way toward collecting 12 million shoe boxes containing toys, necessities, and the Gospel message for children in 100 countries around the world.  That's up from 9 million shoe boxes filled in 2020. A vision inspired by Franklin Graham, Operation Christmas Child got started in 1993, when the organization distributed 28,000 shoe box gifts to children in the Balkans in southeastern Europe. Since then, Operation Christmas Child has collected and delivered more than 232 million gift-filled shoe boxes to children in more than 170 countries and territories. For late comers, there are 8 processing centers still open around the country to receive the Operation Christmas Child shoe boxes -- in Denver, Dallas, Atlanta, and Charlotte, North Carolina. You can also make a financial donation through a special link in our transcript today at wwww.TheWorldview.com.   Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, December 9th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Digital ID is being promoted globally in a coordinated manner by technocrats and politicians, with guidance from the United Nations, and funding from the Gates Foundation and other NGOs. Trying to live an analog life moving forward will become increasingly more difficult, as those who opt out will face incredible hardships.Hakeem Anwar, founder of Above Phone, is back to discuss his free “Life Under Digital ID” report, which details the global push towards collecting biometric information. Half the world's population is already living under a digital ID system, just in China and India, but the EU is moving in that direction, as is America. There are ways to prevent this, but the window is closing.—Guest Links: Hakeem Anwar Above Phone: https://abovephone.com/activistpost/Take Back Our Tech: https://takebackourtech.org/—Watch the video version on one of the Macroaggressions Channels:Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/Macroaggressions YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MacroaggressionsPodcast—MACRO & Charlie Robinson LinksHypocrazy Audiobook: https://amzn.to/4aogwmsThe Octopus of Global Control Audiobook: https://amzn.to/3xu0rMmWebsite: www.Macroaggressions.io Merch Store: https://macroaggressions.dashery.com/ Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/macroaggressionspodcast—Activist Post FamilyActivist Post: www.ActivistPost.com Natural Blaze: www.NaturalBlaze.com —Support Our SponsorsC60 Power: https://go.shopc60.com/PBGRT/KMKS9/ | Promo Code: MACROChemical Free Body: https://chemicalfreebody.com/macro/ | Promo Code: MACROWise Wolf Gold & Silver: https://macroaggressions.gold/ | (800) 426-1836LegalShield: www.DontGetPushedAround.com EMP Shield: www.EMPShield.com | Promo Code: MACROChristian Yordanov's Health Program: www.LiveLongerFormula.com/macro Above Phone: https://abovephone.com/macro/Van Man: https://vanman.shop/?ref=MACRO | Promo Code: MACROThe Dollar Vigilante: https://dollarvigilante.spiffy.co/a/O3wCWenlXN/4471 Nesa's Hemp: www.NesasHemp.com | Promo Code: MACROAugason Farms: https://augasonfarms.com/MACRO —

The World Health Organization in October published a document promoting a global ID to track your vaccination status from birth. This proposal, which is funded by the Gates Foundation, is another of the WHO's efforts to become the de facto global government. The ID they want to impose on us would give it the power to use vaccination status as a qualifier for travel, education, and government services. We also discuss the US government's bold stance acknowledging that unrestricted immigration, which is coming primarily from Muslim nations, poses an existential threat to the West. This is obvious to anyone who's read world history going back to the 7th century, but most people haven't. We highly recommend the books of Dr. Timothy Furnish and Raymond Ibrahim, and especially Raymond's new book The Two Swords of Christ (https://amzn.to/48IByeV). Sharon's niece, Sarah Sachleben, was recently diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer, and the medical bills are piling up. If you are led to help, please go to GilbertHouse.org/hopeforsarah. Follow us! X (formerly Twitter): @pidradio | @sharonkgilbert | @derekgilbert | @gilberthouse_tvTelegram: t.me/gilberthouse | t.me/sharonsroom | t.me/viewfromthebunkerSubstack: gilberthouse.substack.comYouTube: @GilbertHouse | @UnravelingRevelationFacebook.com/pidradio Thank you for making our Build Barn Better project a reality! Our 1,200 square foot pole barn has a new HVAC system, epoxy floor, 100-amp electric service, new windows, insulation, lights, and ceiling fans! If you are so led, you can help out by clicking here: gilberthouse.org/donate. Get our free app! It connects you to this podcast, our weekly Bible studies, and our weekly video programs Unraveling Revelation and A View from the Bunker. The app is available for iOS, Android, Roku, and Apple TV. Links to the app stores are at pidradio.com/app. Video on demand of our best teachings! Stream presentations and teachings based on our research at our new video on demand site: gilberthouse.org/video! Think better, feel better! Our partners at Simply Clean Foods offer freeze-dried, 100% GMO-free food and delicious, vacuum-packed fair trade coffee from Honduras. Find out more at GilbertHouse.org/store/.

Russia's leader visits India for the first time since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. India's prime minister is under pressure to stop buying Russian oil over accusations the trade is financing the war. Also: The New York Times is suing the Pentagon over its attempt to make journalists sign a pledge to only report authorised information. A study by the Gates Foundation has found that the number of preventable child deaths is due to rise this year for the first time this century. We go to New Orleans to examine the controversy surrounding an operation to arrest undocumented immigrants. A US senator gives us his view on President Trump's comments in which he describes America's Somali community as "garbage". The organisers of the Eurovision Song Contest debate whether Israel should be allowed to continue in the competition.The Global News Podcast brings you the breaking news you need to hear, as it happens. Listen for the latest headlines and current affairs from around the world. Politics, economics, climate, business, technology, health – we cover it all with expert analysis and insight. Get the news that matters, delivered twice a day on weekdays and daily at weekends, plus special bonus episodes reacting to urgent breaking stories. Follow or subscribe now and never miss a moment. Get in touch: globalpodcast@bbc.co.uk

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Arabella Advisors, we hardly knew ye. The once obscure, multi-billion-dollar, private-equity-owned machine of leftist funding has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Or has it? Arabella, an organization we here at CRC worked diligently to help bring into the light, has in fact, after being rather publicly and unceremoniously dumped by the Gates Foundation in […]

Arabella Advisors, we hardly knew ye. The once obscure, multi-billion dollar, private-equity-owned machine of leftist funding has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Or has it?Arabella, an organization we here at CRC worked diligently to help bring into the light, has in fact, after being rather publicly and unceremoniously dumped by the Gates Foundation in June, simply split, been restructured, been sold, and/or rebranded, depending on your perspective. The two new entities born of Arabella's demise are Sunflower Services, a public benefit corporation, and Vital Impact, a philanthropic consulting firm that most resembles the former dark money machine.  The three c3 workhorse nonprofits housed under the former Arabella, who often served as fiscal sponsors for other nonprofits and from which the funding flowed – New Venture Fund, Hopewell Fund, and Windward Fund – are now investors in the aforementioned Sunflower Services and have vowed to continue the work of helping leftist nonprofits accomplish their goals on everything from DEI, to abortion, to social justice. But there are many questions remaining, with perhaps the most interesting: what happens to Arabella's most political entities, the c4s, notably the notorious Sixteen Thirty Fund? And what prompted them to make this momentous change?Arabella Advisors Dissolves After Years of GOP-Led InvestigationsBill Gates to Stop Grantmaking via Arabella AdvisorsArabella: The Dark Money Network of Leftist Billionaires Transforming AmericaWhat, Exactly, Just Happened to the Left's Dark Money Behemoth Arabella Advisors?Bill Gates may have just set off the death of far-left-tainted philanthropy

Dr. Nahreen Ahmed is a critical care doctor based in Philadelphia and serves as a technical consultant for the Gates Foundation. Dr. Ahmed has extensive experience working in humanitarian disasters and warzones across the globe, including Sierra Leone, Yemen, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Bangladesh and Gaza.borgenproject.orgOfficial podcast of The Borgen Project, an international organization that fights for the world's poor. Clint Borgen and team provide an entertaining look at global issues, politics and advocacy.Learn more at borgenproject.org.

Melinda French Gates is a philanthropist, business leader, and New York Times bestselling author who has spent decades transforming lives around the world. Melinda opens up to Hoda about why her latest chapter is more personal than ever, how she learned to let go of perfection, and what it means to lead with empathy. She reflects on her lifelong advocacy for women and families, the faith and friendships that have grounded her, and why she believes the smallest acts of kindness can spark the biggest change. Plus, she shares where her focus lies today through her work with Pivotal Ventures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

John Rossman the Managing Partner and Founder of Rossman Partners. He is a business strategist, operator, and expert on digital transformation, leadership, and business reinvention. He has consulted with many great brands including Novartis, Fidelity Investments, Microsoft, Walmart, and Nordstrom. He served as senior innovation advisor at T-Mobile and senior technology advisor to the Gates Foundation. He is an operator and builder whose love is diving into business problems and customer needs designing solutions and business opportunities. EXPERIENCE Former Amazon Executive Responsible for the launching and scaling the merchant integration team and played a key role in launching and scaling the Amazon marketplace business, which is now over 50% of all units sold at Amazon.com. Also responsible for the enterprise services business with responsibilities for Toys R Us, Target.com, NBA.com and other great brands. Media Analyst Sought after expert commentary regarding Amazon as interviewed by New York Times, CNBC, Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg, BBC, Geekwire and many others. Author Author of Big Bet Leadership: Your Transformation Playbook for Winning in the Hyper Digital Era. Releases Feb 27, 2024. Author of Think Like Amazon: 50 1/2 Ideas to Become a Digital Leader. Author of The Amazon Way on IoT: 10 Principles for Every Leader from the World's Leading Internet of Things Strategies. Author of The Amazon Way: Amazon's 14 Leadership Principles. Assignments - Interim chief technology officer for the Gates Foundation - Innovation advisor to T-mobile - Interim CIO for a national retailer Speaker Keynote speaker on innovation, leadership and digital transformation. John leads workshops on a wide variety of innovation, internet of things, digital strategy, and creating a culture of agility, trial and error, scaling and accountability. His goal is to give audiences tools they can immediately use to operate differently. Advisor Rossman Partners helps it's clients compete and win in the digital era. I work with my clients to both define strategy and create change for the organization. Bringing a broad range of expertise and trusted partners to the table, I first listen and understand, and then help create a customized approach for your situation.  

Tara unpacks an intense mix of political, economic, and public safety crises in this episode. She exposes alleged surveillance of the entire Republican ecosystem, explores Trump's global strategy to counter China's control over rare earth minerals, and breaks down the rising threat of synthetic opioids like xylazine and nidazines. Tara also examines financial markets, the U.S. economic landscape under tariffs, and controversial funding from organizations like the Gates Foundation tied to China's military. From domestic political battles to international negotiations, this episode covers the high-stakes conflicts shaping America today. Politics, power, and peril—what they're not telling you. Tara provides an exhaustive look at recent political and global developments, beginning with alleged massive surveillance targeting the Republican Party and its affiliates. She examines Trump's ongoing efforts to counter China's economic leverage on rare earth minerals and the deadly new synthetic opioids infiltrating the U.S. She also delves into financial news, including tariffs, inflation, and stock market trends, highlighting how economic manipulations affect everyday Americans. Tara further reveals connections between U.S. funding, the Gates Foundation, and China's military, emphasizing the critical stakes of global trade, public health, and political accountability. This episode blends investigative reporting with analysis of national security, public safety, and political strategy.

Tara covers a wide-ranging episode that examines both national and local issues. Former Governor Henry McMaster addresses the potential food crisis amid government shutdowns, while discussions highlight political strategies, SNAP benefits, and allegations of coordinated unrest. Steve Nail, Statehouse District 21 candidate, shares his vision for South Carolina, including fixing infrastructure, eliminating income tax, applying AI to government, and reforming state pensions. The episode also dives into the Gates Foundation, recent investigations into alleged funding of Chinese military-linked projects, and the implications for U.S. policy and public health.

--{ "Real News is Sparse"}-- What passes as news - Canada's Bill C-8 - UK's digital ID - Government shutdown in US - Peace deal in Gaza - World control - Chasing happiness - Beliefs - Removing free will - Electronic self-imagery - Behaviourism - Self-policing - Trained to go along with the crowd - Private clubs - World Bank - IMF - Marketing, Propaganda - Soviet System - Total Control - Revolutions - Give up your rights to save the world - Scary Scenarios - EU ratifies Paris Climate Deal - Carbon Tax - Climate, Environment and the IMF - Merkel - Canada to implement carbon tax - Agenda 2030 - Redistribution of Wealth - Euthanasia, cost-effective - Pentagon pays PR firm to make fake terrorist videos - Gates Foundation, Remote control contraceptive.

Seth Berkley used to run the world's largest vaccine funding organization. He and Steve talk about the incredible value of vaccines, the economics of immunizing the developing world, and the current attacks on public health. SOURCES:Seth Berkley, epidemiologist at Brown University School of Public Health. RESOURCES:"Trump Administration Ends Program Critical to Search for an H.I.V. Vaccine," by Apoorva Mandavilli (New York Times, 2025).Fair Doses: An Insider's Story of the Pandemic and the Global Fight for Vaccine Equity, by Seth Berkley (2025)."How a partnership saved millions of children's lives with vaccines," (Gates Foundation).Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. EXTRAS:"Sendhil Mullainathan Thinks Messing Around Is the Best Use of Your Time," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2021)."Moncef Slaoui: 'It's Unfortunate That It Takes a Crisis for This to Happen,'" by People I (Mostly) Admire (2020).