Podcasts about harvard mit

Discover the power of far infrared therapy in this must-listen episode featuring sauna expert Philip Wilson, the passionate force behind the Relax Sauna. Host David DeHaas of Living Waters Wellness Center dives deep into the remarkable health benefits of far infrared saunas, including detoxification, pain relief, EMF protection, and enhanced circulation.Learn why Relax Sauna stands apart from both wooden infrared saunas and other portable saunas, and how it's trusted by doctors, athletes, and wellness practitioners around the world.Philip explains the science of 7–14 micron far infrared light, its role in cellular healing, and how it activates the parasympathetic nervous system to improve heart rate variability (HRV), promote recovery, and help with issues like psoriasis, Lyme disease, fibromyalgia, and more.Whether you're into natural detox, infrared light therapy, or simply want to feel like you're being "hugged by your grandma" (yes, really!), this episode will open your eyes to what true infrared wellness can feel like.Save $150 Thru this week on a relax sauna Using Code LIVINGWATERS at checkout. www.RelaxSaunas.com After the 19th its a $100 savings.  [0:00] – Welcome & Introduction to Relax Saunas and guest Philip Wilson[0:28] – Origins of Relax Sauna & early days in the wellness space[1:50] – Why other portable saunas failed and how Relax stands out[3:02] – From 24 units to 6,000: Explosive growth in the infrared sauna market[3:40] – Real-world healing: Pain relief & recovery stories from colon hydrotherapists[5:08] – The science: 7–14 micron far infrared frequency & how it affects water molecules[6:32] – Benefits of quick heat-up time, portable sauna design, and full body therapy[8:11] – Why this technology resonates better than near or mid-infrared saunas[10:00] – Harvard-MIT lab tests: 350%–450% more therapeutic intensity[11:20] – Real user testing: Body temp increased 3.2°F, major HRV improvement[14:03] – “It's not the heat, it's the light”: CelSupport the show Ready for your healing journey?Visit our website: www.LivingWatersCleanse.com Or give us a call at: (208) 378-9911Stem Cell Activation Patches:www.StemCellPatch.netGet your Supplements and Natural Body Products Here:www.livingwaterscleanse.com/supplementsQI-Shield EMF Devices:Protect your whole home or office with a touric shield from EMF's. 1. QI Shield Covers 16'x16' 2. QI Home Covers 50' x 50' 3. QI Max Covers 250'x250'Click on link and enter Livingwaters in discount code section during checkout Magnesium Soaks:Follow us on our socials: Living Waters Wellness CenterBitChute: www.bitchute.com/livingwaterswellnessRumble: www.rumble.com/l...

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,As we seemingly grow closer to achieving artificial general intelligence — machines that are smarter than humans at basically everything — we might be incurring some serious geopolitical risks.In the paper Superintelligence Strategy, his joint project with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Alexandr Wang, Dan Hendrycks introduces the idea of Mutual Assured AI Malfunction: a system of deterrence where any state's attempt at total AI dominance is sabotaged by its peers. From the abstract: Just as nations once developed nuclear strategies to secure their survival, we now need a coherent superintelligence strategy to navigate a new period of transformative change. We introduce the concept of Mutual Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM): a deterrence regime resembling nuclear mutual assured destruction (MAD) where any state's aggressive bid for unilateral AI dominance is met with preventive sabotage by rivals. Given the relative ease of sabotaging a destabilizing AI project—through interventions ranging from covert cyberattacks to potential kinetic strikes on datacenters—MAIM already describes the strategic picture AI superpowers find themselves in. Alongside this, states can increase their competitiveness by bolstering their economies and militaries through AI, and they can engage in nonproliferation to rogue actors to keep weaponizable AI capabilities out of their hands. Taken together, the three-part framework of deterrence, nonproliferation, and competitiveness outlines a robust strategy to superintelligence in the years ahead.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Hendrycks about the potential threats posed by superintelligent AI in the hands of state and rogue adversaries, and what a strong deterrence strategy might look like.Hendrycks is the executive director of the Center for AI Safety. He is an advisor to Elon Musk's xAI and Scale AI, and is a prolific researcher and writer.In This Episode* Development of AI capabilities (1:34)* Strategically relevant capabilities (6:00)* Learning from the Cold War (16:12)* Race for strategic advantage (18:56)* Doomsday scenario (28:18)* Maximal progress, minimal risk (33:25)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Development of AI capabilities (1:34). . . mostly the systems aren't that impressive currently. People use them to some extent, but I'd more emphasize the trajectory that we're on rather than the current capabilities.Pethokoukis: How would you compare your view of AI . . . as a powerful technology with economic, national security, and broader societal implications . . . today versus November of 2022 when OpenAI rolled out ChatGPT?Hendrycks: I think that the main difference now is that we have the reasoning paradigm. Back in 2022, GPT couldn't think for an extended period of time before answering and try out multiple different ways of dissolving a problem. The main new capability is its ability to handle more complicated reasoning and science, technology, engineering, mathematics sorts of tasks. It's a lot better at coding, it's a lot better at graduate school mathematics, and physics, and virology.An implication of that for national security is that AIs have some virology capabilities that they didn't before, and virology is dual-use that can be used for civilian applications and weaponization applications. That's a new concerning capability that they have, but I think, overall, the AI systems are still fairly similar in their capabilities profile. They're better in lots of different ways, but not substantially.I think the next large shift is when they can be agents, when they can operate more autonomously, when they can book you flights reliably, make PowerPoints, play through long-form games for extended periods of time, and that seems like it's potentially on the horizon this year. It didn't seem like that two years ago. That's something that a lot of people are keeping an eye on and think could be arriving fairly soon. Overall, I think the capabilities profile is mostly the same except now it has some dual-use capabilities that they didn't have earlier, in particular virology capabilities.To what extent are your national security concerns based on the capabilities of the technology as it is today versus where you think it will be in five years? This is also a way of me asking about the extent that you view AGI as a useful framing device — so this is also a question about your timeline.I think that mostly the systems aren't that impressive currently. People use them to some extent, but I'd more emphasize the trajectory that we're on rather than the current capabilities. They still can't do very interesting cyber offense, for instance. The virology capabilities is very recent. We just, I think maybe a week ago, put out a study with SecureBio from MIT where we had Harvard, MIT virology postdocs doing wet lab skills, trying to work on viruses. So, “Here's a picture of my petri dish, I heated it to 37 degrees, what went wrong? Help me troubleshoot, help me guide me through this step by step.” We were seeing that it was getting around 95th percentile compared to those Harvard-MIT virology postdocs in their area of expertise. This is not a capability that the models had two years ago.That is a national security concern, but I think most of the national security concerns where it's strategically relevant, where it can be used for more targeted weapons, where it affects the basis of a nation's power, I think that's something that happens in the next, say, two to five years. I think that's what we mostly need to be thinking about. I'm not particularly trying to raise the alarm saying that the AI systems right now are extremely scary in all these different ways because they're not even agential. They can't book flights yet.Strategically relevant capabilities (6:00). . . when thinking about the future of AI . . . it's useful to think in terms of specific capabilities, strategically-relevant capabilities, as opposed to when is it truly intelligent . . .So that two-to-five-year timeline — and you can debate whether this is a good way of thinking about it — is that a trajectory or timeline to something that could be called “human-level AI” — you can define that any way you want — and what are the capabilities that make AI potentially dangerous and a strategic player when thinking about national security?I think having a monolithic term for AGI or for advanced AI systems is a little difficult, largely because there's been a consistently-moving goalpost. So right now people say, “AIs are dumb because they can't do this and that.” They can't play video games at the level of a teenager, they can't code for a day-long project, and things like that. Neither can my grandmother. That doesn't mean that she's not human-level intelligence, it's just a lot of people don't have some of these capabilities.I think when thinking about the future of AI, especially when thinking about national security, it's useful to think in terms of specific capabilities, strategically-relevant capabilities, as opposed to when is it truly intelligent or something like that. This is because the capabilities of AI systems are very jagged: they're good at some things and terrible at others. They can't fold clothes that reliably — most of the AI can't —and they're okay at driving in some cities but not others, but they can solve really difficult mathematics problems, they can write really long essays and provide pretty good legal analysis very rapidly, and they can also forecast geopolitical events better than most forecasters. It's a really weird capabilities profile.When I'm thinking about national security from a malicious-use standpoint, I'm thinking about weapon capabilities, I'm thinking about cyber-offensive capabilities, which they don't yet have, but that's an important one to track, and, outside of malicious use, I'm thinking about what's their ability to do AI research and how much of that can they automate? Because if they can automate AI research, then you could just run 100,000 of these artificial AGI researchers to build the next generations of AGI, and that could get very explosive extremely quickly. You're moving from human-speed research to machine-speed research. They're typing 100 times faster than people, they're running tons of experiments simultaneously. That could be quite explosive, and that's something that the founders of AI pointed at as a really relevant capability, like Alan Turing and others, where that's you could have a potential loss-of-control type of event is with this sort of runaway process of AI's building future generations of AIs quite rapidly.So that's another capability. What fraction of AI research can they automate? For weaponization, I think if it gets extremely smart, able to do research in lots of other sorts of fields, then that would raise concerns of its ability to be used to disrupt the balance of power. For instance, if it can do research well, perhaps it could come up with a breakthrough that makes oceans more transparent so we can find where nuclear submarines are or find the mobile launches extremely reliably, or a breakthrough in driving down the cost by some orders of magnitude of anti-ballistic missile systems, which would disrupt having a secure second-strike, and these would be very geopolitically salient. To do those things, though, that seems like a bundle of capabilities as opposed to a specific thing like cyber-offensive capabilities, but those are the things that I'm thinking about that can really disrupt the geopolitical landscape.If we put them in a bucket called, to use your phrase, “strategically-relevant capabilities,” are we on a trajectory of a data- and computing-power-driven trajectory to those capabilities? Or do there need to be one or two key innovations before those relevant capabilities are possible?It doesn't seem like it currently that we need some new big insights, in large part because the rate of improvement is pretty good. So if we look at their coding capabilities — there's a benchmark called SWE-bench verified (SWE is software engineering). Given a set of coding tasks — and this benchmark was weighed in some years ago — the models are poised to get something like 90 percent on this this summer. Right now they're in this 60 percent range. If we just extrapolate the trend line out some more months, then they'll be doing nine out of 10 of those software engineering tasks that were set some years ago. That doesn't mean that that's the entirety of software engineering. Still need coders. It's not 100 percent, obviously, but that suggests that the capability is still improving fairly rapidly in some of these domains. And likewise, with their ability to play that take games that take 20-plus hours, a few months ago they couldn't — Pokémon, for instance, is something that kids play and that takes 20 hours or so to beat. The models from a few months ago couldn't beat the game. Now, the current models can beat the game, but it takes them a few hundred hours. It would not surprise me if in a few months they'll get it down to around human-level on the order of tens of hours, and then from there they'll be able to play harder and harder sorts of games that take longer periods of time, and I think that this would be indicative of higher general capabilities.I think that there's a lot of steam in the current way that things are being done and I think that they've been trapped at the floor in their agent capabilities for a while, but I think we're starting to see the shift. I think that most people at the major AI companies would also think that agents are on the horizon and I don't think they were thinking that, myself included, a year ago. We were not seeing the signs that we're seeing now.So what we're talking about is AIs is having, to use your phrase, which I like, “strategically-relevant capabilities” on a timeline that is soon enough that we should be having the kinds of conversations and the kind of thinking that you put forward in Superintelligence [Strategy]. We should be thinking about that right now very seriously.Yeah, it's very difficult to wrap one's head around because, unlike other domains, AI is much more general and broad in its impacts. So if one's thinking about nuclear strategy, you obviously need to think about bombs going off, and survivability, and second strike. The failure modes are: one state strikes the other, and then there's also, in the civilian applications, fissile material leaking or there being a nuclear power plant meltdown. That's the scenario space, there's what states can do and then there's also some of these civilian application issues.Meanwhile, with AI, we've got much more than power plants melting down or bombs going off. We've got to think about how it transforms the economy, how it transforms people's private life, the sort of issues with them being sentient. We've got to think about it potentially disrupting mutual assured destruction. We've got to think about the AIs themselves being threats. We've got to think about regulations for autonomous AI agents and who's accountable. We've got to think about this open-weight, closed-weight issue. We've got, I think, a larger host of issues that touch on all the important spheres society. So it's not a very delimited problem and I think it's a very large pill to swallow, this possibility that it will be not just strategically relevant but strategically decisive this decade.Consequently, and thinking a little bit beforehand about it is, useful. Otherwise, if we just ignore it, I think we reality will slap us across the face and AI will hit us like a truck, and then we're going, “Wow, I wish we did something, had some more break-glass measures at a time right now, but the cupboard is bare in terms of strategic options because we didn't do some prudent things a while ago, or we didn't even bother thinking about what those are.”I keep thinking of the Situation Room in two years and they get news that China's doing some new big AI project, and it's fairly secretive, and then in the Situation Room they're thinking, “Okay, what do we know?” And the answer is nothing. We don't have really anybody on this. We're not collecting any information about this. We didn't have many concerted programs in the IC really tracking this, so we're flying blind. I really don't want to be in that situationLearning from the Cold War (16:12). . . mutual assured destruction is an ugly reality that took decision-makers a long time to internalize, but that's just what the game theory showed would make the most sense. As I'm sure you know, throughout the course of the Cold War, there was a considerable amount of time and money spent on thinking about these kinds of problems. I went to college just before the end of the Cold War and I took an undergraduate class on nuclear war theory. There was a lot of thinking. To what extent does that volume of research and analysis over the course of a half-century, to what extent is that helpful for what you're trying to accomplish here?I think it's very fortunate that, because of the Cold War, a lot of people started getting more of a sense of game theory and when it's rational to conflict versus negotiate, and offense can provide a good defense, some of these counterintuitive things. I think mutual assured destruction is an ugly reality that took decision-makers a long time to internalize, but that's just what the game theory showed would make the most sense. Hopefully we'll do a lot better with AI because strategic thinking can be a lot more precise and some of these things that are initially counterintuitive, if you reason through them, you go, actually no, this makes a lot of sense. We're trying to shape each other's intentions in this kind of complicated way. I think that makes us much better poised to address these geopolitical issues than last time.I think of the Soviets, for instance, when talking about anti-ballistic missile systems. At one point, I forget who said that offense is immoral, defense is moral. So pointing these nuclear weapons at each other, this is the immoral thing. We need missile-defense systems. That's the moral option. It's just like, no, this is just going to eat up all of our budget. We're going to keep building these defense systems and it's not going to make us safer, we're just going to be spending more and more.That was not intuitive. Offense does feel viscerally more mean, hostile, but that's what you want. That's what you want, to preserve for strategic stability. I think that a lot of the thinking is helpful with that, and I think the education for appreciating the strategic dynamics is more in the water, it's more diffused across the decision-makers now, and I think that that's great.Race for strategic advantage (18:56)There is also a risk that China builds [AGI] first, so I think what we want to do in the US is build up the capabilities to surgically prevent them . . .I was recently reviewing a scenario slash world-building exercise among technologists, economists, forecasting people, and they were looking at various scenarios assuming that we're able to, on a rather short timeline, develop what they termed AGI. And one of the scenarios was that the US gets there first . . . probably not by very long, but the US got there first. I don't know how far China was behind, but that gave us the capability to sort of dictate terms to China about what their foreign policy would be: You're going to leave Taiwan alone . . . So it gave us an amazing strategic advantage.I'm sure there are a lot of American policymakers who would read that scenario and say, “That's the dream,” that we are able to accelerate progress, that we are able to get there first, we can dictate foreign policy terms to China, game over, we win. If I've read Superintelligence correctly, that scenario would play out in a far more complicated way than what I've just described.I think so. I think any bid for being a, not just unipolar force, but having a near-strategic-monopoly on power and able to cause all other superpowers to capitulate in arbitrary ways, concerns the other superpower. There is also a risk that China builds it first, so I think what we want to do in the US is build up the capabilities to surgically prevent them, if they are near or eminently going to gain a decisive advantage that would become durable and sustained over us, we want the ability to prevent that.There's a variety of ways one can do things. There's the classic grayer ways like arson, and cutting wires in data centers, and things like that, or for power plants . . . There's cyber offense, and there's other sorts of kinetic sabotage, but we want it nice and surgical and having a good, credible threat so that we can deter that from happening and shaping their intentions.I think it will be difficult to limit their capabilities, their ability to build these powerful systems, but I think being able to shape their intentions is something that is more tractable. They will be building powerful AI systems, but if they are making an attempt at leapfrogging us in a way that we never catch up and lose our standing and they get AIs that could also potentially disrupt MAD, for instance, we want to be able to prevent that. That is an important strategic priority, is developing a credible deterrent and saying there are some AI scenarios that are totally unacceptable to us and we want to block them off through credible threats.They'll do the same to us, as well, and they can do it more easily to us. They know what's going on at all of our AI companies, and this will not change because we have a double digit percentage of the employees who are Chinese nationals, easily extortable, they have family back home, and the companies do not have good information security — that will probably not change because that will slow them down if they really try and lock them up and move everybody to North Dakota or wherever to work in the middle of nowhere and have everything air-gapped. We are an open book to them and I think they can make very credible threats for sabotage and preventing that type of outcome.If we are making a bid for dictating their foreign policy and all of this, if we're making a bid for a strategic monopoly on power, they will not sit idly by, they will not take kindly to that when they recognize the stakes. If the US were to do a $500 billion program to achieve this faster than them, that would not go unnoticed. There's not a way of hiding that.But we are trying to achieve it faster than them.I would distinguish between trying to develop just generally more capable AI technologies than some of these strategically relevant capabilities or some of these strategically relevant programs. Like if we get AI systems that are generally useful for healthcare and for . . . whatever your pet cause area, we can have that. That is different from applying the AI systems to rapidly build the next generation of AIs, and the next generation of that. Just imagine if you have, right now, OpenAI's got a few hundred AI researchers, imagine if you've got ones that are at that level that are artificial, AGI-type of researchers or are artificial researchers. You run 10,000, 100,000 thousand of them, they're operating around the clock at a hundred X speed, I think expecting a decade's worth of development compressed or telescoped into a year, that seems very plausible — not certain, but certainly double-digit percent chance.China or Russia for instance, would perceive that as, “This is really risky. They could get a huge leap from this because these rate of development will be so high that we could never catch up,” and they could use their new gains to clobber us. Or, if they don't control it, then we're also dead, or lose our power. So if the US controls it, China would reason that, “Our survival is threatened and how we do things is threatened,” and if they lose control of it, “Our survival is also threatened.” Either way, provided that this automated AI research and development loop produces some extremely powerful AI systems, China would be fearing for their survival.It's not just China: India, the global south, all the other countries, if they're more attuned to this situation, would be very concerned. Russia as well. Russia doesn't have the hope about competing, they don't have a $100 billion data centers, they're busy with Ukraine, and when they're finished with that, they may reassess it, but they're too many years behind. I think the best they can do is actually try and shape other states' intents rather than try to make a bid for outcompeting them.If we're thinking about deterrence and what you call Mutually Assured AI Malfunction [MAIM], there's a capability aspect that we want to make sure that we would have the capability to check that kind of dash for dominance. But there's also a communication aspect where both sides have to understand and trust what the other side is trying to do, which was a key part of classic Cold War deterrence. Is that happening?Information problems, yeah, if there's worse information then that can lead to conflict. I think China doesn't really need to worry about their access to information of what's going on. I think the US will need to develop more of its capabilities to have more reliable signals abroad. But I think there's different ways of getting information and producing misunderstandings, like the confidence-building measures, all these sorts of things. I think that the unilateral one is just espionage, and then the multilateral one is verification mechanisms and building some of that institutional or international infrastructure.I think the first step in all of this is the states need to at least take matters into their own hands by building up these unilateral options, the unilateral option to prevent adversaries from doing a dash for domination and also know what's going on with each other's projects. I think that's what the US should focus on right now. Later on, as the salience of AI increases, I think then just international discussions to increase more strategic stability around this would be more plausible to emerge. But if they're not trying to take basic things to defend themselves and protect their own security, then I don't think international stuff that makes that much sense. That's kind of out of order.Doomsday scenario (28:18)If our institutions wake up to this more and do some of the basic stuff . . . to prevent another state dominating the other, I think that will make this go quite a bit better. . .I have in my notes here that you think there's an 80 percent chance that an AI arms race would result in a catastrophe that would kill most of humanity. Do I have that right?I think it's not necessarily just the race. Let's think of people's probabilities for this. There's a wide spectrum of probability. Elon, who I work with at xAI, a company I advise, xAI is his company, Elon thinks it's generally on the order of 20 to 30 percent. Dario Amodei, the CEO of philanthropic, I think thinks it's around 20 percent, as well. Sam Altman around 10 percent. I think it's more likely than not that this doesn't go that well for people, but there's a lot of tractability and a lot of volatility here.If our institutions wake up to this more and do some of the basic stuff of knowing what's going on and sharpen your ability to have credible threats, credible, targeted threats to prevent another state dominating the other, I think that will make this go quite a bit better. . . I think if we went back in time in the 1940s and were saying, “Do we think that this whole nuclear thing is going to turn out well in 50 years?” I think we actually got a little lucky. I mean the Cuban Missile Crisis itself was . . .There were a lot of bad moments in the '60s. There were quite a few . . .I think it's more likely than not, but there's substantial tractability and it's important not to be fatalistic about it or just deny it's an issue, itself. I think it's like, do we think AI will go well? I don't know, it depends on what our policy is. Right now, we're in the very early days and I'm still not noticing many of our institutions that are rising to the occasion that I think is warranted, but this could easily change in a few months with some larger event.Not to be science fictional or anything, but you talk about a catastrophe, are you talking about: AI creates some sort of biological weapon? Back and forth cyber attacks destroy all the electrical infrastructure for China and the United States, so all of a sudden we're back into the 1800s? Are you talking about some sort of more “Terminator”-like scenario, rogue AI? When you think about the kind of catastrophe that could be that dangerous humanity, what do you think about?We have three risk sources: one are states, the other are rogue actors like terrorists and pariah states, and then there's the AI themselves. The AI themselves are not relevant right now, but I think could be quite capable of causing damage on their own in even a year or two. That's the space of threat actors; so yes, AI could in the future . . . I don't see anything that makes them logically not controllable. They're mostly controllable right now. Maybe it's one out of 100, one out of 1000 of the times you run these AI systems and deploy them in some sort of environments [that] they do try breaking free. That's a bit of a problem later on when they actually gain the capability to break free and when they are able to operate autonomously.There's been lots of studies on this and you can see this in OpenAI's reports whenever they release new models. It's like, “Oh, it's only a 0.1 percent chance of it trying to break free,” but if you run a million of these AI agents, that's a lot of them that are going to be trying to break free. They're just not very capable currently. So I think that the AIs themselves are risky, and if you're having humanity going up against AIs that aren't controlled by anybody, or AIs that broke free, that could get quite dangerous if you also have, as we're seeing now, China and others building more of these humanoid robots in the next few years. This could make them be concerning in that they could just by themselves create some sort of bioweapon. You don't need even human hands to do it, you can just instruct a robot to do it and disperse it. I think that's a pretty easy way to take out biological opposition, so to speak, in kind of an eccentric way.That's a concern. Rogue actors themselves doing this, them reasoning that, “Oh, this bioweapon gives us a secure second strike,” things like that would be a concern from rogue actors. Then, of course, states using this to make an attempt to crush the other state or develop a technology that disables an adversary's secure second strike. I think these are real problems.Maximal progress, minimal risk (33:25)I think what we want to shoot for is [a world] where people have enough resources and the ability to just live their lives in ways as they self-determine . . .Let me finish with this: I want continuing AI progress such that we can cure all the major chronic diseases, that we can get commercial nuclear fusion, that we can get faster rockets, all the kinds of optimistic stuff, accelerate economic growth to a pace that we've never seen. I want all of that.Can I get all of that and also avoid the kinds of scenarios you're worried about without turning the optimistic AI project into something that arrives at the end of the century, rather than arrives midcentury? I'm just worried about slowing down all that progress.I think we can. In the Superintelligence Strategy, we have three parts to that: We have the deterrence part, which I'm speaking about here, and we have making sure that the capabilities aren't falling into the hands of rogue actors — and I think this isn't that difficult, good export controls and add some just basic safeguards of we need to know who you are if we're going to be helping you manipulate viruses, things like that. That's easy to handle.Then on the competition aspect, there are many ways the US can make itself more competitive, like having more guaranteed supply chains for AI chips, so more manufacturing here or in allied states instead of all of it being in Taiwan. Currently, all the cutting-edge AI chips are made in Taiwan, so if there's a Taiwan invasion, the US loses in this AI race. They lose. This is double-digit probability. This is very foreseeable. So trying to robustify our manufacturing capabilities, quite essential; likewise for making robotics and drones.I think there's still many axes to compete in. I don't think it makes sense to try and compete in building a sort of superintelligence versus one of these potentially mutual assured destruction-disrupting AIs. I don't think you want to be building those, but I think you can have your AIs for healthcare, you can have your AIs doing all the complicated math you want, and whatever, all this coding, and driving your vehicles, and folding your laundry. You can have all of that. I think it's definitely feasible.What we did in the Cold War with the prospect of nuclear weapons, we obviously got through it, and we had deterrence through mutual assured destruction. We had non-proliferation of fissile materials to lesser states and rogue actors, and we had containment of the Soviet Union. I think the Superintelligence Strategy is somewhat similar: If you deter some of the most stabilizing AI projects, you make sure that some of these capabilities are not proliferating to random rogue actors, and you increase your competitiveness relative to China through things like incorporating AI into your military by, for instance, improving your ability to manufacture drones and improving your ability to reliably get your hands on AI chips even if there's a Taiwan conflict.I think that's the strategy and this doesn't make us uncompetitive. We are still focusing on competitiveness, but this does put barriers around some of the threats that different states could pose to us and that rogue actors using AI could pose to us while still shoring up economic security and positioning ourselves if AI becomes really relevant.I lied, I had one more short question: If we avoid the dire scenarios, what does the world look like in 2045?I would guess that it would be utterly transformed. I wouldn't expect people would be working then as much, hopefully. If you've controlled it well, there could be many ways of living, as there is now, and people would have resources to do so. It's not like there's one way of living — that seems bad because there's many different values to pursue. So letting people pursue their own values, so long as it doesn't destroy the system, and things like that, as we have today. It seems like an abstract version of the picture.People keep thinking, “Are we in zoos? Are AIs keeping us in zoos?” or something like that. It's like, no. Or like, “Are we just all in the Zuckerberg sort of virtual reality, AI friend thing?” It's like no, you can choose to do otherwise, as well. I think we want to preserve that ability.Good news: we won't have to fold laundry. Bad news: in zoos. There's many scenarios.I think what we want to shoot for is one where people have enough resources and the ability to just live their lives in ways as they self-determine, subject to not harming others in severe ways. But people tend to think there's same sort of forced dichotomy of it's going to be aWALL-EWALL-E world where everybody has to live the same way, or everybody's in zoos, or everybody's just pleasured-out and drugged-up or something. It's forced choices. Some people do that, some people choose to have drugs, and we don't hear much from them, and others choose to flourish, and pursue projects, and raise children and so on.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Is College Still Worth It? - Liberty Street Economics* Scalable versus Productive Technologies - Fed in Print▶ Business* AI's Threat to Google Just Got Real - WSJ* AI Has Upended the Search Game. Marketers Are Scrambling to Catch Up. - WSJ▶ Policy/Politics* U.S. pushes nations facing tariffs to approve Musk's Starlink, cables show - Wapo* US scraps Biden-era rule that aimed to limit exports of AI chips - FT* Singapore's Vision for AI Safety Bridges the US-China Divide - Wired* A ‘Trump Card Visa' Is Already Showing Up in Immigration Forms - Wired▶ AI/Digital* AI agents: from co-pilot to autopilot - FT* China's AI Strategy: Adoption Over AGI - AEI* How to build a better AI benchmark - MIT* Introducing OpenAI for Countries - OpenAI* Why humans are still much better than AI at forecasting the future - Vox* Outperformed by AI: Time to Replace Your Analyst? Find Out Which GenAI Model Does It Best - SSRN▶ Biotech/Health* Scientists Hail This Medical Breakthrough. A Political Storm Could Cripple It. - NYT* DARPA-Funded Research Develops Novel Technology to Combat Treatment-Resistant PTSD - The Debrief▶ Clean Energy/Climate* What's the carbon footprint of using ChatGPT? - Sustainability by Numbers* OpenAI and the FDA Are Holding Talks About Using AI In Drug Evaluation - Wired▶ Robotics/AVs* Jesse Levinson of Amazon Zoox: ‘The public has less patience for robotaxi mistakes' - FT▶ Space/Transportation* NASA scrambles to cut ISS activity due to budget issues - Ars* Statistically Speaking, We Should Have Heard from Aliens by Now - Universe Today▶ Substacks/Newsletters* Globalization did not hollow out the American middle class - Noahpinion* The Banality of Blind Men - Risk & Progress* Toys, Pencils, and Poverty at the Margins - The Dispatch* Don't Bet the Future on Winning an AI Arms Race - AI Prospects* Why Is the US Economy Surging Ahead of the UK? - Conversable EconomistFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

In this edition of ChickTrend Jockey, Jack and Miles discuss the Trump admin demanding MIT and Harvard hop on the MAGA train, people using AI to turn themselves into action figures, Jimmy Kimmel finally figuring out why Trump won the election, Ari Aster's upcoming film, a mysterious tower appearing in Area 51 and much more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join us for a conversation with Amber Nigam on innovation in the healthcare industry. Amber led his first company to a successful exit. Now, he leads a team of innovators aiming to address inefficiencies in healthcare and improve patient outcomes. We discuss the underlying complexity of innovation in healthcare including navigating regulations, data privacy, building trust, and more. Amber also shares what he has learned as a mentor for founders in the Harvard MIT community. Do not miss this fascinating discussion!

Haiti is collapsing. Gangs now control most of Port-au-Prince, and the international response is failing. Can anything stop the takeover? In this gripping episode of The Stimpack Podcast, Jeff Frazier sits down with Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown, a top expert in insurgency and organized crime from the Brookings Institution, to break down the current crisis in Haiti. Together, they explore how armed gangs like Viva Ensemble have outmaneuvered the Haitian government and the internationally funded MSSM force—and why so many conventional strategies, like high-value targeting, are likely to fail. They also discuss how Haiti's elite once puppeteered the gangs, and how that dynamic has now reversed, leading to bold attacks in upscale neighborhoods and fears of a full-scale collapse. This is a must-listen if you want to understand the power struggle, the humanitarian cost, and what could happen next if the world continues to look away.

Finding Common Ground, with Dr. Ming Wang, Founding Director, Wang Vision Institute (Hello, Self… Episode 64) Patricia Leonard, host of the Hello, Self… podcast, welcomed Dr. Ming Wang, an esteemed laser eye surgeon and Harvard/MIT graduate. Dr. Wang shared his remarkable journey from a tumultuous childhood in China during the Cultural Revolution to becoming a […]

Funding for the NIH and US biomedical research is imperiled at a momentous time of progress. Exemplifying this is the work of Dr. Anna Greka, a leading physician-scientist at the Broad Institute who is devoted to unlocking the mysteries of rare diseases— that cumulatively affect 30 million Americans— and finding cures, science supported by the NIH.A clip from our conversationThe audio is available on iTunes and Spotify. The full video is linked here, at the top, and also can be found on YouTube.Transcript with audio and external linksEric Topol (00:06):Well, hello. This is Eric Topol from Ground Truths, and I am really delighted to welcome today, Anna Greka. Anna is the president of the American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI) this year, a very prestigious organization, but she's also at Mass General Brigham, a nephrologist, a cell biologist, a physician-scientist, a Core Institute Member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and serves as a member of the institute's Executive Leadership Team. So we got a lot to talk about of all these different things you do. You must be pretty darn unique, Anna, because I don't know any cell biologists, nephrologists, physician-scientist like you.Anna Greka (00:48):Oh, thank you. It's a great honor to be here and glad to chat with you, Eric.Eric Topol (00:54):Yeah. Well, I had the real pleasure to hear you speak at a November conference, the AI for Science Forum, which we'll link to your panel. Where I was in a different panel, but you spoke about your extraordinary work and it became clear that we need to get you on Ground Truths, so you can tell your story to everybody. So I thought rather than kind of going back from the past where you were in Greece and somehow migrated to Boston and all that. We're going to get to that, but you gave an amazing TED Talk and it really encapsulated one of the many phenomenal stories of your work as a molecular sleuth. So maybe if you could give us a synopsis, and of course we'll link to that so people could watch the whole talk. But I think that Mucin-1 or MUC1, as you call it, discovery is really important to kind of ground our discussion.A Mysterious Kidney Disease Unraveled Anna Greka (01:59):Oh, absolutely. Yeah, it's an interesting story. In some ways, in my TED Talk, I highlight one of the important families of this story, a family from Utah, but there's also other important families that are also part of the story. And this is also what I spoke about in London when we were together, and this is really sort of a medical mystery that initially started on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, where it was found that there were many families in which in every generation, several members suffered and ultimately died from what at the time was a mysterious kidney disease. This was more than 30 years ago, and it was clear that there was something genetic going on, but it was impossible to identify the gene. And then even with the advent of Next-Gen sequencing, this is what's so interesting about this story, it was still hard to find the gene, which is a little surprising.Anna Greka (02:51):After we were able to sequence families and identify monogenic mutations pretty readily, this was still very resistant. And then it actually took the firepower of the Broad Institute, and it's actually from a scientific perspective, an interesting story because they had to dust off the old-fashioned Sanger sequencing in order to get this done. But they were ultimately able to identify this mutation in a VNTR region of the MUC1 gene. The Mucin-1 gene, which I call a dark corner of the human genome, it was really, it's highly repetitive, very GC-rich. So it becomes very difficult to sequence through there with Next-Gen sequencing. And so, ultimately the mutation of course was found and it's a single cytosine insertion in a stretch of cytosines that sort of causes this frameshift mutation and an early stop codon that essentially results in a neoprotein like a toxic, what I call a mangled protein that sort of accumulates inside the kidney cells.Anna Greka (03:55):And that's where my sort of adventure began. It was Eric Lander's group, who is the founding director of the Broad who discovered the mutation. And then through a conversation we had here in Boston, we sort of discovered that there was an opportunity to collaborate and so that's how I came to the Broad, and that's the beginnings of this story. I think what's fascinating about this story though, that starts in a remote Mediterranean island and then turns out to be a disease that you can find in every continent all over the world. There are probably millions of patients with kidney disease in whom we haven't recognized the existence of this mutation. What's really interesting about it though is that what we discovered is that the mangled protein that's a result of this misspelling of this mutation is ultimately captured by a family of cargo receptors, they're called the TMED cargo receptors and they end up sort of grabbing these misfolded proteins and holding onto them so tight that it's impossible for the cell to get rid of them.Anna Greka (04:55):And they become this growing heap of molecular trash, if you will, that becomes really hard to manage, and the cells ultimately die. So in the process of doing this molecular sleuthing, as I call it, we actually also identified a small molecule that actually disrupts these cargo receptors. And as I described in my TED Talk, it's a little bit like having these cargo trucks that ultimately need to go into the lysosome, the cells recycling facility. And this is exactly what this small molecule can do. And so, it was just like a remarkable story of discovery. And then I think the most exciting of all is that these cargo receptors turn out to be not only relevant to this one mangled misshapen protein, but they actually handle a completely different misshapen protein caused by a different genetic mutation in the eye, causing retinitis pigmentosa, a form of blindness, familial blindness. We're now studying familial Alzheimer's disease that's also involving these cargo receptors, and there are other mangled misshapen proteins in the liver, in the lung that we're now studying. So this becomes what I call a node, like a nodal mechanism that can be targeted for the benefit of many more patients than we had previously thought possible, which has been I think, the most satisfying part about this story of molecular sleuthing.Eric Topol (06:20):Yeah, and it's pretty extraordinary. We'll put the figure from your classic Cell paper in 2019, where you have a small molecule that targets the cargo receptor called TMED9.Anna Greka (06:34):Correct.Expanding the MissionEric Topol (06:34):And what's amazing about this, of course, is the potential to reverse this toxic protein disease. And as you say, it may have applicability well beyond this MUC1 kidney story, but rather eye disease with retinitis pigmentosa and the familial Alzheimer's and who knows what else. And what's also fascinating about this is how, as you said, there were these limited number of families with the kidney disease and then you found another one, uromodulin. So there's now, as you say, thousands of families, and that gets me to part of your sleuth work is not just hardcore science. You started an entity called the Ladders to Cures (L2C) Scientific Accelerator.Eric Topol (07:27):Maybe you can tell us about that because this is really pulling together all the forces, which includes the patient advocacy groups, and how are we going to move forward like this?Anna Greka (07:39):Absolutely. I think the goal of the Ladders to Cures Accelerator, which is a new initiative that we started at the Broad, but it really encompasses many colleagues across Boston. And now increasingly it's becoming sort of a national, we even have some international collaborations, and it's only two years that it's been in existence, so we're certainly in a growth mode. But the inspiration was really some of this molecular sleuthing work where I basically thought, well, for starters, it cannot be that there's only one molecular node, these TMED cargo receptors that we discovered there's got to be more, right? And so, there's a need to systematically go and find more nodes because obviously as anyone who works in rare genetic diseases will tell you, the problem for all of us is that we do what I call hand to hand combat. We start with the disease with one mutation, and we try to uncover the mechanism and then try to develop therapies, and that's wonderful.Anna Greka (08:33):But of course, it's slow, right? And if we consider the fact that there are 30 million patients in the United States in every state, everywhere in the country who suffer from a rare genetic disease, most of them, more than half of them are children, then we can appreciate the magnitude of the problem. Out of more than 8,000 genes that are involved in rare genetic diseases, we barely have something that looks like a therapy for maybe 500 of them. So there's a huge mismatch in the unmet need and magnitude of the problem. So the Ladders to Cures Accelerator is here to address this and to do this with the most modern tools available. And to your point, Eric, to bring patients along, not just as the recipients of whatever we discover, but also as partners in the research enterprise because it's really important to bring their perspectives and of course their partnerships in things like developing appropriate biomarkers, for example, for what we do down the road.Anna Greka (09:35):But from a fundamental scientific perspective, this is basically a project that aims to identify every opportunity for nodes, underlying all rare genetic diseases as quickly as possible. And this was one of the reasons I was there at the AI for Science Forum, because of course when one undertakes a project in which you're basically, this is what we're trying to do in the Ladders to Cures Accelerator, introduce dozens of thousands of missense and nonsense human mutations that cause genetic diseases, simultaneously introduce them into multiple human cells and then use modern scalable technology tools. Things like CRISPR screens, massively parallel CRISPR screens to try to interrogate all of these diseases in parallel, identify the nodes, and then develop of course therapeutic programs based on the discovery of these nodes. This is a massive data generation project that is much needed and in addition to the fact that it will help hopefully accelerate our approach to all rare diseases, genetic diseases. It is also a highly controlled cell perturbation dataset that will require the most modern tools in AI, not only to extract the data and understand the data of this dataset, but also because this, again, an extremely controlled, well controlled cell perturbation dataset can be used to train models, train AI models, so that in the future, and I hope this doesn't sound too futuristic, but I think that we're all aiming for that cell biologists for sure dream of this moment, I think when we can actually have in silico the opportunity to make predictions about what cell behaviors are going to look like based on a new perturbation that was not in the training set. So an experiment that hasn't yet been done on a cell, a perturbation that has not been made on a human cell, what if like a new drug, for example, or a new kind of perturbation, a new chemical perturbation, how would it affect the behavior of the cell? Can we make a predictive model for that? This doesn't exist today, but I think this is something, the cell prediction model is a big question for biology for the future. And so, I'm very energized by the opportunity to both address this problem of rare monogenic diseases that remains an unmet need and help as many patients as possible while at the same time advancing biology as much as we possibly can. So it's kind of like a win-win lifting all boats type of enterprise, hopefully.Eric Topol (12:11):Yeah. Well, there's many things to get to unpack what you've just been reviewing. So one thing for sure is that of these 8,000 monogenic diseases, they have relevance to the polygenic common diseases, of course. And then also the fact that the patient family advocates, they are great at scouring the world internet, finding more people, bringing together communities for each of these, as you point out aptly, these rare diseases cumulatively are high, very high proportion, 10% of Americans or more. So they're not so rare when you think about the overall.Anna Greka (12:52):Collectively.Help From the Virtual Cell?Eric Topol (12:53):Yeah. Now, and of course is this toxic proteinopathies, there's at least 50 of these and the point that people have been thinking until now that, oh, we found a mangled protein, but what you've zeroed in on is that, hey, you know what, it's not just a mangled protein, it's how it gets stuck in the cell and that it can't get to the lysosome to get rid of it, there's no waste system. And so, this is such fundamental work. Now that gets me to the virtual cell story, kind of what you're getting into. I just had a conversation with Charlotte Bunne and Steve Quake who published a paper in December on the virtual cell, and of course that's many years off, but of course it's a big, bold, ambitious project to be able to say, as you just summarized, if you had cells in silico and you could do perturbations in silico, and of course they were validated by actual experiments or bidirectionally the experiments, the real ones helped to validate the virtual cell, but then you could get a true acceleration of your understanding of cell biology, your field of course.Anna Greka (14:09):Exactly.Eric Topol (14:12):So what you described, is it the same as a virtual cell? Is it kind of a precursor to it? How do you conceive this because this is such a complex, I mean it's a fundamental unit of life, but it's also so much more complex than a protein or an RNA because not only all the things inside the cell, inside all these organelles and nucleus, but then there's all the outside interactions. So this is a bold challenge, right?Anna Greka (14:41):Oh my god, it's absolutely from a biologist perspective, it's the challenge of a generation for sure. We think taking humans to Mars, I mean that's an aspirational sort of big ambitious goal. I think this is the, if you will, the Mars shot for biology, being able to, whether the terminology, whether you call it a virtual cell. I like the idea of saying that to state it as a problem, the way that people who think about it from a mathematics perspective for example, would think about it. I think stating it as the cell prediction problem appeals to me because it actually forces us biologists to think about setting up the way that we would do these cell perturbation data sets, the way we would generate them to set them up to serve predictions. So for example, the way that I would think about this would be can I in the future have so much information about how cell perturbations work that I can train a model so that it can predict when I show it a picture of another cell under different conditions that it hasn't seen before, that it can still tell me, ah, this is a neuron in which you perturbed the mitochondria, for example, and now this is sort of the outcome that you would expect to see.Anna Greka (16:08):And so, to be able to have this ability to have a model that can have the ability to predict in silico what cells would look like after perturbation, I think that's sort of the way that I think about this problem. It is very far away from anything that exists today. But I think that the beginning starts, and this is one of the unique things about my institute, if I can say, we have a place where cell biologists, geneticists, mathematicians, machine learning experts, we all come together in the same place to really think and grapple with these problems. And of course we're very outward facing, interacting with scientists all across the world as well. But there's this sort of idea of bringing people into one institute where we can just think creatively about these big aspirational problems that we want to solve. I think this is one of the unique things about the ecosystem at the Broad Institute, which I'm proud to be a part of, and it is this kind of out of the box thinking that will hopefully get us to generate the kinds of data sets that will serve the needs of building these kinds of models with predictive capabilities down the road.Anna Greka (17:19):But as you astutely said, AlphaFold of course was based on the protein database existing, right? And that was a wealth of available information in which one could train models that would ultimately be predictive, as we have seen this miracle that Demi Hassabis and John Jumper have given to humanity, if you will.Anna Greka (17:42):But as Demis and John would also say, I believe is as I have discussed with them, in fact, the cell prediction problem is really a bigger problem because we do not have a protein data bank to go to right now, but we need to create it to generate these data. And so, my Ladders to Cures Accelerator is here to basically provide some part of the answer to that problem, create this kind of well-controlled database that we need for cell perturbations, while at the same time maximizing our learnings about these fully penetrant coding mutations and what their downstream sequelae would be in many different human cells. And so, in this way, I think we can both advance our knowledge about these monogenic diseases, build models, hopefully with predictive capabilities. And to your point, a lot of what we will learn about this biology, if we think that it involves 8,000 or more out of the 20,000 genes in our genome, it will of course serve our understanding of polygenic diseases ultimately as well as we go deeper into this biology and we look at the combinatorial aspects of what different mutations do to human cells. And so, it's a huge aspirational problem for a whole generation, but it's a good one to work on, I would say.Learning the Language of Life with A.I. Eric Topol (19:01):Oh, absolutely. Now I think you already mentioned something that's quite, well, two things from what you just touched on. One of course, how vital it is to have this inner or transdisciplinary capability because you do need expertise across these vital areas. But the convergence, I mean, I love your term nodal biology and the fact that there's all these diseases like you were talking about, they do converge and nodal is a good term to highlight that, but it's not. Of course, as you mentioned, we have genome editing which allows to look at lots of different genome perturbations, like the single letter change that you found in MUC1 pathogenic critical mutation. There's also the AI world which is blossoming like I've never seen. In fact, I had in Science this week about learning the language of life with AI and how there's been like 15 new foundation models, DNA, proteins, RNA, ligands, all their interactions and the beginning of the cell story too with the human cell.Eric Topol (20:14):So this is exploding. As you said, the expertise in computer science and then this whole idea that you could take these powerful tools and do as you said, which is the need to accelerate, we just can't sit around here when there's so much discovery work to be done with the scalability, even though it might take years to get to this artificial intelligence virtual cell, which I have to agree, everyone in biology would say that's the holy grail. And as you remember at our conference in London, Demi Hassabis said that's what we'd like to do now. So it has the attention of leaders in AI around the world, obviously in the science and the biomedical community like you and many others. So it is an extraordinary time where we just can't sit still with these tools that we have, right?Anna Greka (21:15):Absolutely. And I think this is going to be, you mentioned the ASCI presidency in the beginning of our call. This is going to be the president gets to give an address at the annual meeting in Chicago. This is going to be one of the points I make, no matter what field in biomedicine we're in, we live in, I believe, a golden era and we have so many tools available to us that we can really accelerate our ability to help more patients. And of course, this is our mandate, the most important stakeholders for everything that we do as physician-scientists are our patients ultimately. So I feel very hopeful for the future and our ability to use these tools and to really make good on the promise of research is a public good. And I really hope that we can advance our knowledge for the benefit of all. And this is really an exciting time, I think, to be in this field and hopefully for the younger colleagues a time to really get excited about getting in there and getting involved and asking the big questions.Career ReflectionsEric Topol (22:21):Well, you are the prototype for this and an inspiration to everyone really, I'm sure to your lab group, which you highlighted in the TED Talk and many other things that you do. Now I want to spend a little bit of time about your career. I think it's fascinating that you grew up in Greece and your father's a nephrologist and your mother's a pathologist. So you had two physicians to model, but I guess you decided to go after nephrology, which is an area in medicine that I kind of liken it to Rodney Dangerfield, he doesn't get any respect. You don't see many people that go into nephrology. But before we get to your decision to do that somehow or other you came from Greece to Harvard for your undergrad. How did you make that connect to start your college education? And then subsequently you of course you stayed in Boston, you've never left Boston, I think.Anna Greka (23:24):I never left. Yeah, this is coming into 31 years now in Boston.Anna Greka (23:29):Yeah, I started as a Harvard undergraduate and I'm now a full professor. It's kind of a long, but wonderful road. Well, actually I would credit my parents. You mentioned that my father, they're both physician-scientists. My father is now both retired, but my father is a nephrologist, and my mother is a pathologist, actually, they were both academics. And so, when we were very young, we lived in England when my parents were doing postdoctoral work. That was actually a wonderful gift that they gave me because I became bilingual. It was a very young age, and so that allowed me to have this advantage of being fluent in English. And then when we moved back to Greece where I grew up, I went to an American school. And from that time, this is actually an interesting story in itself. I'm very proud of this school.Anna Greka (24:22):It's called Anatolia, and it was founded by American missionaries from Williams College a long time ago, 150 and more years ago. But it is in Thessaloniki, Greece, which is my hometown, and it's a wonderful institution, which gave me a lot of gifts as well, preparing me for coming to college in the United States. And of course, I was a good student in high school, but what really was catalytic was that I was lucky enough to get a scholarship to go to Harvard. And that was really, you could say the catalyst that propelled me from a teenager who was dreaming about a career as a physician-scientist because I certainly was for as far back as I remember in fact. But then to make that a reality, I found myself on the Harvard campus initially for college, and then I was in the combined Harvard-MIT program for my MD PhD. And then I trained in Boston at Mass General in Brigham, and then sort of started my academic career. And that sort of brings us to today, but it is an unlikely story and one that I feel still very lucky and blessed to have had these opportunities. So for sure, it's been wonderful.Eric Topol (25:35):We're the ones lucky that you came here and set up shop and you did your productivity and discovery work and sleuthing has been incredible. But I do think it's interesting too, because when you did your PhD, it was in neuroscience.Anna Greka (25:52):Ah, yes. That's another.Eric Topol (25:54):And then you switch gears. So tell us about that?Anna Greka (25:57):This is interesting, and actually I encourage more colleagues to think about it this way. So I have always been driven by the science, and I think that it seems a little backward to some people, but I did my PhD in neuroscience because I was interested in understanding something about these ion channels that were newly discovered at the time, and they were most highly expressed in the brain. So here I was doing work in the brain in the neuroscience program at Harvard, but then once I completed my PhD and I was in the middle of my residency training actually at Mass General, I distinctly remember that there was a paper that came out that implicated the same family of ion channels that I had spent my time understanding in the brain. It turned out to be a channelopathy that causes kidney disease.Anna Greka (26:43):So that was the light bulb, and it made me realize that maybe what I really wanted to do is just follow this thread. And my scientific curiosity basically led me into studying the kidney and then it seemed practical therefore to get done with my clinical training as efficiently as possible. So I finished residency, I did nephrology training, and then there I was in the lab trying to understand the biology around this channelopathy. And that sort of led us into the early projects in my young lab. And in fact, it's interesting we didn't talk about that work, but that work in itself actually has made it all the way to phase II trials in patients. This was a paper we published in Science in 2017 and follow onto that work, there was an opportunity to build this into a real drug targeting one of these ion channels that has made it into phase II trials. And we'll see what happens next. But it's this idea of following your scientific curiosity, which I also talked about in my TED Talk, because you don't know to what wonderful places it will lead you. And quite interestingly now my lab is back into studying familial Alzheimer's and retinitis pigmentosa in the eye in brain. So I tell people, do not limit yourself to whatever someone says your field is or should be. Just follow your scientific curiosity and usually that takes you to a lot more interesting places. And so, that's certainly been a theme from my career, I would say.Eric Topol (28:14):No, I think that's perfect. Curiosity driven science is not the term. You often hear hypothesis driven or now with AI you hear more AI exploratory science. But no, that's great. Now I want to get a little back to the AI story because it's so fascinating. You use lots of different types of AI such as cellular imaging would be fusion models and drug discovery. I mean, you've had drug discovery for different pathways. You mentioned of course the ion channel and then also as we touched on with your Cell paper, the whole idea of targeting the cargo receptor with a small molecule and then things in between. You discussed this of course at the London panel, but maybe you just give us the skinny on the different ways that you incorporate AI in the state-of-the-art science that you're doing?Anna Greka (29:17):Sure, yeah, thank you. I think there are many ways in which even for quite a long time before AI became such a well-known kind of household term, if you will, the concept of machine learning in terms of image processing is something that has been around for some time. And so, this is actually a form of AI that we use in order to process millions of images. My lab has by produced probably more than 20 million images over the last few years, maybe five to six years. And so, if you can imagine it's impossible for any human to process this many images and make sense of them. So of course, we've been using machine learning that is becoming increasingly more and more sophisticated and advanced in terms of being able to do analysis of images, which is a lot of what we cell biologists do, of course.Anna Greka (30:06):And so, there's multiple different kinds of perturbations that we do to cells, whether we're using CRISPR or base editing to make, for example, genome wide or genome scale perturbations or small molecules as we have done as well in the past. These are all ways in which we are then using machine learning to read out the effects in images of cells that we're looking at. So that's one way in which machine learning is used in our daily work, of course, because we study misshape and mangled proteins and how they are recognized by these cargo receptors. We also use AlphaFold pretty much every day in my lab. And this has been catalytic for us as a tool because we really are able to accelerate our discoveries in ways that were even just three or four years ago, completely impossible. So it's been incredible to see how the young people in my lab are just so excited to use these tools and they're becoming extremely savvy in using these tools.Anna Greka (31:06):Of course, this is a new generation of scientists, and so we use AlphaFold all the time. And this also has a lot of implications of course for some of the interventions that we might think about. So where in this cargo receptor complex that we study for example, might we be able to fit a drug that would disrupt the complex and lead the cargo tracks into the lysosome for degradation, for example. So there's many ways in which AI can be used for all of these functions. So I would say that if we were to organize our thinking around it, one way to think about the use of machine learning AI is around what I would call understanding biology in cells and what in sort of more kind of drug discovery terms you would call target identification, trying to understand the things that we might want to intervene on in order to have a benefit for disease.Anna Greka (31:59):So target ID is one area in which I think machine learning and AI will have a catalytic effect as they already are. The other of course, is in the actual development of the appropriate drugs in a rational way. So rational drug design is incredibly enabled by AlphaFold and all these advances in terms of understanding protein structures and how to fit drugs into them of all different modalities and kinds. And I think an area that we are not yet harnessing in my group, but I think the Ladders to Cures Accelerator hopes to build on is really patient data. I think that there's a lot of opportunity for AI to be used to make sense of medical records for example and how we extract information that would tell us that this cohort of patients is a better cohort to enroll in your trial versus another. There are many ways in which we can make use of these tools. Not all of them are there yet, but I think it's an exciting time for being involved in this kind of work.Eric Topol (32:58):Oh, no question. Now it must be tough when you know the mechanism of these families disease and you even have a drug candidate, but that it takes so long to go from that to helping these families. And what are your thoughts about that, I mean, are you thinking also about genome editing for some of these diseases or are you thinking to go through the route of here's a small molecule, here's the tox data in animal models and here's phase I and on and on. Where do you think because when you know so much and then these people are suffering, how do you bridge that gap?Anna Greka (33:39):Yeah, I think that's an excellent question. Of course, having patients as our partners in our research is incredible as a way for us to understand the disease, to build biomarkers, but it is also exactly creating this kind of emotional conflict, if you will, because of course, to me, honesty is the best policy, if you will. And so, I'm always very honest with patients and their families. I welcome them to the lab so they can see just how long it takes to get some of these things done. Even today with all the tools that we have, of course there are certain things that are still quite slow to do. And even if you have a perfect drug that looks like it fits into the right pocket, there may still be some toxicity, there may be other setbacks. And so, I try to be very honest with patients about the road that we're on. The small molecule path for the toxic proteinopathies is on its way now.Anna Greka (34:34):It's partnered with a pharmaceutical company, so it's on its way hopefully to patients. Of course, again, this is an unpredictable road. Things can happen as you very well know, but I'm at least glad that it's sort of making its way there. But to your point, and I'm in an institute where CRISPR was discovered, and base editing and prime editing were discovered by my colleagues here. So we are in fact looking at every other modality that could help with these diseases. We have several hurdles to overcome because in contrast to the liver and the brain, the kidney for example, is not an organ in which you can easily deliver nucleic acid therapies, but we're making progress. I have a whole subgroup within the bigger group who's focusing on this. It's actually organized in a way where they're running kind of independently from the cell biology group that I run.Anna Greka (35:31):And it's headed by a person who came from industry so that she has the opportunity to really drive the project the way that it would be run milestone driven, if you will, in a way that it would be run as a therapeutics program. And we're really trying to go after all kinds of different nucleic acid therapies that would target the mutations themselves rather than the cargo receptors. And so, there's ASO and siRNA technologies and then also actual gene editing technologies that we are investigating. But I would say that some of them are closer than others. And again, to your question about patients, I tell them honestly when a project looks to be more promising, and I also tell them when a project looks to have hurdles and that it will take long and that sometimes I just don't know how long it will take before we can get there. The only thing that I can promise patients in any of our projects, whether it's Alzheimer's, blindness, kidney disease, all I can promise is that we're working the hardest we possibly can on the problem.Anna Greka (36:34):And I think that is often reassuring I have found to patients, and it's best to be honest about the fact that these things take a long time, but I do think that they find it reassuring that someone is on it essentially, and that there will be some progress as we move forward. And we've made progress in the very first discovery that came out of my lab. As I mentioned to you, we've made it all the way to phase II trials. So I have seen the trajectory be realized, and I'm eager to make it happen again and again as many times as I can within my career to help as many people as possible.The Paucity of Physician-ScientistsEric Topol (37:13):I have no doubts that you'll be doing this many times in your career. No, there's no question about it. It's extraordinary actually. There's a couple of things there I want to pick up on. Physician-scientists, as you know, are a rarefied species. And you have actually so nicely told the story about when you have a physician-scientist, you're caring for the patients that you're researching, which is, most of the time we have scientists. Nothing wrong with them of course, but you have this hinge point, which is really important because you're really hearing the stories and experiencing the patients and as you say, communicating about the likelihood of being able to come up with a treatment or the progress. What are we going to do to get more physician-scientists? Because this is a huge problem, it has been for decades, but the numbers just keep going lower and lower.Anna Greka (38:15):I think you're absolutely right. And this is again, something that in my leadership of the ASCI I have made sort of a cornerstone of our efforts. I think that it has been well-documented as a problem. I think that the pressures of modern clinical care are really antithetical to the needs of research, protected time to really be able to think and be creative and even have the funding available to be able to pursue one's program. I think those pressures are becoming so heavy for investigators that many of them kind of choose one or the other route most often the clinical route because that tends to be, of course where they can support their families better. And so, this has been kind of the conundrum in some ways that we take our best and brightest medical students who are interested in investigation, we train them and invest in them in becoming physician-scientists, but then we sort of drop them at the most vulnerable time, which is usually after one completes their clinical and scientific training.Anna Greka (39:24):And they're embarking on early phases of one's careers. It has been found to be a very vulnerable point when a lot of people are now in their mid-thirties or even late thirties perhaps with some family to take care of other burdens of adulthood, if you will. And I think what it becomes very difficult to sustain a career where one salary is very limited due to the research component. And so, I think we have to invest in our youngest people, and it is a real issue that there's no good mechanism to do that at the present time. So I was actually really hoping that there would be an opportunity with leadership at the NIH to really think about this. It's also been discussed at the level of the National Academy of Medicine where I had some role in discussing the recent report that they put out on the biomedical enterprise in the United States. And it's kind of interesting to see that there is a note made there about this issue and the fact that there needs to be, I think, more generous investment in the careers of a few select physician-scientists that we can support. So if you look at the numbers, currently out of the entire physician workforce, a physician-scientist comprised of less than 1%.Anna Greka (40:45):It's probably closer to 0.8% at this point.Eric Topol (40:46):No, it's incredible.Anna Greka (40:48):So that's really not enough, I think, to maintain the enterprise and if you will, this incredible innovation economy that the United States has had this miracle engine, if you will, in biomedicine that has been fueled in large part by physician investigators. Of course, our colleagues who are non-physician investigators are equally important partners in this journey. But we do need a few of the physician-scientists investigators I think as well, if you really think about the fact that I think 70% of people who run R&D programs in all the big pharmaceutical companies are physician-scientists. And so, we need people like us to be able to work on these big problems. And so, more investment, I think that the government, the NIH has a role to play there of course. And this is important from both an economic perspective, a competition perspective with other nations around the world who are actually heavily investing in the physician-scientist workforce.Anna Greka (41:51):And I think it's also important to do so through our smaller scale efforts at the ASCI. So one of the things that I have been involved in as a council member and now as president is the creation of an awards program for those early career investigators. So we call them the Emerging-Generation Awards, and we also have the Young Physician-Scientist Awards. And these are really to recognize people who are making that transition from being kind of a trainee and a postdoc and have finished their clinical training into becoming an independent assistant professor. And so, those are small awards, but they're kind of a symbolic tap on the shoulder, if you will, that the ASCI sees you, you're talented, stay the course. We want you to become a future member. Don't give up and please keep on fighting. I think that can take us only so far.Anna Greka (42:45):I mean, unless there's a real investment, of course still it will be hard to maintain people in the pipeline. But this is just one way in which we have tried to, these programs that the ASCI offers have been very successful over the last few years. We create a cohort of investigators who are clearly recognized by members of the ASCI is being promising young colleagues. And we give them longitudinal training as part of a cohort where they learn about how to write a grant, how to write a paper, leadership skills, how to run a lab. And they're sort of like a buddy system as well. So they know that they're in it together rather than feeling isolated and struggling to get their careers going. And so, we've seen a lot of success. One way that we measure that is conversion into an ASCI membership. And so, we're encouraged by that, and we hope that the program can continue. And of course, as president, I'm going to be fundraising for that as well, it's part of the role. But it is a really worthy cause because to your point, we have to somehow make sure that our younger colleagues stay the course that we can at least maintain, if not bolster our numbers within the scientific workforce.Eric Topol (43:57):Well, you outlined some really nice strategies and plans. It's a formidable challenge, of course. And we'd like to see billions of dollars to support this. And maybe someday we will because as you say, if we could relieve the financial concerns of people who have curiosity driven ideas.Anna Greka (44:18):Exactly.Eric Topol (44:19):We could do a lot to replenish and build a big physician-scientist workforce. Now, the last thing I want to get to, is you have great communication skills. Obviously, anybody who is listening or watching this.Eric Topol (44:36):Which is another really important part of being a scientist, no less a physician or the hybrid of the two. But I wanted to just go to the backstory because your TED Talk, which has been watched by hundreds of thousands of people, and I'm sure there's hundreds of thousands more that will watch it, but the TED organization is famous for making people come to the place a week ahead. This is Vancouver used to be in LA or Los Angeles area and making them rehearse the talk, rehearse, rehearse, rehearse, which seems crazy. You could train the people there, how to give a talk. Did you have to go through that?Anna Greka (45:21):Not really. I did rehearse once on stage before I actually delivered the talk live. And I was very encouraged by the fact that the TED folks who are of course very well calibrated, said just like that. It's great, just like that.Eric Topol (45:37):That says a lot because a lot of people that do these talks, they have to do it 10 times. So that kind of was another metric. But what I don't like about that is it just because these people almost have to memorize their talks from giving it so much and all this coaching, it comes across kind of stilted and unnatural, and you're just a natural great communicator added to all your other things.Anna Greka (46:03):I think it's interesting. Actually, I would say, if I may, that I credit, of course, I actually think that it's important, for us physician-scientists, again, science and research is a public good, and being able to communicate to the public what it is that we do, I think is kind of an obligation for the fact that we are funded by the public to do this kind of work. And so, I think that's important. And I always wanted to cultivate those communication skills for the benefit of communicating simply and clearly what it is that we do in our labs. But also, I would say as part of my story, I mentioned that I had the opportunity to attend a special school growing up in Greece, Anatolia, which was an American school. One of the interesting things about that is that there was an oratory competition.Anna Greka (46:50):I got very early exposure entering that competition. And if you won the first prize, it was in the kind of ancient Rome way, first among equals, right? And so, that was the prize. And I was lucky to have this early exposure. This is when I was 14, 15, 16 years old, that I was training to give these oratory speeches in front of an audience and sort of compete with other kids who were doing the same. I think these are just wonderful gifts that a school can give a student that have stayed with me for life. And I think that that's a wonderful, yeah, I credit that experience for a lot of my subsequent capabilities in this area.Eric Topol (47:40):Oh, that's fantastic. Well, this has been such an enjoyable conversation, Anna. Did I miss anything that we need to bring up, or do you think we have it covered?Anna Greka (47:50):Not at all. No, this was wonderful, and I thoroughly enjoyed it as well. I'm very honored seeing how many other incredible colleagues you've had on the show. It's just a great honor to be a part of this. So thank you for having me.Eric Topol (48:05):Well, you really are such a great inspiration to all of us in the biomedical community, and we'll be cheering for your continued success and thanks so much for joining today, and I look forward to the next time we get a chance to visit.Anna Greka (48:20):Absolutely. Thank you, Eric.**************************************Thanks for listening, watching or reading Ground Truths. Your subscription is greatly appreciated.If you found this podcast interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.All content on Ground Truths—newsletters, analyses, and podcasts—is free, open-access.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years. And such support is becoming more vital In light of current changes of funding and support for biomedical research at NIH and other US governmental agencies.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and to Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Life's Chemistry Unleashed- Ambient Nature Series: A Remixed Interview with Dr. Todd Golub (Harvard/ MIT)---In this ambient nature sounds remixed episode, we present an interview with Dr. Todd Golub , M.D., Core Institute Member, Chief Scientific Officer, Director of the Cancer Program, The Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. --Disclaimer: The views of this podcast represent those of my guests and I, and these ideas do not constitute medical or professional suggestions, advice or recommendations. Please see the relevant medical professionals for medical or professional recommendations, suggestions or advice.

Now with the American election won with the help of Elon Musk and his social media platform, X, and other tech billionaires. We need to pay attention! TECH is now the major world religion! Think about it. Technology was developed as a tool to serve humans, not vice versa. Unfortunately, we humans seem to have forgotten this, as billions worldwide are literally addicted to our smartphones. Many in the upper echelon of technology circles propose and even ominously insist upon humanity serving technology futures. They believe that we, the people, should work towards constant innovation, a technological race to the top, even at the cost of humanity's future. There is also an emerging thoughtform that suggests that humanity should sacrifice the planet, our very means of existence, to ensure that technology AI data personas would be preserved and reach their ultimate destiny.Peer-reviewed through The MIT Press and distributed by Penguin Random House, Epstein asked, “Who is profiting from these tech-centric futures, and how can we center humanity at the heart of engineering?” This is one of the most important books of our time. Learn more about Steven Hassan and Freedom of Mind Resource Center. Visit freedomofmind.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of THE MENTORS RADIO, Host Tom Loarie talks with Jeff Karp, PhD, one of the most innovative minds in medical science. Jeff is a professor of biomedical engineering at Harvard Medical School and MIT, and he leads the Karp Lab, which has pioneered bio-inspired technologies that have led to the formation of 12 companies. His groundbreaking work includes a tissue glue that can seal holes in a beating heart and a ‘smart needle' that stops automatically upon reaching its target. 
Dr. Jeff Karp has been honored as an Outstanding Faculty Mentor at MIT and as the top graduate student mentor at Harvard-MIT. Jeff is also a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors. In this episode of THE MENTORS RADIO, Dr. Karp will share insights from his discovery of Life Ignition Tools (LIT)—a toolkit that came from overcoming ADHD and put him on a path for doing great things with his life. Jeff will explain how this toolkit can help people break free perceived constraints and/or autopilot…and it will ignite you for great things as well.  Listen to THE MENTORS RADIO podcast anywhere, any time, on any platform, just click here! SHOW NOTES: JEFF KARP, PhD: BIO: https://www.jeffkarp.com/author/ BOOKS: LIT: Life Ignition Tools: Use Nature's Playbook to Energize Your Brain, Spark Ideas, and Ignite Action, by Jeff Karp and Teresa Barker Micro- and Nanoengineering of the Cell Surface (Micro and Nano Technologies), by Jeffrey Karp, Welan Zhao Biology and Engineering of Stem Cell Niches, by Ajaykumar Vishwakarma (Editor), Jeffrey M Karp (Editor) WEBSITES: https://www.jeffkarp.com/ https://www.karplab.net/ SOCIAL MEDIA: Instagram: @mrjeffkarp

In this re-aired interview, we remix it with classical music to showcase a luminary in the field of oncology, cancer research and molecular biology from Harvard/ MIT, Dr. Todd Golub, MD. -- Note: The views of this podcast represent those of my guest(s) and I. -- Note: Purpose of these episodes- not at all, for advice or medical suggestions. These are aimed to provide support for peer pharmacists in training in educational and intellectually stimulating ways. Again, these are not at all for medical advice, or for medical suggestions. Please see your local state and board-certified physician, PA or NP, and pharmacist for medical advice and suggestions.

In this episode, we speak with Dr. Robert Mittendorff, a General Partner and Head of Healthcare at B Capital, a multi-stage global investment firm with over $6 billion in assets under management. The firm partners with extraordinary entrepreneurs to shape the future through technology by investing out of multiple funds from seed to late-stage venture growth, while focusing primarily in the technology, healthcare and climate sectors. Previously, Robert was at Norwest Venture Partners for nearly a decade as a Partner and Co-Head of Healthcare. He has been involved in investments and associated exits with public equity value or acquisition value that exceeds a total of $10 billion. Robert is a Stanford-trained, board-certified emergency physician who earned his MD from Harvard in the Harvard-MIT program, his MBA from Harvard Business School and his MA in International Affairs from King's College London. Robert received his undergraduate degree (honors) in biomedical engineering at Johns Hopkins. I am your host RJ Lumba.  We hope you enjoy the show.  If you like the episode, click to follow.

Today, Emily Kircher-Morris talks with Dr. Jeff Karp. Jeff is a professor at Harvard and MIT, a biotech entrepreneur, and an ADHD-er. They talk about Jeff's program, LIT, or Life Ignition Tools, which is a set of strategies to energize the brain, spark ideas, and ignite action. Emily and Jeff talk about metacognition and the transformative impact it can have on the lives of neurodivergent people. They also discuss the importance of intentional actions, the power of asking questions, the necessity of creating a supportive and dynamic learning environment, and the broader implications of neurodiversity in educational and professional settings. There's practical advice for educators, parents, and individuals, to leverage their unique strengths and foster an inclusive and innovative society, and much more, on episode 231. This episode is brought to you by Next Step Navigators, where you can take your ADHD coach to college with you. NextStep Navigators can support  you from any campus. Visit NextStepNavigators.com Get signed up for the live, free continuing education training, Foundations of Neurodiversity-Affirming Therapy, on Friday, July 12th. Join the Neurodiversity Podcast Advocacy and Support Group on Facebook. Dr. Jeff Karp is an acclaimed mentor and biomedical engineering professor at Harvard Medical School and MIT, a Distinguished Chair at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and a fellow of the National Academy of Inventors. Growing up in rural Canada, he was written off by his school because of his learning differences. He evolved, and developed his own process for embracing life, embodied by ‘Life Ignition Tools' - tools he developed through years of iteration and tinkering, to make his unique patterns of thought and behavior work for him. These LIT tools have been tested in his lab, and by his many mentees. He has dedicated his research to bioinspired medical problem-solving, and his lab's technologies have led to the formation of thirteen companies. Dr. Karp is also head of innovation at Geoversity, Nature's University, a rainforest biocultural leadership training conservancy located in one of the top biodiversity hotspots in the world. He was selected as the Outstanding Faculty Undergraduate Mentor among all faculty at MIT, and the top graduate student mentor of Harvard-MIT students. Dr. Karp lives in Brookline, Massachusetts, with his wife, children, and two Cavalier King Charles spaniels. BACKGROUND READING LinkedIn Instagram Twitter/X Dr. Karp's website

Join us for an eye-opening conversation with Dr. Yamicia Connor, a Harvard-MIT-educated OB-GYN, as she tackles the crisis of Black maternal health. Discover why Black women face higher pregnancy risks and learn essential tips for navigating a safer, healthier pregnancy. Dr. Connor's passion for justice and groundbreaking work in healthcare equity will inspire and empower you. Don't miss this vital discussion on making pregnancy a joyous experience for all. Listen now and be part of the change! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/backtalkshow/message

Kathryn interviews Yamicia Connor MD PhD MPH.Having a baby should be one of the most joyful times in a woman's life. But for women of color, especially Black women, the pregnancy experience frequently triggers fear and anxiety. Black women and their babies, at all socioeconomic levels, face substantially higher rates of complications and mortality during pregnancy than white women. One dynamic physician is teaching women what they need to know to help turn this situation around. Yamicia Connor, MD PhD MPH, is a Harvard-MIT-educated OB-GYN, surgeon, research scientist, engineer and mother of three. She's using her unique background to serve as the driving force behind establishing greater equity in women's healthcare. Dr. Connor founded Race to Better Health and Diosa Ara, initiatives that embody her dedication to improving health outcomes and advocating for policy change.Kathryn also interviews Dr. Robyne Hanley-Dafoe.We can't build resilience unless we know and understand our emotions, according to behaviorist, psychology researcher and educator Dr. Robyn Hanley-Dafoe—and thankfully, there are concrete ways to do this and help improve our mental health in real time. Her guide to emotional learning will teach us why being mindful, or at least having a practice of self-check-ins throughout the day, is so important. She helps us discover where our feelings are coming from, how to categorize them and take the appropriate action steps to recharge our emotional batteries. She is a multi-award-winning education and psychology instructor, author, two time TedX speaker and resiliency expert. Dr. Robyne Hanley-Dafor specializes in resiliency, navigating stress and change, personal wellness in the workplace, and optimal performance - both personal and organizational.

Kathryn interviews Yamicia Connor MD PhD MPH.Having a baby should be one of the most joyful times in a woman's life. But for women of color, especially Black women, the pregnancy experience frequently triggers fear and anxiety. Black women and their babies, at all socioeconomic levels, face substantially higher rates of complications and mortality during pregnancy than white women. One dynamic physician is teaching women what they need to know to help turn this situation around. Yamicia Connor, MD PhD MPH, is a Harvard-MIT-educated OB-GYN, surgeon, research scientist, engineer and mother of three. She's using her unique background to serve as the driving force behind establishing greater equity in women's healthcare. Dr. Connor founded Race to Better Health and Diosa Ara, initiatives that embody her dedication to improving health outcomes and advocating for policy change.Kathryn also interviews Dr. Robyne Hanley-Dafoe.We can't build resilience unless we know and understand our emotions, according to behaviorist, psychology researcher and educator Dr. Robyn Hanley-Dafoe—and thankfully, there are concrete ways to do this and help improve our mental health in real time. Her guide to emotional learning will teach us why being mindful, or at least having a practice of self-check-ins throughout the day, is so important. She helps us discover where our feelings are coming from, how to categorize them and take the appropriate action steps to recharge our emotional batteries. She is a multi-award-winning education and psychology instructor, author, two time TedX speaker and resiliency expert. Dr. Robyne Hanley-Dafor specializes in resiliency, navigating stress and change, personal wellness in the workplace, and optimal performance - both personal and organizational.

The US president suggests Jews aren't safe in the US, and Americans watch homeownership turn into a “pipe dream.”

Hoy les contamos cómo interpretar los primeros actos del nuevo gobierno argentino. Hablamos con Sandra Borda, profesora de la Universidad de los Andes, y con el abogado Arturo Marcano, especializado en contratos deportivos

The presidents of three of the top US universities — Harvard, MIT and UPenn — are facing Congress questioning over pro-Palestinian protests on their campuses where slogans deemed anti-semitic were raised. In Ep 1366 of Cut The Clutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta explains the turmoil that has already caused one head to roll, that of UPenn president Elizabeth Magill.

Click here https://bit.ly/469urJb and use code DEFRANCO to get 20% off your entire order of Liquid I.V. Go to http://shadyrays.com and use code PHIL for 50% off 2 or more pairs of polarized sunglasses. shhh this is a secret link: https://youtu.be/g1gOaaDvy1Q?si=CKxW2lA5TfvrZcpw – ✩ TODAY'S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Panera's Super-Charged Caffeinated Lemonade Linked to a Second Death 04:59 - Woman Sentenced to Work in Fast Food After Throwing Burrito Bowl at a Chipotle Worker 06:47 - Ryan Reynolds Slams Spoiler Leak Photos From “Deadpool” Set 08:31 - Sponsored by Liquid IV 09:23 - Harvard, Penn, MIT Leaders Face Backlash After Antisemitism Hearings 17:27 - Biden Supports Haudenosaunee to Compete in Olympic Lacrosse Under Own Flag 19:38 - Sponsored by Shady Rays 20:42 - Venezuela's Moves to Annex Half of Guyana 23:56 - Your Thoughts on Yesterday's Stories —————————— Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxx Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Star Pralle, Chris Tolve ———————————— #DeFranco #RyanReynolds #Panera ————————————

The presidents of Harvard, MIT and PenN were all asked a simple question under oath. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university's] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment? How did they answer? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TOP NEWS | On today's Daily Signal Top News, we break down:   FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing focused on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. House Republicans won’t back additional aid to Ukraine without what House Speaker Mike Johnson calls “transformative changes” being made to America's border […]

Over the course of hours, university presidents from Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania faced leading questions, calls for greater student discipline — and at least one call to resign.

TOP NEWS | On today's Daily Signal Top News, we break down: FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing focused on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. House Republicans won't back additional aid to Ukraine without what House Speaker Mike Johnson calls “transformative changes” being made to America's border security. Sen. Tommy Tuberville backs off a pro-life battle he has been waging for months. After a rise of antisemitism has swept across American college campuses, presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn testify before the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce.Relevant Linkshttps://www.dailysignal.com/2023/12/05/fbi-director-admits-he-hasnt-fired-anyone-anti-catholic-memo/ Listen to other podcasts from The Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/podcasts/Get daily conservative news you can trust from our Morning Bell newsletter: DailySignal.com/morningbellsubscription Listen to more Heritage podcasts: https://www.heritage.org/podcastsSign up for The Agenda newsletter — the lowdown on top issues conservatives need to know about each week: https://www.heritage.org/agenda Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are America's top universities biased against Israel? The presidents of some of the most prestigious universities in the world are in Washington Tuesday. Lawmakers are trying to find out what's behind all the anti-Semitic incidents on their campuses. After a ten-month standoff over abortion policy, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is easing off his hard-line stance of holding up key military nominations. Should the U.S. border come before Ukraine? House Speaker Mike Johnson is clashing with the White House over funding priorities. Former Congressman Robert Pittenger joins us to discuss reports that some in the GOP are pushing their own choice for president, a divided Congress on sending more aid to Ukraine, and what he learned from his experience with world leaders and history makers. Another Republican is not running for reelection in 2024. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) served as House speaker pro tem this fall. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

University presidents from Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania are headed to congress today to address accusations that they mishandled reports of antisemitism on their campuses following the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas. Reporter Max Larkin joins WBUR's Morning Edition to discuss.

The presidents of Harvard University, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania testified on Capitol Hill Tuesday over concerns about rising antisemitism on college campuses since the Israel-Hamas War began. WBZ NewsRadio's Carl Stevens reports.

P. Brendon Lundberg, a previous chronic pain suffer, along with David Farley, MD, a Harvard-MIT trained physician, set out with a vision to build the safest, most consistently effective and appealing solution to the epidemic of chronic pain. Combining a mission to change the way chronic pain is understood, treated with deep experience in healthcare management, marketing, business development and sales, Brendon and Dr. David Farley opened Radiant Pain Relief Centres in Portland, Oregon, USA, in February 2014. Following the success of the first center, they are laying out a plan for expansion to open new centers in new markets nationally and internationally. Their story and vision for the future of pain management can be understood by reading their Amazon Bestselling book, Radiant Relief – A Case For A Better Solution To Chronic Pain. Inc. Magazine called the book, “A Manifesto” and “an epic example of how to create a movement”. Previous to founding Radiant, Brendon played key operational and business development roles for two Portland-Area Portland Business Journal and Inc. Magazine Growth Award winning companies, and was the Director of Sales and Marketing for another Portland-based medical device start-up. Brendon holds a BS in business marketing and an MBA. Connect with Jon Dwoskin: Twitter: @jdwoskin Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.dwoskin Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thejondwoskinexperience/ Website: https://jondwoskin.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jondwoskin/ Email: jon@jondwoskin.com Get Jon's Book: The Think Big Movement: Grow your business big. Very Big!   Connect with P. Brendon Lundberg,: Website: www.radiantrelief.com Twitter: www.twiter.com/@radiantrelief

In this snapshot video episode, we highlight one of the previous interviews with a leading & pioneering scientist in anesthesia, neuroscience, medicine and statistics, who is Dr. Emery N. Brown, MD, PhD (Harvard/MIT) . Definitely an episode to listen to and watch! -- Note: The views on this podcast represent those of my guest(s) and I.

Dr. Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University and was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the MIT. Dr. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism". Rather than picking apart the arguments for or against said climate narratives, our conversation is largely focused on the question of what would motivate such alleged deception were it found to be the case. Tell us your thoughts in the comments! 00:00:00 Go! 00:01:17 Outsider scientific research 00:04:33 Maxwell & the academic press 00:07:43 Editors serve the industry 00:12:16 Climate narration 00:20:33 Pressure against dissent 00:25:56 The Iris Effect 00:33:38 Motivating the standard narrative 00:43:30 Paleoclimate 00:48:06 Rotation of Earth v. airflow 00:57:24 Myopic considerations 01:05:57 Education as indoctrination 01:11:50 Science as guillotine 01:17:33 Defined v. undefined problem solving 01:21:48 Incentive wars 01:26:55 Institutional conditions 01:35:25 Manipulation of graphs 01:37:45 Different kinds of intelligent conversation 01:41:12 Academics as politics 01:47:02 Venus & climate science 01:55:38 University experience 02:07:30 Endless war 02:15:05 Youtube censorship, throttling, shadowbans 02:18:33 Dealing with villification 02:26:45 Secret history of GISS 02:34:32 Closing thoughts Support the scientific revolution by joining our Patreon: https://bit.ly/3lcAasB Tell us what you think in the comments or on our Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub #climatechange #science #censorship #civilization #collapse #climate #climatecrisis #climateemergency Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: https://www.youtube.com/c/DemystifyingScience AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics https://www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics Join our mailing list https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. - Blog: http://DemystifySci.com/blog - RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss - Donate: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaD - Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySci MUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

FDR and the Great Depression | In this episode of How to Fix Democracy, author and historian Derek Leebaert provides a revisionist account of President Franklin Roosevelt and four members of his Cabinet. According to Leebaert, the 1920s were beset by economic distress and labor unrest that culminated in the Great Depression. Supported by Frances Perkins, Harold Ickes, Henry Wallace and Harry Hopkins, the Roosevelt presidency provided new solutions to much of America's endemic vulnerability, inequality, and instability. Leebaert describes the President as a deeply complex leader—a man of steely ambitions —who worked with the four Cabinet officials to escape the Depression and prepare the United States for world leadership.   Derek Leebaert won the biennial 2020 Truman Book Award for "Grand Improvisation". His previous books include "Magic and Mayhem: The Delusions of American Foreign Policy from Korea to Afghanistan" and "To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations", both Washington Post Best Books of the Year. He was a founding editor of the Harvard/MIT journal International Security and is a cofounder of the National Museum of the U.S. Army. He holds a D.Phil from Oxford and lives in Washington, D.C.

On this episode of Investor Connect, Hall welcomes Liam Krut, Investment Partner, at Reinforced Ventures. Located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, Reinforced Ventures invest in overlooked areas of deep tech and have a network of over 1700 experts. The company was founded by technologists with a mission to serve and fund the next generation of commercial infrastructure in software and autonomous systems at their source in Pittsburgh, PA.  Reinforced Ventures was selected into the 2022 Top 50 Emerging Managers by Weekend Fund. Liam works full time with Reinforced Ventures, previously a private equity diligence consultant for software company acquisitions with computational biology background at CMU, research experience at Harvard/MIT, and founder of a biotechnology and a cybersecurity company. Liam's focus is biotechnology investments. Liam dives deep into the deep tech space, all the risks and returns, the outstanding approach of Reinforced Ventures, and much more. Visit Reinforced Ventures at , and on . Reach out to Liam at , and on . _______________________________________________________ For more episodes from Investor Connect, please visit the site at:    Check out our other podcasts here:   For Investors check out:   For Startups check out:   For eGuides check out:   For upcoming Events, check out    For Feedback please contact info@tencapital.group    Please , share, and leave a review. Music courtesy of .

In this noise cancelling remixed episode of " "Lecture-casts"- A Podcast Lecture Series in General Chemistry", we have an interview with Dr.Todd Golub , M.D., Core Institute Member, Chief Scientific Officer, Director of the Cancer Program, The Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. This interview is in English, which is then followed by a translation in French. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this noise-cancelling remixed episode, we have an interview with Dr.Todd Golub , M.D., Core Institute Member, Chief Scientific Officer, Director of the Cancer Program, The Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. This interview is in English, which is then followed by a translation in Spanish. 

In this noise-cancelling remixed episode, we have an interview with Dr.Todd Golub , M.D., Core Institute Member, Chief Scientific Officer, Director of the Cancer Program, The Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. This interview is in English, which is then followed by a translation in French.

In this episode of " "Lecture-casts"- A Podcast Lecture Series in General Chemistry", we highlight an interview with Dr. Emery Brown, MD, PhD - Harvard/ MIT - in English and with the Spanish Translation Afterwards.---Dr. Emery Brown, MD, PhD- Interview Transcript:https://thenewchemistpublications.pubpub.org/pub/829eb62b/release/1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of " "Lecture-casts"- A Podcast Lecture Series in General Chemistry", we highlight an interview with Dr. Emery Brown, MD, PhD - Harvard/ MIT - in English and with the Portuguese Translation Afterwards.---Dr. Emery Brown, MD, PhD- Interview Transcript:https://thenewchemistpublications.pubpub.org/pub/829eb62b/release/1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Interview with Dr. Emery Brown, MD, PhD - Harvard/ MIT - In English and with the Spanish Translation Afterwards. --- Dr. Emery Brown, MD, PhD Interview Transcript: https://thenewchemistpublications.pubpub.org/pub/829eb62b/release/1

Interview with Dr. Emery Brown, MD, PhD - Harvard/ MIT - In English and with French Translation Afterwards.---Dr. Emery Brown, MD, PhD- Interview Transcript:https://thenewchemistpublications.pubpub.org/pub/829eb62b/release/1 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

  Joyce Lee, FAIA, LEED Fellow, is President of IndigoJLD providing green health, design, benchmarking and ESG planning services for exemplary projects and communities. She became one of 300 LEED Fellows worldwide while being on the board of trustees of the Grand Rapids Art Museum, the first LEED NC certified museum in the world. Joyce has also been on adjunct faculty at the University of Pennsylvania focusing on building healthy places and was board director of the French American Chamber of Commerce PHL. Since 2021, she has chaired the American Alliance of Museums Environment and Climate Network and serves as a Senior Advisor to Econsult Solutions. In 2022, she was appointed by Mayor Kenney in Philadelphia to serve as an inaugural commissioner for environmental justice.   She has been a Fellow at the National Leadership Academy for Public Health and one of the first LEED accredited professionals in New York City. She was the Chief Architect at the New York City OMB under Mayor Bloomberg overseeing the survey of major city-owned buildings (over 200 million sq ft) and waterfronts with the goals of enhancing long-term planning and identifying green design and development opportunities. During her tenure, the program grew over 25%. She was then the first Active Design Director, with a focus on design excellence and human health, in New York City. The Active Design Guidelines, a publication she co-authored, had won recognition from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as well as the Sustainable Building Industry Council.   Joyce is the recipient of numerous awards including the Health and Human Services Good Neighbor Award, Platinum Award from the American Council of Engineering Companies, the President's Award from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) New York State, and the Aga Khan Award from Harvard/MIT. Recognizing her career achievement, the AIA New York honored Joyce with the Public Architect Award for "her indomitable spirit, committed environmental consciousness, and extraordinary ability to bring sustainability theory and practices to the public realm." Show Highlights Joyce shares her vast expertise with benchmarking, NetZero, and LEED for museums.  Hear from the National Green Building Advisor on new projects and policies coming down through the federal government.  Understanding the similarities between cultural institutions around the country.  Apply best practices with educational sessions on the green accomplishments of the Smithsonian and the Guggenheim Museum.  Review resources on green practices from energy to water to waste, new transportation, cultural programming, dining and retail facilities, and how the supply chain partners can bring all of those together.  IndigoJLD manages public and private sustainability projects.  Best practices that work for museums versus other buildings. Questions to consider to start building partnerships and connecting with firms that specialize in sustainability.   “We both agree that we learn more from our mistakes and than our successes. Absolutely be open-minded. I wish I knew back then this field was going to evolve so fast. The climate is something that is here today and is not for tomorrow. For those who are entering the field, another piece of advice with green buildings, I would say think globally and act locally.” -Joyce Lee    Get the episode transcript here!!   Museum Magazine / July−August 2022 (PDF)   Show Resource and Information LinkedIn Applying LEED to museum projects The Well-Tempered City J. S. Bach: The Well-Tempered Clavier ENERGY STAR Score for Museums Cultural Heritage and Museums – Mind the Gap Applying LEED to museum projects Museums preserve history and culture American Alliance of Museums Connect with Charlie Cichetti and GBES Charlie on LinkedIn Green Building Educational Services GBES on Twitter Connect on LinkedIn Like on Facebook Google+ GBES Pinterest Pins GBES on Instagram   GBES is excited our membership community is growing. Consider joining our membership community as members are given access to some of the guests on the podcasts that you can ask project questions. If you are preparing for an exam, there will be more assurance that you will pass your next exam, you will be given cliff notes if you are a member, and so much more. Go to www.gbes.com/join to learn more about the 4 different levels of access to this one-of-a-kind career-advancing green building community!   If you truly enjoyed the show, don't forget to leave a positive rating and review on iTunes.  We have prepared more episodes for the upcoming weeks, so come by again next week! Thank you for tuning in to the Green Building Matters Podcast!   Copyright © 2023 GBES

My lecture to Harvard regulatory science

Derek Leebaert is the author of Unlikely Heroes, an account of Pres. Roosevelt and his 4 closest associates: Harry Hopkins, Harold Ickes, Frances Perkins, and Henry Wallace, and how they would forever change the world. In many ways, history tends to repeat itself, and recognizing patterns of the past gives us the opportunity to shape a better future.   FDR was a titan. He was elected president for 4 terms and to this day remains the longest-serving president of the US. He was known for his fairness and desire for equality for all, an essential factor that got him the Republicans' vote every single time.   A look into his 4 lieutenants reveals much more about the myths that have plagued FDR's presidencies since then. Derek talks about FDR's New Deal, the secret military build-up that happened in the 1930s, and how each lieutenant played a critical role in getting America through the mayhem of the time.    Derek Leebaert won the biennial 2020 Truman Book Award for Grand Improvisation. His previous books include Magic and Mayhem and To Dare and to Conquer, both Washington Post Best Books of the Year. He was a founding editor of the Harvard/MIT journal International Security and is a co-founder of the National Museum of the United States Army. He holds a D.Phil from Oxford.   Get a copy of Unlikely Heroes: https://amzn.to/3J6NlXz Find out more about the National Museum of the US Army: https://www.thenmusa.org/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Derek Leebaert—historian, strategist, organizational leadership and management consultant, and bestselling author of a series of critically acclaimed books—has written an outstanding and timely new work: Unlikely Heroes: Franklin Roosevelt, His Four Lieutenants, and the World They Made.In this episode of the Serve to Lead podcast, Leebaert discusses the book, its genesis and its uncanny relevance in our historic moment.Publisher's SummaryOnly four people served at the top echelon of President Franklin Roosevelt's Administration from the frightening early months of spring 1933 until he died in April 1945, on the cusp of wartime victory. These lieutenants composed the tough, constrictive, long-term core of government. They built the great institutions being raised against the Depression, implemented the New Deal, and they were pivotal to winning World War II.Yet, in their different ways, each was as wounded as the polio-stricken titan. Harry Hopkins, Harold Ickes, Frances Perkins, and Henry Wallace were also strange outsiders. Up to 1933, none would ever have been considered for high office. Still, each became a world figure, and it would have been exceedingly difficult for Roosevelt to transform the nation without them. By examining the lives of these four, a very different picture emerges of how Americans saved their democracy and rescued civilization overseas. Many of the dangers that they all overcame are troublingly like those America faces today.About Derek LeebaertDerek Leebaert won the biennial 2020 Truman Book Award for Grand Improvisation. His previous books include Magic and Mayhem: The Delusions of American Foreign Policy from Korea to Afghanistan and To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, both Washington Post Best Books of the Year. He was a founding editor of the Harvard/MIT journal International Security and is a cofounder of the National Museum of the U.S. Army. He holds a D.Phil from Oxford and lives in Washington, D.C.Otherwise he has long been a management consultant, advising enterprises in the IT, defense, and healthcare sectors. He coauthored the MIT Press trilogy on the rise of the information technology revolution, including MIT's The Future of the Electronic Marketplace. Get full access to The Next Nationalism at jamesstrock.substack.com/subscribe

In this KEEN ON episode, Andrew talks to the author of UNLIKELY HEROES, Derek Leebaert, about Franklin Roosevelt's four key lieutenants - Harold Ickes, Harry Hopkins, Frances Perkins and Henry Wallace - and the radically new world that they collectively made. Derek Leebaert won the biennial 2020 Truman Book Award for Grand Improvisation. His previous books include Magic and Mayhem: The Delusions of American Foreign Policy from Korea to Afghanistan and To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, both Washington Post Best Books of the Year. He was a founding editor of the Harvard/MIT journal International Security and is a cofounder of the National Museum of the U.S. Army. He holds a D.Phil from Oxford and lives in Washington, D.C. His latest book is Unlikely Heroes: Franklin Roosevelt, His Four Lieutenants and the World They Made (2023) Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's show, we discuss the new era of work and how companies can navigate it to stay relevant. Emma Giles is one of the founders of SoWork, a product that helps digital-first teams do great work, no matter when they work or where they work from.  Emma leads product and spends her time working directly with SoWork customers who are leaders of organizations trying to navigate the digital-first work shift. This gives her a unique perspective on how the landscape of work is evolving, what leaders and their teams are struggling with, and how to solve the most pressing challenges with technology.  In her past life, she was a crisis counselor and a scientist. She dropped out of a PhD from Harvard/MIT in computational neuroscience to build a business, spent a year at Khan Academy creating free medical content for medical students, and scaled data initiatives for the WHO. Today, running a digital company allows her to live on Vancouver Island, where she spends her personal time hiking and running ultramarathons.  Key Takeaways: The concept of remote work isn't new, but the pandemic has catapulted these trends. Companies are trying to decide where on the spectrum they will land between all remote or all on site. Performance of a business depends on people to come together in ways that are productive and high-functioning to drive great results. Teams need to be able to come together to be a unit that is greater than the sum of its parts. Team members as individuals need to feel seen, heard, and valued to perform at their best. New tools are becoming available to help build spontaneity in digital teams, allowing people to be in common spaces digitally. As companies realize that many of their pain points are related to connection and collaboration techniques, these tools will become more in demand. Teammates with at least 5-7 strong connections within the company are more likely to stay with the company. A strong connection is one where a person feels like they can be themselves with another person. These connections take cultivation to form and then touch points to maintain. Because people are different, leaders should cultivate an environment for people to get what they need, but not feel forced to behave a certain way. Meet people where they are with technology and make sure they are able to use the technology in a way that keeps the benefit of their flexibility. Adoption is often the biggest hurdle when implementing virtual team tools. Behavior changes require understanding, time, effort, realization for why it works, and then fitting it into people's workflows. Less is more. Teamwork blocks are a great way to start. Select a unit of time where everyone comes together and works from the virtual office. They can see how it feels and build from there. Top Takeaways:Every team is completely different. People's need to feel like they can be themselves, be human, and connect in realistic ways is paramount.Everything in the business stems from the individual's needs being met. This empowers them to connect in teams and create great results that affect the bottom line of the business. Connect with Emma Giles: Website: https://sowork.com/

Guest: Emma Giles emulates self-aware, authentic leadership. Emma is one of the founders of SoWork, a product that helps digital-first teams do great work, no matter when they work or where they work from. Emma leads product development and works directly with SoWork customers who are leaders of organizations trying to navigate the digital-first work shift. Prior to founding SoWork, she dropped out of a PhD from Harvard/MIT in computational neuroscience to build a business, spent a year at Khan Academy creating free medical content for medical students, and scaled data initiatives for the WHO. Emma has a unique perspective on how the landscape of work is evolving, what leaders and their teams are struggling with, and how to solve the most pressing challenges with technology. She lives on Vancouver Island with her husband (also a SoWork co-founder), where she spends time hiking and running ultramarathon. Episode in a Tweet: Leadership is such a privilege because you get to sit in all these interesting seats and then use your perspective to help your team run with the ball and succeed. Background: I love this 100th episode of Reflect Forward: Conversations on Leadership, where Emma Giles and I talk about empathic leadership. Emma is incredibly thoughtful and has developed self-awareness as few leaders have. During the interview, Emma shares how her time as a crisis counselor and a scientist shaped her views on leadership and helped her navigate the curve balls of founding a start-up throws at you. Emma talks about how she has developed deep self-awareness and how she models empathetic leadership within SoWork. Emma calls herself a raging generalist, which resonates deeply with me. We talk about generalists' impact on a team and company and how we've both learned to embrace our generalist natures. Emma cares deeply about working with humans, bringing them together to solve complex problems innovatively, and navigating an early-stage start-up's immense strains and pains without killing themselves or each other. I know you'll love this interview as must as I do! Have a listen and let me know what you think! How to find Emma: Company https://www.sowork.com/ Link to Emma's virtual office; stop by and say hi: https://invite.sowork.com/join/LORXIqKyza04v9Gp64u9? user=slKoXZJsG6UGpK3uEU48d6hVwHy2&room=soworkofficewinter Social Media https://twitter.com/Emma_K_Giles https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmakgiles/ Follow me on Instagram or LinkedIn. Subscribe to my podcast Reflect Forward on iTunes Or check out my new YouTube Channel, where you can watch full-length episodes of Advice From a CEO! And if you are looking for a keynote speaker or a podcast guest, click here to book a meeting with me to discuss what you are looking for!

Christopher Clifford '22 is a UCF electrical engineering alum who is pursuing a Ph.D. in bioengineering at Harvard-MIT. Clifford's research is centered around find a cure for and reducing the impact of Type 1 diabetes — a cause that's personal to him. Before attending Harvard-MIT, he received the prestigious honor of being selected as a Gates Cambridge Scholar. However, Clifford turned it down to pursue another competitive path. Here he shares his personal and professional insights into diabetes, finding your own version of success, and his hopes for the future of bioengineering. View the transcript of this episode. Follow UCF on social! Instagram: @ucf.edu Facebook: @UCF Twitter: @UCF TikTok: @ucf.edu

Join host Karen Garnett as she welcomes Dr. Michael J. New, Associate Scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research “think tank” arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. Professor New, with a Master's degree in Statistics and Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University, as well as service as a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard-MIT, is known and appreciated as “the Pro-Life Movement's Social Scientist”. Hear Dr. New share about the service work of the Lozier Institute and his insights and analysis of Planned Parenthood's most recent Annual Report, “quietly dumped” on Friday afternoon, citing the alarming statistics of its record number of abortions committed in 2020 – 383,460 – an 8% increase over 2019; 41% of abortion “market share”; and a record $1.7Billion income. In our “post-Roe/post-DobbsAmerica,” the war to win the culture for life and end the demand for abortion rages on. We press on!

Dr. Mark Mullins is a neuroradiologist and professor Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences at Emory University. In addition to his clinical responsibilities, he also serves as the Vice-chair for education within the department and as well as the Director of Radiology Medical Student Education. Prior to joining the faculty at Emory, Dr. Mullins completed his undergraduate and graduate training in chemistry at Harvard University and his medical education as part of the Harvard MIT program in Health Sciences and Technology. He then completed his diagnostic radiology residence and neuroradiology fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital. Since joining the faculty at Emory, Dr. Mullins has remained actively involved with medical education, including having previously served as the diagnostic radiology residency program director. He also holds numerous teaching and mentorship awards received throughoutthe years, including the 2020 Radiological Society of North America's Outstanding Educator Award. In today's episode, we discuss several important educational initiatives of his during his time at Emory, including the creation of the Emory research-track residency program. We also discuss important transitions throughout/phd and physician-scientist training. Credits: Our thanks to Dr. Mullins for being on the podcast. Follow Dr. Mullins on twitter: @markemullins Dr. Mullins' faculty page: https://winshipcancer.emory.edu/bios/faculty/mullins-mark-e.html Host: Bejan Saeedi Co-Host and Audio Engineer – Joe Behnke Executive Producer and Social Media Coordinator – Carey Jansen Executive Producer – Michael Sayegh Associate Producer – Josh Owens Faculty Advisor – Dr. Brian Robinson Twitter: @behindthescope_ Instagram: @behindthemicroscopepod Facebook: @behindthemicroscope1 Website: behindthemicroscope.com

Edtech firm 2U's acquisition of edX, the Harvard-MIT nonprofit education venture, has the potential to advance online higher-ed and broaden access. But there are many moving parts and interested parties. 2U co-founder and CEO, Chip