Podcasts about national institutes

My conversation with Dr Emanuel begins at about 34 minutes Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous soul In Eat Your Ice Cream, renowned health expert Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel argues that life is not a competition to live the longest, and that "wellness" shouldn't be difficult; it should be an invisible part of one's lifestyle that yields maximum health benefits with the least work Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, is the Vice Provost for Global Initiatives, the Co-Director of the Healthcare Transformation Institute, and the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Emanuel is an oncologist and world leader in health policy and bioethics. He is a Special Advisor to the Director General of the World Health Organization, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  He was the founding chair of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health and held that position until August of 2011. From 2009 to 2011, he served as a Special Advisor on Health Policy to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and National Economic Council. In this role, he was instrumental in drafting the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Emanuel also served on the Biden-Harris Transition Covid Advisory Board. Dr. Emanuel is the most widely cited bioethicist in history.  He has over 350 publications and has authored or edited 15 books. His recent publications include the books Which Country Has the World's Best Health Care (2020), Prescription for the Future (2017), Reinventing American Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act Will Improve our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System (2014) and Brothers Emanuel: A Memoir of an American Family (2013). In 2008, he published Healthcare, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America, which included his own recommendations for health care reform. Dr. Emanuel regularly contributes to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and often appears on BBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets. He has received numerous awards including election to the National Academy of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Association of American Physicians, and the Royal College of Medicine (UK). He has been named a Dan David Prize Laureate in Bioethics, and is a recipient of the AMA-Burroughs Wellcome Leadership Award, the Public Service Award from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation David E. Rogers Award, President's Medal for Social Justice Roosevelt University, and the John Mendelsohn Award from the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Emanuel has received honorary degrees from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Union Graduate College, the Medical College of Wisconsin, and Macalester College. In 2023, he became a Guggenheim Fellow. Dr. Emanuel is a graduate of Amherst College. He holds a M.Sc. from Oxford University in Biochemistry, and received his M.D. from Harvard Medical School and his Ph.D. in political philosophy from Harvard University. On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete   Listen rate and review on Apple Podcasts Listen rate and review on Spotify Pete On Instagram Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on Twitter Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo  

There goes my baby. . . to sleep with this soothing white noise sound! You don't know how good it feels to. . . calm your crying infant. Parents, you deserve a break! This 8 hour white noise track will help soothe a crying baby. Use it to both calm a colicky infant and help with nighttime sleeping. White noise resembles sounds the baby heard in the womb, which has a calming effect. It also masks other distracting noises so that your baby can fall asleep and remain sleeping. While playing white noise for babies, it's important to keep tabs on the volume, because any white noise machine, smartphone, or computer can put out levels that are too loud for your child. It's recommended to play the sound at least a few feet from where your infant is sleeping and to keep the volume no louder than the sound of a soft shower.  Parents can download an app to turn their smartphone into a sound level meter. One good, free, option is the sound level meter app created by the U.S. National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) available on the app store as the NIOSH SLM app.Here are some great products to help you sleep! Relaxing White Noise receives a small commission (at no additional cost to you) on purchases made through affiliate links. Thanks for supporting the podcast!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Baloo Living Weighted Blankets⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (Use code 'relaxingwhitenoise10' for 10% off)At Relaxing White Noise, our goal is to help you sleep well. This episode is eight hours long with no advertisements in the middle, so you can use it as a sleeping sound throughout the night. Listening to our white noise sounds via the podcast gives you the freedom to lock your phone at night, keeping your bedroom dark as you fall asleep. It also allows you to switch between apps while studying or working with no interruption in the ambient sound.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out the 10-Hour version on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Contact Us for Partnership Inquiries⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Relaxing White Noise is the number one destination on YouTube for white noise and nature sounds to help you sleep, study or soothe a baby. With more than a billion views across YouTube and other platforms, we are excited to now share our popular ambient tracks on the Relaxing White Noise podcast. People use white noise for sleeping, focus, sound masking or relaxation. We couldn't be happier to help folks live better lives. This podcast has the sound for you whether you use white noise for studying, to soothe a colicky baby, to fall asleep or for simply enjoying a peaceful moment. No need to buy a white noise machine when you can listen to these sounds for free. Cheers to living your best life!DISCLAIMER: Remember that loud sounds can potentially damage your hearing. When playing one of our ambiences, if you cannot have a conversation over the sound without raising your voice, the sound may be too loud for your ears. Please do not place speakers right next to a baby's ears. If you have difficulty hearing or hear ringing in your ears, please immediately discontinue listening to the white noise sounds and consult an audiologist or your physician. The sounds provided by Relaxing White Noise are for entertainment purposes only and are not a treatment for sleep disorders or tinnitus. If you have significant difficulty sleeping on a regular basis, experience fitful/restless sleep, or feel tired during the day, please consult your physician.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Relaxing White Noise Privacy Policy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠© Relaxing White Noise LLC, 2025. All rights reserved. Any reproduction or republication of all or part of this text/visual/audio is prohibited.

It is not an understatement to say that AI has revolutionized virtually every aspect of human life. What should characterize a Christian posture towards AI? Should we be concerned? Optimistic? How do we think biblically about it the emergence of new AI technology? In this unique episode, Sean is joined by three Biola/Talbot professors who are experts in their fields and in AI: Yohan Lee, Associate Dean of Technology and Professor of Computer Science; Michael Arena, Dean of Biola's Crowell School of Business; and Mihretu Guta, Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics. Mihretu P. Guta, Ph.D. (Philosophy at Durham University, UK). After completing his Ph.D., he worked as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Durham University within the Durham Emergence Project which was set up with cooperation between physicists and philosophers and funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Guta's postdoctoral research focused on the nature of the emergence of the phenomenal consciousness taken from the standpoint of metaphysics, philosophy of mind, cognitive neuroscience and quantum physics. Dr. Yohan Lee has led advanced technology organizations for over 20 years in commercial industry, education, and government. He has been privileged to serve as a civil scientist (U.S. National Institutes of Health), Principal Investigator (Google AI), Chief Science Officer (Riiid Labs, Inc.), and CEO (Scaled Entelechy, Inc). His undergraduate and doctoral studies were at UCLA in neuroscience and genomics with a focus on the neurological basis of learning and memory in addition to precision medicine. His doctoral work centered on large scale genomic data for health and distributed computing. In his corporate role, Dr. Lee has led research and business units in industry, public-private partnerships, the federal government, and international academic consortia for enterprise initiatives with Fortune 50 corporations. Michael Arena, Ph.D., is the dean of the Crowell School of Business at Biola University. He is also the chief science officer and co-founder of the Connected Commons, a research consortium that brings together business and academic thought leaders to develop and apply organizational network solutions. Prior to joining Biola, he served as the vice president of talent and development at Amazon Web Services (AWS), where he leveraged network analysis to enable employee growth, organizational culture and innovation. Arena was also the chief talent officer for General Motors Corporation where he helped to facilitate a business transformation, which is highlighted in his book Adaptive Space. Arena also spent two years as a visiting scientist with MIT's Media Lab researching human networks and acted as a design thinking coach within the Stanford School for three years. ==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California. Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

A crisis doesn't have to break your church or organization. In this powerful conversation, Dr. Mark Rutland, Executive Director of the National Institute of Leadership and founder of Global Servants, joins Phil Cooke https://philcooke.com to share hard-earned insights on leading through crisis, turnaround leadership, and building a lasting leadership legacy. Drawing from firsthand experience in crisis management at Southeastern University, Calvary Church, and Oral Roberts University, Dr. Rutland explains why crisis isn't always about scandal—and why vision, systems analysis, and truth-telling are essential for renewal and growth.

The House on Monday passed a bill that would revamp how agencies purchase software, putting the legislation in the same place it was a year ago: waiting for the Senate to follow suit as the clock ticks down on the congressional calendar. The Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets (SAMOSA) Act would require agencies to examine their software licensing practices, with the aim of streamlining IT buying practices to avoid duplicative purchases. The bill is identical to legislation that passed the House last December but did not move forward in the Senate. The House bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., Shontel Brown, D-Ohio, Pat Fallon, R-Texas, and April McClain Delaney, D-Md., would press agencies to better manage their software without limiting procurement options. They would be required to submit IT assessments to the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration and Congress, so better oversight could be conducted. On the House floor Monday, Brown credited her three co-sponsors as well as former Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who died of cancer in May after taking the lead on this bill in addition to his myriad other government IT efforts. Brown, ranking member of the House Oversight Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation subcommittee, said the SAMOSA Act is a “straightforward good government bill that has strong bipartisan support from members of the Oversight Committee.” A new bill from Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa., and Ted Budd, R-N.C., would establish a national network of cloud laboratories led by the National Science Foundation and supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, with the goal of enhancing collaboration between institutions while improving research efficiency with AI. If passed, NSF will select up to six programmable cloud laboratories from a range of applicants, including academic institutions and private-sector research groups. NIST would be tasked with setting standards and reporting to Congress about the feasibility for expansion. The bill, introduced last week, aligns with provisions laid out by the Trump administration's AI Action Plan and aims to codify existing NSF proposals, according to the sponsors. NSF earmarked $100 million for a similar AI-powered cloud network in August as it looked to expand access to emerging technologies. Researchers in the co-sponsors' home states have developed methods to ease automated discoveries, which will serve as a blueprint for the national effort. NSF will judge applicants on the level of existing data integration and automated capability infrastructure and capacity to support multi-user cloud workflows, among other criteria. In addition to bipartisan backing, the legislation garnered support from officials at Carnegie Mellon University, the Accelerate Science Now coalition and the Allegheny Conference on Community Development. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

"If you are not dreaming big or living big you are not in the right rooms with the right people." This is what our friend Trey Peterson said during our conversation.   Trey is a wealth of knowledge and a man of God that we highly respect and we had the honor of having him on our show.   In this conversation we discussed "Building a God-Driven Business, Family, Legacy, and Much More."   Make sure you have your note pads or apps out and listen to the full episode.   Keep taking action, pursuing personal excellence, and impacting lives!   In This Episode, we discuss: Building a God-Driven Business, Family, & Legacy Trey's upbringing in church and how his dad impacted his life The importance of wealth, stewardship, and understanding finances   Follow and Connect with Trey: Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/treycpeterson/ Website: https://treycpeterson.com/ Summit Leadership & Coaching: https://growwithsummit.com/ Elevate Life Wealth: https://elevatelifewealth.com/   Trey's Bio: Trey C. Peterson is the Partner and Co-Founder of All Things Financial, a top-ranked fiduciary wealth management and tax strategy firm with offices in Minnesota and Texas. Since 2015, he's taught over 450 retirement and financial planning classes, helping thousands of families retire with clarity, confidence, and legacy in mind.  A graduate of Oral Roberts University and the National Institute of Christian Leadership, Trey leads with faith, vision, and conviction. Raised in a ministry home, he learned early to serve God, think differently, dream boldly, and love people well.  After spending years chasing success that left him unfulfilled, Trey became passionate about helping others discover purpose, align their gifts, and win in every area of life—from faith to finances. He is also the founder of two leadership and coaching companies -focused on equipping high-capacity entrepreneurs and professionals to multiply their impact and lead with integrity.   Follow Us: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisandericmartinez/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Dynamicduotraining    *Free Online Training: Discover How Nutrition and Fitness Coaches Install a Proven System That Adds Six Figures to Their Business   Without posting endless organic content, sending 100's of cold DM's, and charging low ticket priced programs   Watch Here   See the full Show Notes to this episode here: https://www.liveadynamiclifestyle.com/podcast/building-a-god-driven-business-family-and-legacy-with-trey-peterson/  

Welcome to Ozempic Weightloss Unlocked, the podcast that unpacks how this medication is reshaping health, lifestyle, and the future of weight management.Ozempic is a brand name for semaglutide, a medication originally approved to treat type two diabetes. It mimics a gut hormone that helps the pancreas release insulin, lowers blood sugar, slows stomach emptying, and signals the brain to feel full sooner. The result for many people is significant weight loss, which is why a higher dose of the same drug is sold separately for obesity under the name Wegovy, according to the United States Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.Because of this dual effect on blood sugar and appetite, Ozempic has become a cultural phenomenon. Listeners hear about it from celebrities, social media, and even coworkers, but medical experts keep stressing one key point. These are prescription drugs meant for people with type two diabetes or with obesity and related health risks, not quick fixes for casual weight loss. Major medical groups such as the American Diabetes Association and the Obesity Society are pushing to protect access for patients who truly need them.Recently, attention has shifted to what happens beyond the number on the scale. Some people lose not only fat but also muscle, which can affect strength, mobility, and metabolism. Researchers at Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, writing in the journal Cell, report a new tablet treatment that increases fat burning and improves blood sugar while preserving muscle mass, and it works very differently from Ozempic. Instead of acting on appetite in the brain, it targets skeletal muscle directly, and early trials suggest it may be used alone or even combined with a drug like Ozempic in the future.At the same time, the competition in obesity medicine is heating up. Eli Lilly has developed a so called triple hormone drug called retatrutide that activates three receptors instead of one. Eli Lilly and coverage from outlets like ABC News report that in a large trial of people with obesity and knee osteoarthritis, participants on the highest dose lost nearly twenty nine percent of their body weight on average and saw a big drop in knee pain. While retatrutide is still in clinical trials and not yet approved, it shows how the field is racing to go beyond the results seen with Ozempic alone.For listeners, this rapid progress brings both excitement and responsibility. These medications can improve blood sugar, reduce cardiovascular risk, and help treat diseases linked to excess weight, but they can also cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and in some cases gallbladder or pancreatic issues. Long term use may require monitoring of muscle mass, nutrition, and mental health. Physicians are now talking more about pairing these drugs with resistance training, adequate protein, and psychological support so that weight loss does not come at the cost of strength or well being.Ozempic has also raised bigger questions. Who should get access when supplies are limited. How will insurance handle long term therapy for what is often a chronic condition. And what happens if a person stops the medication and the hunger comes back. Early data suggest that for many, maintaining results may require ongoing treatment, much like blood pressure medicine.On Ozempic Weightloss Unlocked, we will keep tracking all of this. From new trials and pill based options, to combination therapies, insurance changes, and real world stories of how life looks on and off these medications, our goal is to give you clear, balanced information so you can have better conversations with your own health care team.Thank you for tuning in, and remember to subscribe so you never miss an update on the evolving world of Ozempic and weight loss science.This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In this episode, Director of the National Institutes of Health Jay Bhattacharya discusses the latest developments in biomedical innovation and how they will shape the future of public health research.   Background Reading: This CFR event discusses emerging threats to public health and how journalists are covering new outbreaks across the United States.   Host: Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Senior Professorial Lecturer and President Emerita, American University; Former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services   Guests: Jay Bhattacharya, Director, National Institutes of Health   Want more comprehensive analysis of global news and events straight to your inbox? Subscribe to CFR's Daily News Brief newsletter. To keep tabs on all CFR events, visit cfr.org/event. To watch this event, please visit it on our YouTube channel: A Conversation With Jay Bhattacharya of the National Institutes of Health.

Softer rhetoric on China, but an intensified drive for economic and technological supremacy. A renewed Monroe Doctrine and a Western Hemisphere that tops America national priorities—is the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy a real shift in American foreign policy, or just old wine in new bottles? In this episode, we explore how America's new National Security Strategy affects China-U.S. relations and what it means for Global South countries and the broader world order. Host Xu Yawen is joined by Zhao Hai, Director of International Political Studies at the National Institute for Global Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Wang Haolan, Research Assistant at the Asia Society Policy Institute's Center for China Analysis; Clifford Kiracofe, Washington-based author and former Senior Professional Staff Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; and George Tzogopoulos, Director of EU-China Programmes and Senior Research Fellow at the European Institute of Nice.

In this episode, Dr Elle Wadsworth talks to Dr Emmert Roberts, Senior Clinical Lecturer at the National Addiction Centre, King's College London and a Consultant Addiction Psychiatrist at the South London and the Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. The interview covers Emmert's short report examining the characteristics of drug-related deaths among individuals identified as LGBTQ+ in the United Kingdom, 1997–2024.LGBTQ+ stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer and others. The importance of examining drug-related deaths among those in the LGBTQ+ community [01:31]The use of the National Program on Substance Use Mortality database [04:00]The main findings of the study [05:05] The types of drugs used in sexualised and non-sexualised drug use [08:31]The limitations of the reporting of sexual orientation or trans status in coroner data [10:18]Improving the reporting of sexual orientation and trans status in coroner data [13:02]The implications of the findings for policy and practice [16:04]A sneak preview of findings from Emmert's other paper in Addiction on methamphetamine-related deaths [17:07]The findings that were surprising to Emmert [18:59]About Elle Wadsworth: Elle is an academic fellow with the Society for the Study of Addiction. She is based at the University of Bath with the Addiction and Mental Health Group and her research interests include drug policy, cannabis legalisation, and public health. About Emmert Roberts: Emmert is a Senior Clinical Lecturer at the National Addiction Centre, King's College London and a Consultant Addiction Psychiatrist at the South London and the Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. He is a National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Advanced Fellow, a Senior Harkness Fellow at the Commonwealth Fund and the Clinical Lead of the National Program on Substance Use Mortality (NPSUM).Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Original article: Characteristics of drug-related deaths among individuals identified as LGBTQ+ in the United Kingdom, 1997–2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70198 The opinions expressed in this podcast reflect the views of the host and interviewees and do not necessarily represent the opinions or official positions of the SSA or Addiction journal.The SSA does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information in external sources or links and accepts no responsibility or liability for any consequences arising from the use of such information. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Borderline Personality Disorder (also known as Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder), is characterised by strong emotional responses, unstable relationships and a disturbed sense of self. In this video we cover the symptoms (including DSM 5 diagnostic criteria) as well as potential causes, and treatment. PDFs available here: https://rhesusmedicine.com/pages/psychiatryFree Practice Material: https://app.wisdolia.com/learning-journey/all-cards/h1JbWDFGFLCZtYCAZkfu?showListView=true&r=DnwHGyl95QQgP3ecVSPDHrFGE0E0qB&ref=rhesusmedicineConsider subscribing (if you found any of the info useful!): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRks8wB6vgz0E7buP0L_5RQ?sub_confirmation=1Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rhesusmedicineBuy Us A Coffee!: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/rhesusmedicineTimestamps:What is a personality disorder? 0:00What is Borderline Personality Disorder? 0:20 Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms 0:45Borderline Personality Disorder Diagnosis / DSM 5 Criteria 1:49Borderline Personality Disorder Causes / Risk Factors 2:06Complications 3:12Borderline Personality Disorder Treatment 3:59LINK TO SOCIAL MEDIA: https://www.instagram.com/rhesusmedicine/ReferencesPriory Group, 2022. Emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) treatment. [online] Available at: https://www.priorygroup.com/mental-health/personality-disorder-treatment/emotionally-unstable-personality-disorder-eupd.National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 2025. Borderline personality disorder. [online] Available at: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/borderline-personality-disorder.Verywell Mind, 2025. Borderline personality disorder: Symptoms and diagnosis. [online] Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/borderline-personality-disorder-diagnosis-425174.National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), 2025. Borderline personality disorder. [online] Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430883/.Disclaimer: Please remember this podcast and all content from Rhesus Medicine is for educational and entertainment purposes only and is not a guide to diagnose or to treat any form of condition. The content is not to be used to guide clinical practice and is not medical advice. Please consult a healthcare professional for medical advice.

経済産業省、東京都千代田区経済産業省は１２日、同省所管の産業技術総合研究所が、北海道千歳市に最先端半導体の研究開発拠点を整備すると発表した。 Japan's industry ministry said Friday that its affiliated National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, or AIST, will establish a research and development base for advanced semiconductors in Chitose, Hokkaido, northernmost Japan.

Members of the military have a duty to obey lawful orders but must not obey patently unlawful orders. Given the administration's unlawful, deadly strikes in international waters, our troops are being put in difficult and dangerous circumstances by Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth. The National Institute of Military Justice has created The Orders Project to provide real-time, informed advice for military members who are trying to lawfully navigate the difficult situation in which they are being put. Glenn spoke with Treb Courie, Legal Director for The Orders Project, about the services available to our military members. Link to The Orders Project: www.ordersproject.comFind Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The killing of Alberto Rangel, a 51-year-old social worker at San Francisco General Hospital, has left colleagues grieving and questioning whether his death could have been prevented. Rangel was stabbed by a patient who authorities say had made multiple threats for weeks. Incidents of workplace violence in healthcare facilities have been on the rise for more than a decade nationwide, prompting hospitals and medical offices to adopt stricter safety protocols. But are they working? We'll talk about workplace violence against health care workers and what employers are doing – and failing to do – to protect them. Guests: Annie Vainshtein, reporter, San Francisco Chronicle Dani Golomb, psychiatrist; Golomb was attacked by a patient in 2020 during her medical residency at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco Dan Russell, president, University Professional and Technical Employees Al'ai Alvarez, clinical professor of emergency medicine, Stanford University Cammie Chaumont Menendez, research epidemiologist, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Members of the military have a duty to obey lawful orders but must not obey patently unlawful orders. Given the administration's unlawful, deadly strikes in international waters, our troops are being put in difficult and dangerous circumstances by Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth. The National Institute of Military Justice has created The Orders Project to provide real-time, informed advice for military members who are trying to lawfully navigate the difficult situation in which they are being put. Glenn spoke with Treb Courie, Legal Director for The Orders Project, about the services available to our military members. Link to The Orders Project: www.ordersproject.comFind Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textSummary: Microplastics are showing up in our water, food, air—and in human tissues. In this episode, I unpack what the best studies actually show (and don't), why risk is plausible but not proven, and the realistic steps you can take today without panic. In this episode, I cover:What microplastics are and why they're everywhere—from packaging and clothing to tire dust—and why production is still projected to rise ~70% by 2040 (OECD). OECD+2OECD+2The signal that caught my attention: patients with microplastics in carotid artery plaque had a markedly higher 3-year risk of heart attack, stroke, or death (NEJM). Association, not proof—but concerning. The Guardian+3New England Journal of Medicine+3PubMed+3What's turning up in the brain: autopsy work suggests rising microplastic loads in brain tissue, though causality remains unknown (Nature Medicine coverage). Nature+2Nature+2Everyday exposure: a liter of bottled water can contain ~240,000 plastic particles—mostly nanoplastics—using newer detection methods (NIH Research Matters). TIME+3National Institutes of Health (NIH)+3NCBI+3Indoor vs. outdoor air: estimates suggest we inhale tens of thousands of microplastic particles daily, with higher indoor concentrations (PLOS One). PLOS+1My takeaways for you (progress, not perfection):Respect the signal without catastrophizing. Human data are early, but cardiovascular and neurologic signals merit attention. New England Journal of Medicine+1Make the easy swaps: store food in glass, don't microwave plastic, favor loose-leaf tea over plastic-based tea bags, and replace plastic cutting boards with wood or glass. (These trim exposure; they don't eliminate it.) Air matters: consider a HEPA purifier for main living/sleeping areas and vacuum regularly; natural-fiber clothing sheds fewer synthetic particles. Water choices: where safe, use tap water with a quality home filter and a reusable (non-plastic) bottle—especially given the nanoplastic findings in some bottled waters. National Institutes of Health (NIH)Listener corner: You asked for more quick-hit myth busters (yes, we'll do “Does chicken soup speed recovery?”), and thanks for the reminder to wear a

In this solo episode, Dr. Mike delves into the complex relationship between dopamine, romantic relationships, and the Coolidge Effect. The discussion highlights why men often feel the need for a new partner due to a desensitization of dopamine and how our overstimulated lifestyles contribute to this issue. The host explores the impact of modern habits on dopamine levels, the importance of boredom for resetting dopamine sensitivity, and the role of anticipation in maintaining desire. Practical solutions like dopamine resets, engaging in effort-based activities, and ensuring personal growth and solitude are discussed as ways to improve both individual well-being and relationship satisfaction. Links: The Dopamine Collapse Hypothesis: Foundations of Macro-Neuroeconomics   Show Notes: 00:00 Welcome back to the Hart2Heart Podcast with Dr. Mike Hart 01:30 Understanding the dopamine cycle 03:30 Daily habits and dopamine desensitization 09:00 The Coolidge effect and relationship dynamics 15:00 Dopamine resets and effort-based activities 22:00 Reviving desire in long-term relationships 28:38 "Our nervous system never gets any time to recover—and that kills desire."   — The Hart2Heart podcast is hosted by family physician Dr. Michael Hart, who is dedicated to  cutting through the noise and uncovering the most effective strategies for optimizing health,  longevity, and peak performance. This podcast dives deep into evidence-based approaches to  hormone balance, peptides, sleep optimization, nutrition, psychedelics, supplements, exercise  protocols, leveraging sunlight light, and de-prescribing pharmaceuticals—using medications only when absolutely necessary.   Beyond health science, we tackle the intersection of public health and politics, exposing how  policy decisions shape our health landscape and what actionable steps people can take to reclaim control over their well-being.   Guests range from out-of-the-box thinking physicians such as Dr. Casey Means (author of "Good Energy") and Dr. Roger Sehult (Medcram lectures) to public health experts such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Marty Mckary  (Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and high-profile names such as  Zuby and Mark Sisson (Primal Blueprint and Primal Kitchen).   If you're ready to take control of your health and performance, this is the podcast for you. We cut through the jargon and deliver practical, no-BS advice that you can implement in your daily life, empowering you to make positive changes for your well-being.   Connect on social with Dr. Mike Hart: Instagram: @drmikehart Twitter: @drmikehart Facebook: @drmikehart  

Bipolar disorder is a mood disorder that is characterised by alternating periods of depressive symptoms and elevated mood, termed either hypomania or mania. We cover the different types of bipolar disorder, the criteria for diagnosis and treatment options. PDFs available here: https://rhesusmedicine.com/pages/psychiatryFree Practice Material: https://app.wisdolia.com/learning-journey/all-cards/rlEkoudd56tl7ILuiiVK?showListView=true&r=DnwHGyl95QQgP3ecVSPDHrFGE0E0qB&ref=rhesusmedicineConsider subscribing (if you found any of the info useful!): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRks8wB6vgz0E7buP0L_5RQ?sub_confirmation=1Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rhesusmedicineBuy Us A Coffee!: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/rhesusmedicineTimestamps:0:00 What is Bipolar Disorder?0:33 Bipolar Disorder - Depression1:10 Bipolar Disorder - Mania vs Hypomania2:14 Bipolar Disorder Classification - (Bipolar Disorder 1 vs Bipolar Disorder 2 vs Cyclothymia) 3:15 Epidemiology and Risk Factors4:22 Bipolar Disorder Treatment LINK TO SOCIAL MEDIA: https://www.instagram.com/rhesusmedicine/ReferencesNational Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), 2025. Bipolar Disorder. [online] Available at: https://www.nami.org/About-Mental-Illness/Mental-Health-Conditions/Bipolar-Disorder.Psycom Pro, 2025. Bipolar Disorder. [online] Available at: https://pro.psycom.net/assessment-diagnosis-adherence/bipolar-disorder.National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 2025. Bipolar Disorder. [online] Available at: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder.Wikipedia, 2025. Bipolar disorder. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder.Verywell Mind, 2025. Will My Child Inherit My Bipolar Disorder?. [online] Available at: https://www.verywellmind.com/will-my-child-inherit-my-bipolar-disorder-380477.Disclaimer: Please remember this video and all content from Rhesus Medicine is for educational and entertainment purposes only and is not a guide to diagnose or to treat any form of condition. The content is not to be used to guide clinical practice and is not medical advice. Please consult a healthcare professional for medical advice.

The National Institutes of Health have historically funded scientists to find cures for diseases and protect public health. NIH funding has led to the discovery of immune therapies for cancer, antiviral treatments and prevention of HIV, and ground-breaking research into memory loss and Alzheimer's disease. After a year of funding cuts and freezes that have rocked the medical research field to its core, we catch up with leading researchers at the University of California to talk about the impact this has had on their work and our ability to fight humanity's most puzzling illnesses. Guests: Monica Gandhi, infectious disease expert and professor of medicine at University of California San Francisco - she is the director of the UCSF Gladstone Center for AIDS Research and the medical director of the San Francisco General Hospital HIV Clinic, Ward 86 Pamela Munster, professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco; co-director, Center for BRCA Research, Medical Oncology; distinguished professor in Hereditary Cancer Research Megan Molteni, science writer, STAT News Joel Spencer, associate professor of Bioengineering, University of California Merced - his lab uses funding from NIH to study the thymus, with implications for cancer treatment and healthy aging Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If Christians are called to shape systems, then we must understand what distinguishes a Kingdom model from a worldly machine. Dr. Rutland brings clarity, simplicity, and unmatched leadership wisdom to this crucial distinction.  What You'll Learn in Part 2: How to identify the spirit, values, and drivers of worldly systems. What defines a Kingdom-driven system: righteousness, integrity, service, stewardship, and vision. Why leadership in the Kingdom is built on honor, humility, and accountability. How systems either form people into their image or free people into God's image. Why the Kingdom model produces transformation, not exploitation. A Word from Dr. Mark Rutland "Worldly systems demand success. Kingdom systems cultivate significance. One uses people—the other raises them." ABOUT DR. MARK RUTLAND — The Man, The Myth, The Legend Dr. Mark Rutland is a pastor, evangelist, educator, and New York Times best-selling author. His leadership journey has shaped universities, churches, and global missions. He has served as: Senior Pastor, Calvary Assembly of God, Orlando, FL President, Southeastern University, Lakeland, FL President, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, OK Founder & Director, National Institute of Christian Leadership He also leads Global Servants, rescuing vulnerable girls from trafficking through the incredible House of Grace in Thailand. His life is a testament to the power of moving with God's voice—and His timing.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit ianmsc.substack.comDr. Jay Bhattacharya is the director of the National Institutes of Health, the organization formerly run by Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci. But Dr. Bhattacharya's importance extends much further than “just” NIH. And his appointment there under the second Donald Trump administration marked a dramatic about-face for an organization that was instrumental in creating many of the issues and problems we faced as a society during the pandemic.Dr. Bhattacharya was one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020. That paper contained a blueprint for focused protection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of locking down all society, Bhattacharya and his co-authors wrote, we should look to protect the most vulnerable. That's been proven prophetic, as the harms from lockdowns far exceeded any benefits.He also conducted a study in Silicon Valley early on in the lockdowns that identified COVID was far more prevalent in the community than people realized. That meant the virus was also far less deadly than organizations like the World Health Organization had suggested. He was skeptical about the efficacy of cloth masks, advocated for opening schools, and participated in a roundtable hosted by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2021 that illustrated how ineffectual the Anthony Fauci-doctrine had been. Around that same time, Bhattacharya also spoke out against vaccine mandates and other abuses, which decreased public confidence and trust in vaccines.In short, he was a voice of sanity in a sea of absurdity, proven right about nearly every pandemic-related policy. For his efforts, he was demonized, labeled, censored, and targeted by Collins and Fauci in emails. I had the exclusive opportunity to ask him about many of these issues, and what he's bringing to NIH that his predecessors didn't.Unmasked is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In today's Cloud Wars Minute, I look at how IBM and Cisco are teaming up to pioneer long-distance quantum networks.Highlights00:03 — Although not the only company invested in the development of quantum computing, IBM is certainly considered the most active. The company has the highest number of patents, a clear road map for fault tolerant quantum systems, and the most prestigious track record across quantum hardware, software and the commercialization of these tools.00:28 — Now, IBM and Cisco Systems have revealed plans to link a network of quantum computers over long distances — and the result, perhaps the introduction of the quantum internet. Before I get carried away on this, leaders from both IBM and Cisco have confirmed that the technology to power these networks doesn't yet exist, but they are working on it.00:59 — The bottleneck is getting qubits, the unit of information used by quantum computers, to travel along fiber optic cables between Cisco switches. IBM and Cisco hope to have the first proof-of-concept ready within five years, a network that connects individual, large scale, fault-tolerant quantum computers with the power to run computations over 10s to hundreds of 1000s of qubits.01:49 — So, why do we need the quantum internet? Well, beyond the massive enhancement in computational power, which is the primary driver for companies to enter this space, if quantum computing itself becomes widespread, we'll need quantum structures in the Internet to protect ourselves from our very own creation.02:28 — Technology is advancing at an unfathomable speed, and just like in the AI space, we need to ensure it's contained. In fact, researchers at IBM co-developed three of the four quantum resistant algorithms that the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, have earmarked for future standardization. Visit Cloud Wars for more.

Plastics are everywhere. In the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and even running through our brains. While environmental concerns like pollution, toxic spills and trash islands make the problem feel insurmountable, a new book aims to break down the major issue into solvable problems. “The Problem with Plastic: How We Can Save Ourselves and Our Planet Before It's Too Late" was written by Judith Anck, founder and president of Beyond Plastic, and Adam Mahoney, climate and environmental reporter for Capital B News. Adam joins us for more on the book.The National Institutes of Health recently awarded a research grant to LSU Health to support its research into patients living with HIV-AIDS. Specifically, researchers will study how alcohol use and other issues affect patients with the virus.Dr. Patricia Molina, senior associate dean for research at the LSU School of Medicine, and director of the Comprehensive Alcohol-HIV/AIDS Research Center, and Dr. David Welsh, LSU professor of medicine in pulmonary and critical care medicine, join us to discuss their research. —Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Adam Vos. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber. We get production support from Garrett Pittman and our assistant producer, Aubry Procell.You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at noon and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, the NPR App and wherever you get your podcasts. Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you!Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to.Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!

In this episode, Regan Archibald shifts the conversation from physical longevity to financial longevity, exploring why financial stability is one of the strongest predictors of overall health. Joined by wealth experts Bryan Sweet and Sonu Varghese, the discussion unpacks the biggest risks entrepreneurs face—especially unexpected tax burdens when selling a business—and introduces the powerful concept of creating a “tax asset” to offset capital gains without losing investment growth. Through real case studies, they reveal how proactive planning, strategic portfolio design, and collaboration with the right advisors can save clients hundreds of thousands to millions in taxes while maintaining liquidity, reducing risk, and fueling long-term lifestyle freedom. The episode emphasizes that true longevity requires both optimized health and optimized finances—and that smart tax strategy is essential to building the ageless future you envision. Bryan J. Sweet, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, is the Managing Partner and Wealth Advisor at Sweet Financial Partners and a multi-year Forbes Best-in-State Wealth Advisor. Since launching his career in 1979, he has helped clients design purposeful retirements through his proprietary framework, The Dream Architect™, which blends strategic distribution planning with achieving life's biggest goals. Bryan also co-leads the Elite Wealth Advisor Symposium, mentoring top advisors nationwide in scaling, marketing, and team excellence. His passion is helping others build world-class practices while creating the freedom to live their own dream-driven lives.Personal LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryansweet/ SFP LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/sweet-financial- partners/mycompany/?viewAsMember=true SFP Website: https://sweetfinancial.com/ EWAS Website: https://www.ewasymposium.com/ewas-home Sonu has over 20 years of experience in the asset management industry and leads Carson Group's asset allocation team, shaping the firm's market outlook and providing macro, policy, and portfolio guidance to more than 130 partners overseeing $42 billion in assets. He manages multiple strategic and tactical allocation models on the Carson Investment platform and specializes in the intersection of markets, the economy, and policy. Previously, he served as Partner and Director of Research at Convex Capital Management, where he co-managed portfolios and developed proprietary economic indicators across 30 countries. Sonu began his finance career while completing his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, following both an M.S. from Purdue and a B.E. from the National Institute of Technology in India.LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonu-varghese-phd/  X: https://x.com/sonusvarghese  LIKE/FOLLOW/SUBSCRIBE AGELESS FUTURE:YouTube -https://www.youtube.com/@ReganArchibald / https://www.youtube.com/@Ageless.FutureLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/regan-archibald-ab70b813Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ageless.future/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgelessFutureHealth/

Many Christians understand purpose—but still miss timing. Dr. Rutland confronts one of the most overlooked truths: God's will requires God's timing. Purpose without timing creates chaos. Timing without obedience creates delay. But when purpose and timing align—systems shift, doors open, and favor flows. What You'll Learn in Part 1 Why divine timing is a spiritual discipline, not a coincidence. How to discern the difference between your timing and God's timing. Why rushing God's process leads to unnecessary warfare. How prophets and leaders can cultivate sensitivity to God's pace. Why being "late in the spirit" can cost you opportunities God intended for you to carry. A Word from Dr. Mark Rutland "God is never early and never late—but we often are. Maturity is learning to walk at His pace, even when everything around you tells you to run." ABOUT DR. MARK RUTLAND — The Man, The Myth, The Legend Dr. Mark Rutland is a pastor, evangelist, educator, and New York Times best-selling author. His leadership journey has shaped universities, churches, and global missions. He has served as: Senior Pastor, Calvary Assembly of God, Orlando, FL President, Southeastern University, Lakeland, FL President, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, OK Founder & Director, National Institute of Christian Leadership He also leads Global Servants, rescuing vulnerable girls from trafficking through the incredible House of Grace in Thailand. His life is a testament to the power of moving with God's voice—and His timing.

Discusses voice as a biomarker of diseases, including ethical considerations and how this technology could change the way we diagnose and monitor diseases.  Our guest today is Yael Bensoussan, who is an Assistant Professor of Otolaryngology at the University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine and a fellowship-trained laryngologist. She is also the principal investigator of the Bridge2AI-Voice project, a multi-institutional endeavor funded by the National Institutes of Health to fuel voice as a biomarker of diseases.  Additional resources: Bridge2AI-Voice: https://b2ai-voice.org/ Voice AI Symposium: https://b2ai-voice.org/voice-ai-symposium/ CITI Program's course catalog: https://about.citiprogram.org/course-catalog 

Guest: Anne O'ConnorOrganization: National Institute of Family & Life AdvocatesPosition: Vice President of Legal AffairsTopic: a federal appeals court decision allowing pregnancy resource centers in New York state to continue to inform women about Abortion Pill Reversal while the case progresses in courtWebsite: nifla.org

Many Christians understand purpose—but still miss timing. Dr. Rutland confronts one of the most overlooked truths: God's will requires God's timing. Purpose without timing creates chaos. Timing without obedience creates delay. But when purpose and timing align—systems shift, doors open, and favor flows. What You'll Learn in Part 1 Why divine timing is a spiritual discipline, not a coincidence. How to discern the difference between your timing and God's timing. Why rushing God's process leads to unnecessary warfare. How prophets and leaders can cultivate sensitivity to God's pace. Why being "late in the spirit" can cost you opportunities God intended for you to carry. A Word from Dr. Mark Rutland "God is never early and never late—but we often are. Maturity is learning to walk at His pace, even when everything around you tells you to run." ABOUT DR. MARK RUTLAND — The Man, The Myth, The Legend Dr. Mark Rutland is a pastor, evangelist, educator, and New York Times best-selling author. His leadership journey has shaped universities, churches, and global missions. He has served as: Senior Pastor, Calvary Assembly of God, Orlando, FL President, Southeastern University, Lakeland, FL President, Oral Roberts University, Tulsa, OK Founder & Director, National Institute of Christian Leadership He also leads Global Servants, rescuing vulnerable girls from trafficking through the incredible House of Grace in Thailand. His life is a testament to the power of moving with God's voice—and His timing.

Standing up and speaking to a room full of people is a task that many find daunting. But there are a few tricks that can help you master the art of public speaking. On this week’s episode, National Institute of Dramatic Art CEO Liz Hughes sits down with BOSS editor Sally Patten to reveal her secrets for delivering a top address. This podcast was sponsored by Vanta.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this insightful interview, Dr. Emeran Mayer, a renowned expert in the gut-brain axis, discusses the profound impact of gut health on our psychological and mental well-being. Learn about the latest scientific discoveries connecting your gut microbiome to your brain and how modern agriculture, diet, and environmental factors play a crucial role. Topics Covered Start (00:00) Dr. Mayer's Background (01:36) Cutting-Edge Discoveries in Gut-Brain Connection (04:12) Impact of Modern Agriculture on Gut Health (07:18) The Role of GMOs and Glyphosate (12:28) Microplastics and Potential Microbial Solutions (17:48) Soil-Grown vs. Hydroponic Foods (22:05) Benefits of Regenerative Agriculture (27:19) Understanding Bovar (27:42) The Power of Polyphenols for Gut and Brain Health (34:54) Importance of Microbiome Diversity (42:01) Key Beneficial Bacteria: Butyrate Producers & Akkermansia (48:28) Fermented Foods and Mental Health (53:40) The Microbiome and Psychedelics (01:01:48) The Importance of Diet for Gut-Brain Health (01:04:18) Learn more about the fascinating link between your gut and your mind in this engaging discussion with a leading expert in the field. About Dr Emeran Mayer: Dr. Emeran Mayer is a distinguished professor in the departments of medicine, physiology, psychiatry, and biobehavioral sciences at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He is also the director of the Center for Neurovisceral Sciences & Women's Health within UCLA's division of digestive diseases and the executive director of the G. Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience. Furthermore, he co-directs the CURE: Digestive Diseases Research Center at UCLA.   Dr. Mayer is a world-renowned gastroenterologist and neuroscientist with over 35 years of experience studying the clinical and neurobiological interactions between the digestive and nervous systems in both healthy and diseased states. His research has been consistently supported by the National Institutes of Health.   He is also an accomplished author, having written "The Mind-Gut Connection: How the Hidden Conversation Within Our Bodies Impacts Our Mood, Our Choices, and Our Overall Health." He has published over 320 peer-reviewed scientific articles and numerous book chapters and reviews.   Dr. Mayer's research interests include the neurobiology of visceral pain and stress, and he is involved in translational studies in these areas. He also investigates probiotic therapies for gastrointestinal disorders, including irritable bowel syndrome.   About Kriben Govender: Kriben Govender is a Food and Nutrition Scientist, Registered Nutritionist, and the founder of Nourishme Organics, a company specialising in gut health and fermentation products. With over 20 years of experience in the food industry, Kriben is passionate about the intersection of diet, gut health, and well-being.

Dan Naturman and Periel Aschenbrand are joined by Nate Soares, President of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and author of the New York Times bestseller If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All. Prior to MIRI, Soares worked as an engineer at Google and Microsoft, as a research associate at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and as a contractor for the US Department of Defense.Dan Naturman and Periel Aschenbrand are joined by Nate Soares, President of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and author of the New York Times bestseller If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All. Prior to MIRI, Soares worked as an engineer at Google and Microsoft, as a research associate at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and as a contractor for the US Department of Defense.

Dustin Poppendieck is an environmental engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He received his PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 2002. He is a fellow of the International Society for Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ). Dustin has been investigating indoor air chemistry since 2002. Most of his efforts have involved characterizing primary emission sources and heterogeneous reactions at material surfaces. He has investigated emissions from kerosene can lamps used by nearly a billion people throughout the developing world, spray polyurethane foam, non-smoldering cigarette butts and indoor air cleaning devices. In addition, Dustin has studied the disinfection of biologically contaminated building materials (i.e., anthrax) using high concentrations of ozone, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide and methyl bromide. Recently, Dustin has been involved in writing and revising standards related to chemistry of portable air cleaners, including ASTM D8625, UL867, ASHRAE 241 and ASHRAE 145.4.

Dan Naturman and Periel Aschenbrand are joined by Nate Soares, President of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and author of the New York Times bestseller If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All. Prior to MIRI, Soares worked as an engineer at Google and Microsoft, as a research associate at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and as a contractor for the US Department of Defense.Dan Naturman and Periel Aschenbrand are joined by Nate Soares, President of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and author of the New York Times bestseller If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All. Prior to MIRI, Soares worked as an engineer at Google and Microsoft, as a research associate at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and as a contractor for the US Department of Defense.

According to the National Institutes of Health,approximately 61% of children with autism exhibit behavioral or conductproblems, based on a large study. However, the prevalence of these behavioralissues can vary significantly depending on the definitions used, with estimatesfor specific aggressive behaviors ranging from 8% to over 68%. Jake Edgar is a Special Education Director and Advisor whohas dedicated his career to empowering children and adolescents withdisabilities and supporting the families who care for them. He has alwaysfollowed his passion for helping young people reach their full potential.Currently, he serves as the Director of Education at Springbrook AutismBehavioral Health, a residential program that provides specialized care forchildren and teens who are autistic and also face behavioral or emotionalchallenges. Jake is also the founder of the Carolina Special EducationAdvocacy Group, where he works directly with parents and families to navigatethe Individualized Education Program (IEP) process. He helps them understandtheir rights, develop effective plans, and gain the confidence to advocate fortheir children's educational needs. In addition, Jake hosts the All Abilities,No Filter podcast, which features real, unfiltered conversations aboutdisability, inclusion, and education. Each episode includes voices fromparents, professionals, and self-advocates, all working toward a common goal:building a more understanding and inclusive world. His passion has always centered on helping children andadolescents with disabilities reach their fullest potential. Over the years,Jake has had the privilege of working across a wide range of educationalsettings—from self-contained classrooms to public school inclusionenvironments, and now in residential care. Each experience has deepened hisunderstanding of the diverse needs, strengths, and stories within the specialeducation community. For more information, visit: [All Abilities, NoFilter](https://www.allabilitiesnofilter.com/) Discover more at: [Springbrook Autism BehavioralHealth](https://springbrookbehavioral.com/)

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

In this episode, Dr. Mike Hart delves into the origins and contemporary relevance of the 10,000 steps rule. He discusses the latest research outcomes from a massive meta-analysis comparing daily step counts from 2,000 to 12,000 steps and their associated health benefits. Listeners will learn about the significant reductions in mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer mortality, dementia, depression, and type 2 diabetes risk achieved by increasing daily steps. The episode also provides insights into the importance of breaking up sedentary periods, the physiological differences between various forms of steps, and practical tips for incorporating more steps into daily routines, even for office workers.   Links: Massive Steps Meta-analysis   Show Notes: (00:00) Welcome back to the Hart2Heart Podcast with Dr. Mike Hart (01:30) Origins of the 10,000 steps rule (03:00) Latest research on step counts (06:34) "Each 1,000 steps lowers your chance of depression by about 9%." (08:00) Steps vs. exercise: understanding the difference (21:30) Practical tips for increasing daily steps   — The Hart2Heart podcast is hosted by family physician Dr. Michael Hart, who is dedicated to  cutting through the noise and uncovering the most effective strategies for optimizing health,  longevity, and peak performance. This podcast dives deep into evidence-based approaches to  hormone balance, peptides, sleep optimization, nutrition, psychedelics, supplements, exercise  protocols, leveraging sunlight light, and de-prescribing pharmaceuticals—using medications only when absolutely necessary.   Beyond health science, we tackle the intersection of public health and politics, exposing how  policy decisions shape our health landscape and what actionable steps people can take to reclaim control over their well-being.   Guests range from out-of-the-box thinking physicians such as Dr. Casey Means (author of "Good Energy") and Dr. Roger Sehult (Medcram lectures) to public health experts such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Marty Mckary  (Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and high-profile names such as  Zuby and Mark Sisson (Primal Blueprint and Primal Kitchen).   If you're ready to take control of your health and performance, this is the podcast for you. We cut through the jargon and deliver practical, no-BS advice that you can implement in your daily life, empowering you to make positive changes for your well-being.   Connect on social with Dr. Mike Hart: Instagram: @drmikehart Twitter: @drmikehart Facebook: @drmikehart  

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Show (12/03/2025): 3:05pm- A report from Ernesto Londono of The New York Times documents rampant fraud plaguing Minnesota—dozens of people have been charged with stealing more than $1 billion in taxpayer money from programs meant to feed hungry children and provide therapy for autistic children. Critics of Governor Tim Walz say his administration allowed the fraud to persist “partly because state officials were fearful of alienating the Somali community” who were largely responsible for the scams. 3:10pm- While speaking with the press on Tuesday, President Donald Trump called for a reduction of migrants from third world countries who are openly unwilling to assimilate to American culture. 3:20pm- Philadelphia Highway Patrol Officer Andy Chan has died six years after he was struck by a vehicle while on duty. Rich notes that Officer Chan was a friend of the show. Next Friday the show will be broadcasting from the 6th Annual Andy Chan Holiday Block Party. 3:30pm- Speaking from the Oval Office, President Trump, alongside Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, announced a repeal of onerous fuel efficiency regulations put in place under the Biden administration. They had been designed to artificially boost electric vehicle manufacturing and sales. 4:05pm- Speaking from the Oval Office, President Trump, alongside Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, announced a repeal of onerous fuel efficiency regulations put in place under the Biden administration. They had been designed to artificially boost electric vehicle manufacturing and sales. Trump described the policy shift as a win for consumers—as the previous efficiency standards led to higher prices on new vehicles. 4:40pm- Carrie Severino—President of the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) & Co-Author of the book, “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court.”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin. The case asks whether a federal court can hear First Choice's First Amendment challenge to a New Jersey investigatory subpoena when no state court has yet ordered the group to comply. While being questioned by Justice Clarence Thomas, NJ Attorney General Sundeep Iyer conceded that NJ hasn't received any public complaints to justify its subpoena against the pro-life health center. 5:05pm- A Washington Post report states that Department of War Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized a series of deadly strikes on a drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, ordering military officials to “kill everybody.” The directive, according to the report, led to a second strike killing several crew members that survived the initial assault on the vessel. The New York Times, as well as the White House, dispute that Hegseth explicitly authorized the second strike or ordered to eliminate survivors. The NYT also reports that the “U.S. military intercepted radio communications from one of the survivors to what [officials] said were narco-traffickers.” 5:30pm- Following the Eagles loss to the Bears on Friday, Offensive Coordinator Kevin Patullo had his house egged. Does Justin have an alibi? Plus, a drunk racoon ransacked a convenience store! And “Be Nice to Matt Week” continues…sort of… 6:00pm- Speaking from the Oval Office, President Trump, alongside Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, announced a repeal of onerous fuel efficiency regulations put in place under the Biden administration. They had been designed to artificially boost electric vehicle manufacturing and sales. Trump described the policy shift as a win for consumers—as the previous efficiency standards led to higher prices on new vehicles. 6:30pm-While speaking with New York Post reporter Miranda Devine, FDA Director and Johns Hopkins surgeon Dr. Marty Makary documented the ways former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci was involved in a ma ...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:00pm- Speaking from the Oval Office, President Trump, alongside Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, announced a repeal of onerous fuel efficiency regulations put in place under the Biden administration. They had been designed to artificially boost electric vehicle manufacturing and sales. Trump described the policy shift as a win for consumers—as the previous efficiency standards led to higher prices on new vehicles. 6:30pm-While speaking with New York Post reporter Miranda Devine, FDA Director and Johns Hopkins surgeon Dr. Marty Makary documented the ways former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci was involved in a massive attempt to suppress the truth about Covid-19's origins. 6:40pm- A report from Ernesto Londono of The New York Times documents rampant fraud plaguing Minnesota—dozens of people have been charged with stealing more than $1 billion in taxpayer money from programs meant to feed hungry children and provide therapy for autistic children. Critics of Governor Tim Walz say his administration allowed the fraud to persist “partly because state officials were fearful of alienating the Somali community” who were largely responsible for the scams.

Allison Lindauer, PhD, APRN joins us to tackle the challenges of navigating behavioral changes caused by Frontotemporal Degeneration (FTD). We talk about some behavior management strategies and the importance of seeking support early and prioritizing your own well-being as a caregiver. Let us know what you think when you listen. - R+MAllison Lindauer is a nationally certified nurse practitioner, researcher, and Associate Director at Oregon Health & Science University's Aging and Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, where she leads outreach and clinical care for families affected by dementia and FTD through her National Institute on Aging–funded STELLA-FTD study.Learn more about the STELLA FTD Study here. A VERY special thank you to today's sponsors ⁠Progranulin Information Navigator⁠ and ⁠Psilera⁠. Want to support the podcast + get more content? Join us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! You get exclusive content + a space to share and connect with others. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.patreon.com/remembermecommunity⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you're curious about anything RM, we'd love to connect with you on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram, and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ www.remembermeftd.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, all the latest updates! Also checkout our new charity foundation for the FTD Community www.remembermefoundation.org------Remember Me Podcast + Community is here to offer hope + human connection for families, caregivers, and individuals impacted by Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD). Always, always accept the good.

Technological development has always been a double-edged sword for humanity: the printing press increased the spread of misinformation, cars disrupted the fabric of our cities, and social media has made us increasingly polarized and lonely. But it has not been since the invention of the nuclear bomb that technology has presented such a severe existential risk to humanity – until now, with the possibility of Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) on the horizon. Were ASI to come to fruition, it would be so powerful that it would outcompete human beings in everything – from scientific discovery to strategic warfare. What might happen to our species if we reach this point of singularity, and how can we steer away from the worst outcomes?  In this episode, Nate is joined by Nate Soares, an AI safety researcher and co-author of the book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All. Together, they discuss many aspects of AI and ASI, including the dangerous unpredictability of continued ASI development, the "alignment problem," and the newest safety studies uncovering increasingly deceptive AI behavior. Soares also explores the need for global cooperation and oversight in AI development and the importance of public awareness and political action in addressing these existential risks.  How does ASI present an entirely different level of risk than the conventional artificial intelligence models that the public has already become accustomed to? Why do the leaders of the AI industry persist in their pursuits, despite acknowledging the extinction-level risks presented by continued ASI development? And will we be able to join together to create global guardrails against this shared threat, taking one small step toward a better future for humanity?  (Conversation recorded on November 11th, 2025)    About Nate Soares: Nate Soares is the President of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), and plays a central role in setting MIRI's vision and strategy. Soares has been working in the field for over a decade, and is the author of a large body of technical and semi-technical writing on AI alignment, including foundational work on value learning, decision theory, and power-seeking incentives in smarter-than-human AIs. Prior to MIRI, Soares worked as an engineer at Google and Microsoft, as a research associate at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and as a contractor for the US Department of Defense.   Show Notes and More Watch this video episode on YouTube   Want to learn the broad overview of The Great Simplification in 30 minutes? Watch our Animated Movie.   ---   Support The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future Join our Substack newsletter Join our Hylo channel and connect with other listeners  

Few, if any, people are comfortable with the idea that there appears to be a connection between UFO sightings and the appearance of supposedly non-existent creatures, including Sasquatch. UFO investigators and organizations have largely shunned cases in which both UFOs and cryptic beings show up in the same locations at the same time. And the Bigfoot research groups are equally appalled to address why their flesh-and-blood but elusive primate species often vanish into thin air, as if sucked up into the sky. But the links between UFO craft and Sasquatch are getting harder to ignore. This week marks the 20th anniversary of Hunt for the Skinwalker, a book co-written by Dr. Colm Kelleher and George Knapp. It documented the strange encounters that had been reported and investigated by the NIDS organization (National Institute for Discovery Science) at a place now known as Skinwalker Ranch. That book inspired the creation of a secretive DIA program known as AAWSAP, which did NOT shy away from the pursuit of incidents in which unknown creatures, including Bigfoot, were seen in the same vicinity as UFOs, alleged dimensional portals, and other phenomena shunned by mainstream science. In this episode of WEAPONIZED, Jeremy and George speak with author and filmmaker David Paulides. Paulides is best known for his bestselling book series, “Missing 411,” in which he documents hundreds of strange disappearances that occur largely in national parks and forests. In many of these cases, humans simply vanish, as if snatched by UFOs or taken against their will to some other reality. Most are never seen again. The first two books written by the former lawman Paulides focused on Sasquatch and what Native American tribes have learned about the mysterious, hair-covered monsters that have been seen for centuries all over North America. His readers wondered if Paulides was suggesting that Sasquatch might be responsible for the humans who disappeared. Now Paulides has released a new film which thoroughly explores all sides of the Bigfoot mystery. The documentary, “American Sasquatch: Man, Myth, or Monster,” revisits the physical evidence and witness accounts which suggest that there is a disturbing connection between cryptid creatures such as Bigfoot and the sightings of UFOs, dimensional portals, and other astounding phenomena - similar to what has been widely reported in and around Skinwalker Ranch. The episode includes clips from the Paulides film, as well as from the video archives of both George and Jeremy, which have explored these same possible connections. American Sasquatch: Man, Myth, or Monster is now available to rent… https://geni.us/AmericanSasquatch GOT A TIP? Reach out to us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠WeaponizedPodcast@Proton.me⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ••• Watch Corbell's six-part UFO docuseries titled UFO REVOLUTION on TUBI here : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://tubitv.com/series/300002259/tmz-presents-ufo-revolution/season-2⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Watch Knapp's six-part UFO docuseries titled INVESTIGATION ALIEN on NETFLIX here : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://netflix.com/title/81674441⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ••• You can now watch all of Corbell's movies for free on YouTube here : BOB LAZAR : AREA 51 & FLYING SAUCERS https://youtu.be/sZaE5rIavVA HUNT FOR THE SKINWALKER https://youtu.be/TczkJ6UAQ8A PATIENT SEVENTEEN https://youtu.be/gDVX0kRqXxE ••• For breaking news, follow Corbell & Knapp on all social media. Extras and bonuses from the episode can be found at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠WeaponizedPodcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Cato adjunct scholars Terence Kealey and John Early join Ryan Bourne to discuss the pair's new Cato working paper Mission Lost: How NIH Leaders Stole Its Promise to America. Kealey and Early detail how the National Institutes of Health's shift from financing mission-led research to funding basic science has reduced its effectiveness in improving Americans' health, all the while crowding out cutting-edge commercial science, and funnelling taxpayer dollars to a range of questionable projects. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

THE BALLER LIFESTYLE PODCAST — EPISODE 603 Hosted by: Brian Beckner & Ed Daly Support the show: patreon.com/theballerlifestylepodcast FULL SHOW NOTES (APPLE PODCAST COMPREHENSIVE EDITION) Cold Open / Welcome Back Brian returns with Episode 603 of TBLS and immediately shouts out the Patreon crew—home of Bonus Bri, emotional sobriety updates, and all the private crying he refuses to do in public. Ed Daly joins and promptly delivers breaking news about an NFL player suspended for watching porn in a team meeting… at full volume. Chaos ensues. Thanksgiving Recap & Tea Talk Brian discovers green tea and is suddenly a Tea Guy. Ed forgets his tea entirely and feels betrayed. Listener debate begins: Should grown adults realistically be drinking gravy more than once a year? (The answer is apparently controversial.) ️ Woke Up Gay Again Mug Saga Brian receives a custom “Woke Up Gay Again” mug—plus his very own “gay card”—leading to: His daughter roasting him into dust. White pants discourse. Questions about whether the mug should be kept in his wallet for emergency resuscitation. ToeCutter strikes again. RIP Segment The boys honor (and roast) the deceased: Lynn Hamilton (Sanford & Son) Grandma the Galápagos Tortoise – lived 141 years, witnessed centuries of atrocities, said nothing. Randy Jones (Padres Cy Young winner, patron saint of 70s brown-and-yellow uniforms) Fuzzy Zoeller (apparently not 97 years old, though he looked it since 1997) ️ / Sports News Browns DL Shelby Harris calls 49ers WR Jauan Jennings a “hoe” And he clarifies it. Repeatedly. Patrick Beverley accused of punching and choking his teenage sister The guys discuss: Pat Bev's history of talking more than he plays The creepiness of men policing teenage girls' sex lives Whether Jay Stew thinks athletes should have podcasts (spoiler: he doesn't) Pickleball vs. Carmel, CA Carmel considers banning pickleball because it's “too noisy.” Brian rants about temporary courts, olds blowing Achilles tendons, and why tennis is superior. Drake Maye Spotted at His Girlfriend's Adult Cheer Competition Wait—adult cheer competitions? The guys spiral into: When activities should end What counts as “aging gracefully” The disturbing traditions of Texas A&M (midnight yell practice, dungarees, kick routines) Listener Voicemails & Mailbag Ben Astounded that Brian & Ed only consume gravy once a year. Matthew Richards Asks if Ed would peek at Hitler's infamous micro-penis if gifted a time machine. (Consensus: obviously yes.) Gfish Offers to file a complaint against Jay Stew's online bullies. Toe Cuttter Sends physical mail (!) including the mug and gay card, then demands: “Loudest Comer” rankings More show minutes A commitment to being “as gay as we want to be” Loudest Comer Power Rankings Chris Farley > John Belushi Dick Vitale > Harry Caray Air Bud Cinematic Universe: likely the evil clown, not Air Bud himself David Silver's mom (90210) receives an honorable mention Non-Sports: Weird News, Sexual Disasters & Political Horrors Hitler Micro-Penis Discourse Time travel urinal etiquette. Historical dick analysis. Rasputin's jar-encased hog. RFK Jr. Felching Poetry Scandal Brian & Ed read actual RFK sext-poems involving: “Harvests” “Canyons” “Don't spill a drop” Full-on National Institute of Health–certified felching definitions Listeners are begged to call in if they've ever actually felched (unlikely, but we're listening). UK Man Hospitalized After Eating 7 Pounds of Gummy Cola Bottles Relatable to a point. Then horrifying. Hugh Hefner reportedly drank 20 Pepsis a day + 3 lbs of M&Ms The true cause of Playboy longevity? Macaulay Culkin legally changes his middle name to Macaulay Culkin The poll results are honored. Italian Man Dresses as Dead Mother to Collect Pension Mrs. Doubtfire but make it mortifying. Smokey Robinson Accused of Forcing Strangers to Touch His Erection Brian plays tracks from GASMS, Smokey's actual album filled with sex songs to confirm: Yes, this man is capable of anything. SUPPORT THE SHOW Patreon subscribers get extended dong talk + bonus content weekly. Join here: patreon.com/theballerlifestylepodcast Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Long ago, before the great lion Aslan bounded onto bookshelves, C. S. Lewis wrote a science fiction novel set on mythological Mars. From there, the sequel carried Dr. Elwin Ransom by angels to the sister planet Venus. And from there … the Ransom/Cosmic/Space Trilogy descended to the dull world of corrupt college boards, inner-ring politics, and a secret technocracy bent on world domination with the aid of mad science and demons and everything. Eighty years after That Hideous Strength, we explore why C. S. Lewis created this earthbound and weird and wonderful pre-political supernatural thriller. Episode sponsors Sons of Day and Night by Mariposa Aristeo A Faie Tale by Vince Mancuso Above the Circle of Earth by E. Stephen Burnett Mission update New at Lorehaven: Josiah DeGraaf's Sun Eater series article Subscribe free to get updates and join the Lorehaven Guild That hideously obscure front cover image. 1. The temptations to wield inner rings The Ransom Trilogy really includes all three fantastical genres. It starts with sci-fi, continues to fantasy, ends in supernatural. Stephen would have appreciated knowing this before this book! Because that fact, plus the cover, will affect your expectations. More than the other two, Hideous Strength feels a weird hybrid. For instance, it begins on Earth and feels “grown-up,” even dull. Who is Mark Studdock and Jane? Why do we care about them? And where is Dr. Ransom and the creatures of books 1 and 2? But here Lewis is addressing some deep and personal enemies. One of them is the “inner ring” villain he writes about elsewhere. Call this “the room where it happens,” that seat of power. Right now some conspiracists claim to “expose” secret inner rings. Yet more often they're trying to make new “rings” themselves. This “normal,” subtle threat marks the first real evil of the story. Mark, a social-climbing sociologist, craves to reach this influence. Then he gets there … and discovers it's run by the greater threat. 2. A not-so-N.I.C.E. secular technocracy Enter the National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments. It's a social movement, an actual autocratic state bent on power. They're all about science, social engineering, efficiency, machines. These theorists take the worst of evil ideologies and mix them up. And for Lewis, this represents the worst corruptions of academia. They destroy natural land like Saruman. Hijack history like IngSoc. And they take over newspapers in plain sight like any petty tyrant. Some have different aims/ideas, such as a truly scary revelation about what exactly has gone wrong with the sterility of the Moon. Others are so poisoned by elitism that they “naturally” fall into evil. That's why we call this a pre-political story. Yes, it's about politics and has overlapping theme, but is about the ideas beneath this. N.I.C.E.'s goal: the subjugation of the human race to macrobes. From here, Lewis finally explains the recurring visions of Jane Studdock (revealing the conspiracy) and a holy resistance order. And, lest there be any doubt, we soon learn the worst threat of all. 3. Devils vs. power to demolish strongholds At last, Dr. Ransom enters the story, leading a small diverse group. He's recruited Christian fellow academics, sure, but also one rather sympathetic skeptic, leading women, and working-class folks. Their enemy is not just flesh and blood, but dark spiritual powers. That's why we call Hideous Strength a true supernatural thriller. Astute readers will discern demonic activity behind the veil. That's no surprise for the author of The Screwtape Letters. Yet the activity is more subtle, in allusion, not overt like Peretti. Ultimately we discern the demons/humans spread their evil ideas in an area Lewis knew very well: the corruption of language. Words, meanings, symbols, translations are vital to this story. And perhaps it's no surprise that the ultimate battle is won not by weapons or even direct intrusions of magic, but by word powers. Clearly the author had in mind a certain Genesis 11 narrative! By the end, one hero utters this divine judgment: “Qui Verbum Dei contempserunt, eis auferetur etiam verbum hominis.” (Kee vehr-boom Deh-ee kon-temp-seh-roont, eh-ees ow-feh-reh-toor eh-tee-ahm vehr-boom ho-mee-nees) Translated: “They that have despised the word of God, from them shall the word of man also be taken away.” These villains “have pulled down Deep Heaven onto their heads.” Holy agents unite from the planets and the past to empower good. Lewis also brings in, quite overtly, his love for medieval cosmology and the planetary influences that are crucial to this universe. And now (with a reread) Stephen has experienced this story with delight like he had hoped, particularly with Lewis's latter head-hopping and fun-poking at the expense of N.I.C.E.'s evildoers. That Hideous Strength ends with startling eucatastrophe and celebration of biblical and based virtues, from cosmic to familial. It's no wonder the story has gained new fans in these similar days. Com station Top question for listeners Do you prefer demonic evil in fiction to be overt or subtle? Next on Fantastical Truth Well, we just talked about the first Chronicle of Narnia … the book! Yet many fans found or rediscovered this series thanks to the Disney-distributed, Walden Media–made film from director Andrew Adamson. Want to feel old? That was two decades ago! So now we shall look back at Narnia's journey to the box office with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which released twenty years ago on Dec. 9, 2005.

In this episode of NucleCast, host Adam Lowther engages in a thought-provoking conversation with Rob Kittinger, a seasoned expert from Sandia National Labs. They delve into the critical role of human factors in nuclear safety and explore the intriguing dynamics of the AI race between the US and China. From the potential pitfalls of human error to the strategic implications of AI advancements, this episode offers a deep dive into the challenges and opportunities shaping our nuclear future. "Other examples of color vision affecting job safety can be found here: https://waggonerdiagnostics.com/pages/law-enforcement "Robert Kittinger, Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS). He spent nearly 10 years at Sandia National Laboratories, culminating in the Nuclear Threat Science department and working in Nuclear Emergency Support and Counterterrorism & Counter-Proliferation (CTCP). During his time at Sandia, he was also a 2017 graduate of the prestigious Weapon Intern Program (WIP).Before joining Sandia, Dr. Kittinger spent over five years as a civilian in the U.S. Navy and was part of a five-person tech startup, BookLamp, which was acquired by Apple in 2013. Following his tenure at Sandia, he served as a senior researcher at Amazon and currently holds the role of Chief Research Officer at a MedTech company.Socials:Follow on Twitter at @NucleCastFollow on LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/company/nuclecastpodcastSubscribe RSS Feed: https://rss.com/podcasts/nuclecast-podcast/Rate: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nuclecast/id1644921278Email comments and topic/guest suggestions to NucleCast@anwadeter.org

In this episode of Clocking In: Voices of NC Manufacturing, host Phil Mintz sits down with Lindsey Crisp, President and CEO of Carver Machine Works—also known as CMW Global—a nearly 50-year-old manufacturing company located just steps from the Pamlico River in Washington, North Carolina. Lindsey shares how Carver Machine Works has evolved from repairing phosphate mining equipment in the 1970s to becoming a trusted supplier for the industrial and naval defense industries. With a background in accounting, Lindsey offers a unique perspective on manufacturing leadership, financial management, and how adaptability has fueled the company's longevity and growth. Listeners will hear insights on Carver's transformation, its commitment to quality certifications, and innovative approaches to workforce development, additive manufacturing, and AI adoption. LINKS NCMEP | IES | Carver Machine Works ABOUT The North Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NCMEP) NCMEP is the official state representative of the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a program of the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The MEP National Network is a unique public-private partnership that delivers comprehensive solutions to manufacturers, fueling growth and advancing U.S. manufacturing. NCMEP is administered by NC State University Industry Expansion Solutions and partners with the Economic Development Partnership of NC, the Polymers Center of Excellence, Manufacturing Solutions Center, Hangar6, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Industrial Solutions Lab, and NC State University Wilson College of Textiles to help manufacturing companies develop and maintain efficient operations that are well-positioned to grow profitably. NC State University Industry Expansion Solutions (IES) Through combined resources and collaboration efforts, NC State University Industry Expansion Solutions provides services that help manufacturers to: Expand Local and U.S. Supply Chain Vendor Relationships Access Customized Training Programs to Narrow the Workforce Gap Realize the Efficiencies of Smart Manufacturing and Advanced Technology Save Time and Energy through Improved Processes, Productivity and Capacity Expand Facility and Equipment Capabilities Increase Sales and Profits Create and Retain Jobs Streamline New Product Design, Testing, Development and Time to Market CMW Global CMW Global, formerly known as Carver Machine Works, is a Washington, North Carolina–based, engineering-driven metal fabrication and machine shop that delivers world-class services to aerospace, defense, and industrial manufacturing sectors. Their capabilities span precision machining, custom metal fabrication, mechanical assembly, welding, refurbishment, and reverse engineering. With a strong commitment to quality, CMW Global operates under ISO 9001 and other industry certifications. What sets them apart is their ability to tackle mission-critical, high-value, and complex components while ensuring tight control over process, cost, and schedule. Dr. Phil Mintz Dr. Phil Mintz is the executive director of NC State Industry Expansion Solutions (IES) and director of the North Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NCMEP). Phil drives outreach to NC manufacturers, builds relationships with federal and state leaders, and coordinates efforts to drive profitable manufacturing growth in the state. He also leads the broader IES Extension Operations outreach unit of regional managers, technical specialists, and business development leaders, providing business engagement, assessment, and improvement tools. This includes statewide peer networks, ISO 9000 quality management systems, Six Sigma, Lean manufacturing, environmental services, and health and safety solutions. Lindsey Crisp Lindsey Crisp is President and CEO of Carver Machine Works (CMW Global). A graduate of East Carolina University with a background in accounting, Lindsey is both a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and a Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA). Under his leadership, Carver Machine Works has expanded its capabilities and market reach, becoming a model of resilience, innovation, and community-centered manufacturing.

Get the book, Leveled Reading, Leveled Lives: How Students' Reading Achievement Has Been Held Back and What We Can Do About It Visit Timothy's website, www.ShanahanOnLiteracy.com About The Author Timothy Shanahan is distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He served as the director of reading for the Chicago Public Schools, is the former president of the International Literacy Association, and served on the advisory board of the National Institute for Literacy under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In 2007, he was inducted into the Reading Hall of Fame.   This episode of Principal Center Radio is sponsored by IXL, the most widely used online learning and teaching platform for K-12. Discover the power of data-driven instruction in your school with IXL—it gives you everything you need to maximize learning, from a comprehensive curriculum to meaningful school-wide data. Visit IXL.com/center to lead your school towards data-driven excellence today.   

Nick Kartsioukas joined us to talk about security in embedded systems.  Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is the primary database to check your software libraries, tools, and OSs: cve.org. Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP, owasp.org) has information on how to improve security in all kinds of applications, including embedded application security. There are also cheatsheets, Nick particularly recommends Software Supply Chain Security - OWASP Cheat Sheet.  Wait, what is supply chain security? Nick suggested a nice article on github.com: it is about your code and tools including firmware update, a common weak point in embedded device security. Want to try out some security work? There are capture the flag (CTF) challenges including the Microcorruption CTF (microcorruption.com) which is embedded security related. We also talked about the SANS Holiday Hack Challenge (also see Prior SANS Holiday Hack Challenges). This episode is brought to you by  RunSafe Security. Working with C or C++ in your embedded projects? RunSafe Security helps you build safer, more resilient devices with build-time SBOM generation, vulnerability identification, and patented code hardening. Their Load-time Function Randomization stops the exploit of memory-based attacks, something we all know is much needed. Learn more at RunSafeSecurity.com/embeddedfm. Some other sites that have good information embedded security: This World Of Ours by James Mickens is an easy read about threat modelling Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is at cisa.gov and, among other things, they describe SBOMs in great detail National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also provides guidance: Internet of Things (IoT) | NIST  NIST Cybersecurity for IoT Program  NIST SP800-213 IoT Device Cybersecurity Guidance for the Federal Government: Establishing IoT Device Cybersecurity Requirements There is a group of universities and organizations doing research into embedded security: National Science Foundation Center for Hardware and Embedded Systems Security and Trust (CHEST). Descriptive overview and the site is nsfchest.org European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) - Consumer IoT Security Camera Ubiquiti configuration issue (what not to do) Finally, Nick mentioned Stop The Bleed which provides training on how you can control bleeding, a leading cause of death. They even have a podcast (and we know you like those). Elecia followed up with Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT). Call your local fire department and ask about training near you! Transcript

Harvard president Alan Garber and National Institutes of Health head Jay Bhattacharya are two main characters at the heart of the national fight over the future of academia. Alan Garber has been cast as the defender of academic freedom and democracy; Jay Bhattacharya is Donald Trump's pick to lead the NIH, the agency withholding billions of dollars in research grants from Harvard. Oddly enough, the two men go way back: Garber was Bhattacharya's undergraduate thesis advisor and mentor in the late 1980s. This episode tells the story of how the two men found themselves adversaries — and what it means for the future of science. Find more On the Media every week, here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This episode covers: • Nano CBD Pain Relief Without Cognitive Side Effects A new nano-micelle formulation of CBD called CBD-IN delivers fast, non-addictive pain relief in mice without memory issues, motor impairment or the usual cannabinoid “fog.” Because it crosses the blood brain barrier and directly targets hyperactive pain circuits, it sidesteps many opioid-type drawbacks. Dave explains why precision-designed cannabinoids could reshape chronic pain treatment and longevity support. Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251117095652.htm • Moderate Calorie Restriction Slows Biological Aging A long-term trial from the National Institute on Aging found that cutting calories by about 12% over two years slowed the pace of aging — measured by methylation clocks and metabolic markers — in lean and mildly overweight adults alike. Dave breaks down why small, manageable dietary tweaks can deliver big longevity gains, without crash dieting or extreme fasting. Source: https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/cutting-calories-may-slow-pace-aging-healthy-adults • FDA Approves AI-Guided Robotic Surgery Trials for Alzheimer's The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted IDE approval for the first robotic microsurgical study targeting early stage Alzheimer's disease using AI and deep imaging. The trial uses adaptive robotics to target deep brain lymphatic pathways, potentially clearing amyloid/tau deposits with surgical precision. Dave explains why this signals a new era in neurodegeneration – moving from drug-only to machine-assisted brain repair. Source: https://www.mmimicro.com/ide-approval-for-first-robotic-microsurgery-alzheimers-study/ • Antibiotic Reprograms Gut Bacteria to Produce Anti-Aging Molecules Researchers demonstrated that the veterinary antibiotic cephaloridine can reprogram gut microbes to secrete colanic acid — a molecule linked to better mitochondrial health, reduced gut permeability and improved cholesterol/insulin balance in mice. Dave explores how this could evolve into a pipeline of engineered probiotics that act as internal “longevity factories.” Source: https://newatlas.com/aging/antibiotic-longevity-microbiome/ (link remains unchanged) • Klotho: The Longevity Protein Nears Clinical Reality The longevity protein Klotho, known for clearing toxic by-products, calming inflammation and protecting brain/organ networks, is now advancing toward human trials via injectables, oral formats and gene therapy. Dave explains why Klotho is shaping up as a foundational target for next-gen age-reversal strategies and stacking protocols. Source: https://investingnews.com/longevity-focused-health-fueling-u-s-anti-aging-products-market-projected-to-reach-27-billion-by-2033/ (link remains unchanged) All source links provided for easy reference to the original reporting and research above. This episode is essential listening for fans of biohacking, human performance, functional medicine and longevity who want practical tools from Host ­Dave Asprey and the latest breakthroughs shaping the future of health. Dave Asprey is a four-time New York Times bestselling author, founder of Bulletproof Coffee, and the father of biohacking. With over 1,000 interviews and 1 million monthly listeners, The Human Upgrade gives you the knowledge to take control of your biology, extend your longevity, and optimize every system in your body and mind. Each episode delivers cutting-edge insights in health, performance, neuroscience, supplements, nutrition, biohacking, emotional intelligence and conscious living. New episodes are released every Tuesday, Thursday, Friday (audio only) and Sunday (BONUS). Dave asks the questions no one else will and gives you real tools to become stronger, smarter, and more resilient. Keywords: nano CBD, CBD-IN, pain relief research, non opioid pain therapies, chronic pain and aging, caloric restriction aging, methylation clocks, metabolic resilience, AI robotics, Alzheimer's microsurgery, neurotech advancement, microbiome engineering, colanic acid, longevity probiotics, mitochondrial support, Klotho protein, anti aging gene therapy, cellular rejuvenation, longevity news, biohacking updates Thank you to our sponsors! LYMA | Go to https://lyma.sjv.io/gOQ545 and use code DAVE10 for 10% off the LYMA Laser. Vibrant Blue Oils | Grab a full-size bottle for over 50% off at https://vibrantblueoils.com/dave. Resources: • Subscribe to my weekly newsletter: https://substack.daveasprey.com/welcome • Danger Coffee: https://dangercoffee.com/discount/dave15 • My Daily Supplements: SuppGrade Labs (15% Off) • Favorite Blue Light Blocking Glasses: TrueDark (15% Off) • Dave Asprey's BEYOND Conference: https://beyondconference.com • Dave Asprey's New Book – Heavily Meditated: https://daveasprey.com/heavily-meditated • Upgrade Collective: https://www.ourupgradecollective.com • Upgrade Labs: https://upgradelabs.com • 40 Years of Zen: https://40yearsofzen.com Timestamps: 0:00 — Intro 0:19 — Story 1: Nano CBD for Pain Relief 1:53 — Story 2: Caloric Restriction and Aging 3:20 — Story 3: AI Robotic Surgery for Alzheimer's 4:50 — Story 4: Microbiome Reprogramming 6:05 — Substack Announcement 7:04 — Story 5: Klotho Longevity Protein 8:39 — Weekly Homework 9:31 — Outro See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.