Podcasts about national institutes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Smart 7 is an award winning daily podcast, in association with METRO that gives you everything you need to know in 7 minutes, at 7am, 7 days a week...With over 19 million downloads and consistently charting, including as No. 1 News Podcast on Spotify, we're a trusted source for people every day and the Sunday 7 won a Gold Award as “Best Conversation Starter” in the International Signal Podcast Awards If you're enjoying it, please follow, share, or even post a review, it all helps...Today's episode includes the following guests:John Kerry - Former US Presidential Envoy for Climate Change Carlos Alberto Quesada - Co-ordinator at Brazil's National Institute of Amazonian Research Harjeet Singh - Global Engagement Director at the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, and member of Satat Sampada, the Indian Climate Foundation WIll Guyatt - The Smart 7's Tech Guru Dr Alexa Mousley - Lead Researcher on Brain Age project and member of Cambridge University's Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit Abdul Hafiz Ab Majid - Entomologist at the Science University of MalaysiaKiam Sadeghi- CEO of Nucleus Embryo John Ruddick - Libertarian Party member in New South Wales. Australia Baroness Morgan - Former Equalities Minister Fiona and Tilly Smith - Reindeer Custodians for the Cairngorm Reindeer HerdContact us over @TheSmart7pod or visit www.thesmart7.com or find out more at www.metro.co.uk Presented by Ciara Revins, written by Liam Thompson, researched by Lucie Lewis and produced by Daft Doris. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.   

In this highly insightful episode of The Future Conceived, host Cam Schmidt talks with Dr. Carmen Williams, Senior Investigator at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the 2025 winner of the SSR Research Award.Dr. Williams, whose lab investigates the critical events of fertilization, shares groundbreaking findings on calcium signaling during egg activation. You will learn:Why the simple components of in vitro culture media, specifically calcium and magnesium ratios, dramatically control the frequency of calcium oscillations and influence the quality and development of the resulting embryo.New, compelling evidence linking these early calcium signals to metabolism (TCA cycle) and ribosomal RNA synthesis in the early embryo.The continued importance of research into endocrine disruptors, particularly plant estrogens, and their impact on reproductive tract differentiation.Dr. Williams also discusses her journey from electrical engineering to clinical medicine to basic science, and closes with a powerful message acknowledging the essential role of trainees in driving scientific success.

In a rapidly aging world, where the growth of older adults is reshaping societies and economies, innovation isn't just welcome—it's essential. The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Startup Challenge and Accelerator, now in its 2025 edition, is fueling this transformation. From 300 applicants nationwide, 21 standout companies were selected for their groundbreaking work in devices, digital health, and activity-promoting tools. Hosted by the NIA's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, the accelerator provides funding, mentorship, and networking to bridge the gap between cutting-edge ideas and real-world impact. Learn more about the program here.On a recent episode of the Positive Aging Community podcast, host Steve Gurney sat down with four of these trailblazers: Kareem Elfoulie of Senior Shield Technologies, Marie Brodsky of WISE Connect, Neal Shah of CareYaya, and Stefano Selorio of Carevocacy. What emerged was a tapestry of personal stories, disruptive solutions, and shared optimism about dismantling the stigmas and barriers of aging. These entrepreneurs, many drawing from their own family caregiving experiences, are reimagining dignity, connection, and affordability for older adults.https://www.retirementlivingsourcebook.com/videos/innovators-from-the-2025-national-institute-on-aging-nia-startup-challenge

In this solo episode, the host discusses the effects of metformin, berberine, and dihydroberberine on exercise adaptation and longevity. While metformin is known for its longevity benefits and is popular in the biohacking community, it has been shown to significantly reduce exercise adaptations and VO2 max gains. Berberine, a supplement with similar effects to metformin, is easier to obtain but still has some negative effects on exercise and significant GI side effects. The episode introduces dihydroberberine (DHB), a compound with fewer GI issues and less impact on exercise adaptation, making it more suitable for athletes. The host explains the mechanisms behind these compounds, including their effects on AMPK and mTOR pathways, and offers practical advice on when to take DHB in relation to different types of exercise to maximize benefits and minimize drawbacks.     Links: Harvard longevity researcher known for NAD+ & aging research. Diabetes drug often discussed for longevity.Energy-sensing enzyme that promotes catabolic (fat-burning) pathways.   Show Notes: 00:00 Welcome back to the Hart2Heart Podcast with Dr. Mike Hart 00:14 "Metformin may blunt up to 50% of your VO₂ max gains — that's a massive hit for any athlete." 00:30 Metformin: the popular longevity drug 01:00 Berberine: the over-the-counter alternative 02:30 Understanding AMPK and mTOR 04:30 Metformin's mechanism and drawbacks 06:00 Berberine's mechanism and side effects 07:30 Dihydro berberine: the superior choice 10:30 DHB and exercise: timing and benefits 18:00 Comparing Metformin, berberine, and DHB — 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  

A practicing addiction medicine specialist, Dr. Umhau directs AlcoholRecoveryMedicine.com, and provides telemedicine treatment for people with alcohol use disorder in Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.For over 20 years Dr. Umhau was a senior clinical investigator at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health, (NIH). As a Commander in the United States Public Health Service, he served as Clinical Director for an Indian Health Service Hospital in Whiteriver, Arizona and as a Medical Officer in the Division of Psychiatric Products of the FDA. His scientific interest in nutritional neuroscience is informed by decades of clinical experience.  He is president of the Academy of Medicine of Washington, District of Columbia.In this Episode John delves into nutrition for alcoholics, for the brain and focusses on Omega 3, Vitamin A (retinol) and Vitamin D3.Visit his website if you need help -https://www.alcoholrecoverymedicine.com/

In this episode, we travel to the remote Uintah Basin of northeastern Utah to investigate one of the most intensively studied paranormal locations on Earth: Skinwalker Ranch. This 512-acre property has been the site of documented UFO encounters, cattle mutilations, shapeshifting creatures, and phenomena so bizarre that even the United States government spent $22 million trying to understand it.Our story begins with the ancient warnings of the Ute tribe, who have forbidden their people from setting foot on this land for generations. We explore the legend of the Navajo skinwalkers—malevolent witches said to be capable of transforming into animals—and the territorial conflict that allegedly led to a curse being placed on this remote stretch of Utah high desert.At the heart of the narrative is the Sherman family, who purchased the ranch in 1994 expecting to build a quiet life raising cattle. What they found instead was eighteen months of relentless terror. We detail their first encounter with an enormous wolf that couldn't be killed despite being shot multiple times at point-blank range. We examine the systematic mutilation of their cattle, animals discovered with surgical-precision wounds and not a single drop of blood. We recount the night their three dogs were incinerated by a glowing blue orb, reduced to greasy black lumps in seconds.The investigation deepens when billionaire Robert Bigelow buys the property in 1996 and deploys PhD-level scientists through the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS). A disturbing pattern emerges: the phenomena seem to anticipate the researchers' movements and deliberately evade documentation. We describe the March 1997 encounter in which investigators witnessed a massive creature with glowing yellow eyes perched in a tree, and a dog-headed beast on the ground below—both vanishing after being fired upon. We revisit the August 1997 portal sighting, where a ring of orange light opened in midair and a dark humanoid figure stepped through before the doorway snapped shut.Perhaps most disturbing is our exploration of the Hitchhiker Effect, a phenomenon in which the horrors of Skinwalker Ranch appear to follow visitors home.Researchers, their family members, and even their neighbors reported identical paranormal events hundreds of miles from the property. We examine the physical toll linked to these experiences, including chronic blood diseases, neurological symptoms, and radiation exposure that left some investigators permanently harmed.From there, we move into the halls of government. Defense Intelligence Agency scientist James Lacatski's visit to the ranch helped spark a $22 million Pentagon program known as AAWSAP.We reveal how U.S. Senator Harry Reid secured funding to study the unexplained, and how the 2017 New York Times exposé pushed UFOs into mainstream discourse.We conclude with the modern era under owner Brandon Fugal, whose History Channel series has documented six seasons of anomalies including UAP sightings, radiation spikes, GPS interference, and the discovery of a massive metallic anomaly buried deep beneath the ranch. We examine what investigators have found in the area known as the Triangle, where rockets are deflected by invisible forces and LIDAR imaging suggests structures that don't appear in visible light.Throughout this episode, we stay committed to factual accuracy while delivering the high-strangeness our listeners expect. Every incident described has been reported by credible witnesses, and many were investigated by government-linked teams.We present skeptical perspectives alongside extraordinary claims, letting you decide what may be happening in that remote corner of Utah.This episode runs approximately one hour and draws from the original Deseret News reporting (1996), Hunt for the Skinwalker by Colm Kelleher and George Knapp, Skinwalkers at the Pentagon by Kelleher, Knapp, and James Lacatski, interviews with Brandon Fugal and Dr. Travis Taylor, and documentation from the NIDS and AAWSAP investigations.Content Warning: This episode includes descriptions of animal deaths and mutilations, psychological distress, and unexplained medical phenomena. Listener discretion is advised.If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review. Your support helps us keep bringing you the strange, the unexplained, and the terrifying stories that live just beyond the edge of what we think we know about our world.For more content from Paranormal World Productions, visit our website and follow us on social media. And remember: some places on this Earth are not meant for us. Some doors are not meant to be opened. And some lands watch back.

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

Dr. Anne O'Connell joins Newly Erupted for a conversation focused on dental trauma education within the global community. She shares her unique perspective as a European clinician who received American training, underscoring the importance of being adaptable as the global ideology and resources evolve. As a leading voice in this area and an editor of the recently released 6th Edition Handbook of Pediatric Dentistry, Dr. O'Connell emphasizes the need for continued available professional resources for pediatric dentists worldwide, particularly relating to pediatric dental trauma. Guest Bio: Anne O'Connell is currently the Professor/ Consultant in Paediatric Dentistry, Dublin Dental University Hospital, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. She is a Board-certified Pediatric Dentist and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (AAPD) and a Fellow of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and a Fellow of the Pierre Fauchard Academy. Anne trained as a Paediatric dentist at the Eastman Dental Center, New York with a further degree in Cariology from the University of Rochester, New York, USA. She continued as a faculty member in USA at Eastman Dental Center, the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, USA. Anne returned to Ireland in 2000 as Head of Paediatric Dentistry, Trinity College Dublin and established a 3-year full time specialty training program as well as a Trauma clinic. She also ran a private practice until 2022 and maintains clinical duties at the Children's Hospital and the University. Anne has completed 2 terms as President of the International Association of Dental Traumatology and remains active on the Board. She has continued to be involved with AAPD as International Consultant on the Scientific Committee as well as on the Editorial Board. Anne also is active within the International Association of Paediatric Dentistry, where she was a Board member and Honorary Editor and currently serves on the Education Committee. Her areas of interest include cariology, traumatic oral injuries, infant oral health and developmental defects of the dentition, and she is a renowned speaker and actively publishes on these topics.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Who knew that the Hawaii Department of Health had a veterinarian on staff?! We didn't until we met Hawaii DOH's one and only Public Health Veterinarian at a Hawaii Island conference in Kona. From speaking with her, it seems that's true for a lot of folks in Hawaii, so in this episode we share our talk with recent Hawaii transplant, Ariella Barry, who was hired by the state DOH to fill a 20 year vacancy, and just in time to lend a hand during the 2025 Federal Government shutdown. We spoke with her during that Federal shutdown.Brought to you by University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag. and Human Resilience (CTAHR), and the Seeds of Well-being (SOW) Project. This podcast is supported by the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN) grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture and Hawaii Department of Agriculture.Resources:Hawaii Department of Health Veterinary Emergency + Referral Center (VERC)One HealthAvian Influenza at duck sanctuaryPodcast with Jeff CorleHawaii Humane Society (for grief support groups)To reach Ariella, call the DOH Disease Reporting Line: 808-586-4586 and ask for the veterinarian on staff.Find out more about us: Seeds Of Wellbeing website Seeds of Wellbeing Resource Hub All the SOW links

So many unmet needs - so many opportunities for meaningful solutions. Given the number of potentially game-changing start-ups in the FemTech & Women's Health spaces, we need to support these startups the best we can. That's exactly what this week's guest, Theresa Neil, does as Founder & CEO of Femovate - the largest global design program for early-stage FemTech startups. Hear why FemTech startups can benefit from design & research support and how we can meet women's health needs today. Learn how Femovate selects the startups it partners with, the insights Theresa is gleaning working across sectors, and some of the most exciting innovations in the women's healthcare space today. Tune in to this episode to support the next great women's health innovations.   Learn more: Femovate Femovate LinkedIn Theresa Neil   Today's Hot Flash and other stats from: National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Send us a textHow do we faithfully weave our life with God into the work we do every day? In this episode, Susan and co-host Rev. Smith Lilley talk with authors and businessmen Al Erisman and Randy Pope about what it means to view our work as a calling to serve the Lord. Together, they explore how the hours we spend in offices, classrooms, homes, and communities can become places of formation, worship, and witness. AL ERISMAN is currently a writer, speaker, and board member, including serving as chair of the board for the Theology of Work Project and as a founding board member for KIROS. He is a senior Fellow for both the Center for Faithful Business at Seattle Pacific University and the Institute for Marketplace Transformation. Since 2015, he has authored or co-authored numerous books on theology, business, and mathematics. After earning his PhD in applied mathematics at Iowa State University, Al spent 32 years at The Boeing Company, starting as a research mathematician. In his last decade there, he was Director of Technology, where he led a 250-person research staff exploring innovation paths for the company. He participated in committees on science and mathematics through the National Science Foundation, National Research Council, and National Institute for Standards and Technology. He is the co-founder of Ethix magazine, exploring business ethics in a technological age. After retiring from Boeing in 2001, he taught in the Business School at Seattle Pacific University until 2017. RANDY POPE has practiced law for 45 years in his hometown of Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Since 2017, he has served as City Attorney for the City of Hattiesburg. He has tried numerous cases in state and federal courts in Mississippi and has successfully handled appeals to the Mississippi Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He is also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a graduate of the University of Southern Mississippi, the University of Mississippi School of Law, and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He is the founding President of the C. S. Lewis Society of South Mississippi, and he served on staff with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA from 1973-1976.Thanks for listening to the Embodied Holiness Podcast. We invite you to join the community on Facebook and Instagram @embodiedholiness. Embodied Holiness is a ministry of Parkway Heights United Methodist Church in Hattiesburg, MS. If you're in the Hattiesburg area and are looking for a church home, we'd love to meet you and welcome you to the family. You can find out more about Parkway Heights at our website.

Adam sits down with Curtis McGiffin—strategist, educator, and co-author—to explore his groundbreaking argument for redefining national instruments of power. Curtis introduces DIMET, adding “Technology” to the traditional DIME framework, and explains why high-tech capabilities have become a standalone measure of national strength. The discussion dives into how technological innovation is reshaping deterrence, influencing global power dynamics, and driving the future of warfare. Plus, Curtis shares insights from the National Institute for Deterrence Studies' proposed Nuclear Posture Review, offering bold recommendations for strengthening U.S. nuclear deterrence in an era of rapid change.Link to Paper: Curtis McGiffin, DIMET: Shaping the Age of “Techno-Strategic” Power, No. 637, September 22, 2025 – NippSocials: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

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 heartfelt conversation highlights my friend April as she shares ways we can honor our body as well as honor the callings on our hearts. Whether or not you're navigating through midlife or menopause, you're guaranteed to receive new wisdom and empowerment to support you in whatever life transition you may be facing. Connect with April below!  April's Bio: April Izer is a women's integrative wellness coach who helps women in midlife and menopause simplify the noise around health so they can feel strong, balanced, and confident again. After nearly twenty years as a research biologist at the National Institutes of Health studying nutrition and aging, she left the lab to make a more personal impact—coaching women through real-life transitions with science-backed, sustainable strategies. She's the creator of the Menopause Momentum Membership, a supportive, coaching-influenced community where women learn what really works now—from movement and nutrition to stress, sleep, and mindset. Through her coaching and membership, April guides women to honor their bodies—even when it feels like those bodies are working against them—and to find strength, balance, and peace one small step at a time.  Connect with April: www.aprilizer.com @aprilizer CONNECT with Lisa & get IVF COACHING SUPPORT Download IVF Mindset Shift Guide https://ivfmanifestingamiracle.myflodesk.com BOOK a complimentary DISCOVERY CALL BOOK: ‘HOLD ON, BABY! A Soulful Guide to Navigating the Ups & Downs of Infertility & IVF.'INSTAGRAMWATCH on YOUTUBELISTEN to the PODCAST on Apple and Spotify:**Please Rate the show & Subscribe! THANK YOU so much for your Reviews of the podcast!Music Credit (Closing Song) by Sam Costigan. Follow her on Spotify and IG

Kirk & Lacy on shifting research funding away from federal grants: what happens to community partnerships when the money—and the rules—change? Summary Three Audiences, One Report Lacy Fabian and Kirk Knestis untangle a fundamental confusion in community health research: there are three distinct audiences with competing needs—funders want accountability, researchers want generalizable knowledge, and communities want immediate benefit. Current practice optimizes for the funder, producing deliverables that don’t help the people being served. The alternative isn’t “no strings attached” anarchy but rather honest negotiation about who benefits and who bears the burden of proof. Kirk’s revelation about resource allocation is stark: if one-third of evaluation budgets goes to Click here to view the printable newsletter with images. More readable than a transcript. Contents Table of Contents Toggle EpisodeProem1. Introductions & Career Transitions2. The Catalyst: Why This Conversation Matters3. The Ideal State: Restoring Human Connection4. The Localization Opportunity5. Evidence + Story = Impact6. The Funder Issue: Who Is This Truly Benefiting?7. Dissemination, Implementation & Vested Interest8. Data Parties – The Concrete Solution9. No Strings Attached: Reimagining Funder Relationships10. Balancing Accountability and Flexibility11. Where the Money Actually Goes12. The Pendulum Swings13. The Three Relationships: Funder, Researcher, Community14. Maintaining Agency15. Listen and LearnReflectionRelated episodes from Health Hats Please comment and ask questions: at the comment section at the bottom of the show notes on LinkedIn  via email YouTube channel  DM on Instagram, TikTok to @healthhats Substack Patreon Production Team Kayla Nelson: Web and Social Media Coach, Dissemination, Help Desk  Leon van Leeuwen: editing and site management Oscar van Leeuwen: video editing Julia Higgins: Digit marketing therapy Steve Heatherington: Help Desk and podcast production counseling Joey van Leeuwen, Drummer, Composer, and Arranger, provided the music for the intro, outro, proem, and reflection Claude, Perplexity, Auphonic, Descript, Grammarly, DaVinci Podcast episode on YouTube Inspired by and Grateful to: Ronda Alexander, Eric Kettering, Robert Motley, Liz Salmi, Russell Bennett Photo Credits for Videos Data Party image by Erik Mclean on Unsplash Pendulum image by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash Links and references Lacy Fabian, PhD, is the founder of Make It Matter Program Consulting and Resources (makeitmatterprograms.com). She is a research psychologist with 20+ years of experience in the non-profit and local, state, and federal sectors who uses evidence and story to demonstrate impact that matters. She focuses on helping non-profits thrive by supporting them when they need it—whether through a strategy or funding pivot, streamlining processes, etc. She also works with foundations and donors to ensure their giving matters, while still allowing the recipient non-profits to maintain focus on their mission. When she isn't making programs matter, she enjoys all things nature —from birdwatching to running —and is an avid reader. Lacy Fabian’s Newsletter: Musings That Matter: Expansive Thinking About Humanity’s Problems Kirk Knestis is an expert in data use planning, design, and capacity building, with experience helping industry, government, and education partners leverage data to solve difficult questions. Kirk is the Executive Director of a startup community nonprofit that offers affordable, responsive maintenance and repairs for wheelchairs and other personal mobility devices to northern Virginia residents. He was the founding principal of Evaluand LLC, a research and evaluation consulting firm providing customized data collection, analysis, and reporting solutions, primarily serving clients in industry, government, and education. The company specializes in external evaluation of grant-funded projects, study design reviews, advisory services, and capacity-building support to assist organizations in using data to answer complex questions.  Referenced in episode Zanakis, S.H., Mandakovic, T., Gupta, S.K., Sahay, S., & Hong, S. (1995). “A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 1995, pp. 59-79. This paywalled article presents a detailed analysis of 306 articles from 93 journals that review project/program evaluation, selection, and funding allocation methods in the service and government sectors. Episode Proem When I examine the relationships between health communities and researchers, I become curious about the power dynamics involved. Strong, equitable relationships depend on a balance of power. But what exactly are communities, and what does a power balance look like? The communities I picture are intentional, voluntary groups of people working together to achieve common goals—such as seeking, fixing, networking, championing, lobbying, or communicating for best health for each other. These groups can meet in person or virtually, and can be local or dispersed. A healthy power balance involves mutual respect, participatory decision-making, active listening, and a willingness to adapt and grow. I always listen closely for connections between communities and health researchers. Connections that foster a learning culture, regardless of their perceived success. Please meet Lacy Fabian and Kirk Knestis, who have firsthand experience in building and maintaining equitable relationships, with whom I spoke in mid-September. This transcript has been edited for clarity with help from Grammarly. Lacy Fabian, PhD, is the founder of Make It Matter Program Consulting and Resources. She partners with non-profit, government, and federal organizations using evidence and storytelling to demonstrate impact and improve program results. Kirk Knestis is an expert in data use planning, design, and capacity building. As Executive Director of a startup community nonprofit and founding principal of Evaluand LLC. He specializes in research, evaluation, and organizational data analysis for complex questions. 1. Introductions & Career Transitions Kirk Knestis: My name’s Kirk Knestis. Until just a few weeks ago, I ran a research and evaluation consulting firm, Evaluand LLC, outside Washington, DC. I’m in the process of transitioning to a new gig. I’ve started a non-profit here in Northern Virginia to provide mobile wheelchair and scooter service. Probably my last project, I suspect. Health Hats: Your last thing, meaning you’re retiring. Kirk Knestis: Yeah, it’s most of my work in the consulting gig was funded by federal programs, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Ed, the National Institutes of Health, and funding for most of the programs that I was working on through grantees has been pretty substantially curtailed in the last few months. Rather than looking for a new research and evaluation gig, we’ve decided this is going to be something I can taper off and give back to the community a bit. Try something new and different, and keep me out of trouble. Health Hats: Yeah, good luck with the latter. Lacy, introduce yourself, please. Lacy Fabian: Hi, Lacy Fabian. Not very dissimilar from Kirk, I’ve made a change in the last few months. I worked at a large nonprofit for nearly 11 years, serving the Department of Health and Human Services. But now I am solo, working to consult with nonprofits and donors. The idea is that I would be their extra brain power when they need it. It’s hard to find funding, grow, and do all the things nonprofits do without a bit of help now and then. I’m looking to provide that in a new chapter, a new career focus. Health Hats: Why is this conversation happening now? Both Kirk and Lacy are going through significant changes as they move away from traditional grant-funded research and nonprofit hierarchies. They’re learning firsthand what doesn’t work and considering what might work instead—this isn't just theory—it’s lived experience. 2. The Catalyst: Why This Conversation Matters Health Hats: Lacy, we caught up after several years of working together on several projects. I’m really interested in community research partnerships. I’m interested in it because I think the research questions come from the communities rather than the researchers. It’s a fraught relationship between communities and researchers, often driven by power dynamics. I’m very interested in how to balance those dynamics. And I see some of this: a time of changing priorities and people looking at their gigs differently —what are the opportunities in this time of kind of chaos, and what are the significant social changes that often happen in times like this? 3. The Ideal State: Restoring Human Connection Health Hats: In your experience, especially given all the recent transitions, what do you see as the ideal relationship between communities and researchers? What would an ideal state look like? Lacy Fabian: One thing I was thinking about during my walk or run today, as I prepared for this conversation about equitable relationships and the power dynamics in this unique situation we’re in, is that I feel like we often romanticize the past instead of learning from it. I believe learning from the past is very important. When I think about an ideal scenario, I feel like we’re moving further away from human solidarity and genuine connection. So, when considering those equitable relationships, it seems to me that it’s become harder to build genuine connections and stay true to our humanness. From a learning perspective, without romanticizing the past, one example I thought of is that, at least in the last 50 years, we’ve seen exponential growth in the amount of information available. That's a concrete example we can point to. And I think that we, as a society, have many points where we could potentially connect. But recent research shows that’s not actually the case. Instead, we’re becoming more disconnected and finding it harder to connect. I believe that for our communities, even knowing how to engage with programs like what Kirk is working on is difficult. Or even in my position, trying to identify programs that truly want to do right, take that pause, and make sure they aim to be equitable—particularly on the funder side—and not just engage in transactions or give less generously than they intend if they’re supporting programs. But there are strings attached. I think all of this happens because we stop seeing each other as human beings; we lose those touchpoints. So, when I think about an ideal situation, I believe it involves restoring those connections, while more clearly and openly acknowledging the power dynamics we introduce and the different roles we assume in the ecosystem. We can’t expect those dynamics to be the same, or to neutralize their impact. However, we can discuss these issues more openly and consistently and acknowledge that they might influence outcomes. So, in an ideal scenario, these are the kinds of things we should be working toward. 4. The Localization Opportunity Health Hats: So Kirk, it strikes me listening to Lacy talk that there’s, in a way, the increased localization of this kind of work could lead to more relationships in the dynamic, whereas before, maybe it was. Things were too global. It was at an academic medical center and of national rather than local interest. What are your thoughts about any of that? Kirk Knestis: Yeah, that’s an excellent question. First, I want to make sure I acknowledge Lacy’s description philosophically, from a value standpoint. I couldn’t put it any better myself. Certainly, that’s got to be at the core of this. Lacy and I know each other because we both served on the board of the Professional Evaluation Society on the East Coast of the United States, and practice of evaluation, evaluating policies and programs, and use of resources, and all the other things that we can look at with evidence, the root of that word is value, right? And by making the values that drive whatever we’re doing explicit, we’re much more likely to connect. At levels in, way, in ways that are actually valuable, a human being level, not a technician level. But to your question, Danny, a couple of things immediately leap out at me. One is that there was always. I was primarily federally funded, indirectly; there’s always been a real drive for highly rigorous, high-quality evaluation. And what that oftentimes gets interpreted to mean is generalizable evaluation research. And so that tends to drive us toward quasi-experimental kinds of studies that require lots and lots of participants, validated instrumentation, and quantitative data. All of those things compromise our ability to really understand what’s going on for the people, right? For the real-life human stakeholders. One thing that strikes me is that we could be as funding gets picked up. I’m being optimistic here that funding will be picked up by other sources, but let’s say the nonprofits get more involved programs that in the past and in the purview of the feds, we’re going to be freed of some of that, I hope, and be able to be more subjective, more mixed methods, more on the ground and kind of maturein the, dirt down and dirty out on the streets, learning what’s going on for real humans. As opposed to saying, “Nope, sorry, we can’t even ask whether this program works or how it works until we’ve got thousands and thousands of participants and we can do math about the outcomes.” So that’s one way I think that things might be changing. 5. Evidence + Story = Impact One of the big elements I like to focus on is the evidence—the kind of, so what the program is doing—but also the story. Making sure both of those things are combined to share the impact. And one of the things that I think we aren’t great about, which kind of circles back to the whole topic about equitable relationships. I don’t often think we’re really great at acknowledging. Who our report outs are for 6. The Funder Issue: Who Is This Truly Benefiting? Health Hats: Yes, who’s the audience? Lacy Fabian: Describing the kind of traditional format, I’m going to have thousands of participants, and then I’m going to be able to start to do really fancy math. That audience is a particular player who’s our funder. And they have different needs and different goals. So so many times, but that’s not the same as the people we’re actually trying to help. I think part of actually having equity in practice is pushing our funders to acknowledge that those reports are really just for them. And what else are we doing for our other audiences, and how can we better uphold that with our limited resources? Do we really need that super fancy report that’s going to go on a shelf? And we talk about it a lot, but I think that’s the point. We’re still talking about it. And maybe now that our funding is shifting, it’s an excellent catalyst to start being smarter about who our audience is, what they need, and what’s best to share with them. 7. Dissemination, Implementation & Vested Interest Health Hats: So, in a way, that’s not only do we need to think about who the work is for. How do we get it to those people? So how do we disseminate to those people? And then, what are the motivations for implementation? And it seems to me that if I have a vested interest in the answer to the question, I am more likely to share it and to try to figure out what the habits are—the changing habits that the research guides. What are some examples of this that you’ve, in your experience, that either you feel like you hit it like this, worked, or where you felt like we didn’t quite get there? So, what are your thoughts about some practical examples of that? Kirk Knestis: I was laughing because I don’t have so many examples of the former. I’ve got lots of examples of the latter. Health Hats: So start there. 8. Data Parties – The Concrete Solution Kirk Knestis: A good example of how I’ve done that in the past is when clients are willing to tolerate it. We call them different things over the years, like a data party. What we do is convene folks. We used to do it in person, face-to-face, but now that we’re dealing with people spread out across the country and connected virtually, these meetings can be done online. Instead of creating a report that just sits on a shelf or a thumb drive, I prefer to spend that time gathering and organizing the information we collect into a usable form for our audiences. This acts as a formative feedback process rather than just a summative benchmark. Here’s what we’ve learned. You share the information with those who contributed to it and benefit from it, and you ask for their thoughts. We’re observing that this line follows a certain path. Let’s discuss what that means or review all the feedback we received from this stakeholder group. It’s quite different from what we’ve heard from other stakeholders. What do you think is happening there? And let them help add value to the information as it moves from evidence to results. Health Hats: This is the solution to the funder problem. Instead of writing reports for funders, Kirk brings together the actual stakeholders—the people who provided data and benefit from the program. They assist in interpreting the findings in real-time. It’s formative, not summative. It’s immediate, not shelved. 9. No Strings Attached: Reimagining Funder Relationships Health Hats: I think it’s interesting that a thread through this is the role of the funder and the initiative’s governance. I remember that we worked on a couple of projects. I felt like the funder’s expectations were paramount, and the lessons we learned in the process were less important, which aligns with what we didn’t show. Publication bias or something. Sometimes in these initiatives, what’s most interesting is what didn’t work —and that’s not so, anyway. So how? So now that you’re looking forward to working with organizations that are trying to have questions answered, how is that shaping how you’re coaching about governance of these initiatives? Like, where does that come in? Lacy Fabian: Yeah. I think, if we’re talking about an ideal state, there are models, and it will be interesting to see how many organizations really want to consider it, but the idea of no-strings-attached funding. Doesn’t that sound nice, Kirk? The idea being that if you are the funding organization and you have the money, you have the power, you’re going to call the shots. In that way, is it really fair for you to come into an organization like something that Kirk has and start dictating the terms of that money? So, Kirk has to start jumping through the hoops of the final report and put together specific monthly send-ins for that funder. And he has to start doing these things well for that funder. What if we considered a situation where the funder even paid for support to do that for themselves? Maybe they have somebody who comes in, meets with Kirk, or just follows around, shadows the organization for a day or so, collects some information, and then reports it back. But the idea is that the burden and the onus aren’t on Kirk and his staff. Because they’re trying to repair wheelchairs and imagining the types of models we’ve shifted. We’ve also left the power with Kirk and his organization, so they know how to serve their community best. Again, we’ve put the onus back on the funder to answer their own questions that are their needs. I think that’s the part that we’re trying to tease out in the equity: who is this really serving? And if I’m giving to you, but I’m saying you have to provide me with this in return. Again, who’s that for, and is that really helping? Who needs their wheelchair service? And I think that’s the part we need to work harder at unpacking and asking ourselves. When we have these meetings, put out these funding notices, or consider donating to programs, those are the things we have to ask ourselves about and feel are part of our expectations. 10. Balancing Accountability and Flexibility Health Hats: Wow. What’s going through my mind is, I’m thinking, okay, I’m with PCORI. What do we do? We want valuable results. We do have expectations and parameters. Is there an ideal state? Those tensions are real and not going away. But there’s the question of how to structure it to maximize the value of the tension. Oh, man, I’m talking abstractly. I need help thinking about the people who are listening to this. How does somebody use this? So let’s start with: for the researcher? What’s the mindset that’s a change for the researcher? What’s the mindset shift for the people, and for the funder? Let’s start with the researcher. Either of you pick that up. What do you think a researcher needs to do differently? Kirk Knestis: I don’t mind having opinions about this. That’s a fascinating question, and I want to sort of preface what I’m getting ready to say. With this, I don’t think it’s necessary to assume that, to achieve the valuable things Lacy just described, we must completely abrogate all responsibility. I think it would be possible for someone to say, money, no strings attached. We’re never going to get the board/taxpayer/or whoever, for that. Importantly, too, is to clarify a couple of functions. I found that there are a couple of primary roles that are served by the evaluation or research of social services or health programs, for example. The first and simplest is the accountability layer. Did you do what you said you were going to do? That’s operational. That doesn’t take much time or energy, and it doesn’t place a heavy burden on program stakeholders. Put the burden on the program’s managers to track what’s happening and be accountable for what got done. Health Hats: So like milestones along the way? Kirk Knestis: Yes. But there are other ways, other dimensions to consider when we think about implementation. It’s not just the number of deliveries but also getting qualitative feedback from the folks receiving the services. So, you can say, yeah, we were on time, we had well-staffed facilities, and we provided the resources they needed. So that’s the second tier. The set of questions we have a lot more flexibility with at the next level. The so-what kind of questions, in turn, where we go from looking at this term bugs me, but I’ll use it anyway. We’re looking at outputs—delivery measures of quantities and qualities—and we start talking about outcomes: persistent changes for the stakeholders of whatever is being delivered. Attitudes, understandings. Now, for health outcomes—whatever the measures are—we have much more latitude. Focus on answering questions about how we can improve delivery quality and quantity so that folks get the most immediate and largest benefit from it. And the only way we can really do that is with a short cycle. So do it, test it, measure it, improve it. Try it again, repeat, right? So that formative feedback, developmental kind of loop, we can spend a lot of time operating there, where we generally don’t, because we get distracted by the funder who says, “I need this level of evidence that the thing works, that it scales.” Or that it demonstrates efficacy or effectiveness on a larger scale to prove it. I keep wanting to make quotas, right, to prove that it works well. How about focusing on helping it work for the people who are using it right now as a primary goal? And that can be done with no strings attached because it doesn’t require anything to be returned to the funder. It doesn’t require that deliverable. My last thought, and I’ll shut up. 11. Where the Money Actually Goes Kirk Knestis: A study ages ago, and I wish I could find it again, Lacy. It was in one of the national publications, probably 30 years ago. Health Hats: I am sure Lacy’s going to remember that. Kirk Knestis: A pie chart illustrated how funds are allocated in a typical program evaluation, with about a third going to data collection and analysis, which adds value. Another third covers indirect costs, such as keeping the organization running, computers, and related expenses. The remaining third is used to generate reports, transforming the initial data into a tangible deliverable. If you take that third use much more wisely, I think you can accomplish the kind of things Lacy’s describing without, with, and still maintain accountability. Health Hats: This is GOLD. The 1/3: 1/3: 1/3 breakdown is memorable, concrete, and makes the problem quantifiable. Once again, 1/3 each for data collection and analysis, keeping the organization alive, and writing reports. 12. The Pendulum Swings Lacy Fabian: And if I could add on to what Kirk had said, I think one of the things that comes up a lot in the human services research space where I am is this idea of the pendulum swing. It’s not as though we want to go from a space where there are a lot of expectations for the dollars, then swing over to one where there are none. That’s not the idea. Can we make sure we’re thinking about it intentionally and still providing the accountability? So, like Kirk said, it’s that pause: do we really need the reports, and do we really need the requirements that the funder has dictated that aren’t contributing to the organization’s mission? In fact, we could argue that in many cases, they’re detracting from it. Do we really need that? Or could we change those expectations, or even talk to our funder, as per the Fundee, to see how they might better use this money if they were given more freedom, not to have to submit these reports or jump through these hoops? And I believe that’s the part that restores that equity, too, because it’s not the funder coming in and dictating how things will go or how the money will be used. It’s about having a relational conversation, being intentional about what we’re asking for and how we’re using the resources and then being open to making adjustments. And sometimes it’s just that experimentation: I think of it as, we’re going to try something different this time, we’re going to see if it works. If it doesn’t work, it probably won’t be the end of the world. If it does, we’ll probably learn something that will be helpful for next time. And I think there’s a lot of value in that as well. Health Hats: Lacy’s ‘pendulum swing’ wisdom: not anarchy, but intentional. Not ‘no accountability’ but ‘accountability without burden-shifting.’ The move is from the funder dictating requirements to relational conversation. And crucially: willingness to experiment. 13. The Three Relationships: Funder, Researcher, Community Health Hats: Back to the beginning—relationships. So, in a way, we haven’t really —what we’ve talked about is the relationship with funders. Lacy Fabian: True. Health Hats: What is the relationship between researchers and the community seeking answers? We’re considering three different types of relationships. I find it interesting that people call me about their frustrations with the process, and I ask, “Have you spoken with the program officer?” Have you discussed the struggles you’re facing? Often, they haven’t or simply don’t think to. What do you think they’re paid for? They’re there to collaborate with you. What about the relationships between those seeking answers and those studying them—the communities and the researchers? How does that fit into this? Kirk Knestis: I’d like to hear from Lacy first on this one, because she’s much more tied into the community than the communities I have been in my recent practices. 14. Maintaining Agency Health Hats: I want to wrap up, and so if. Thinking about people listening to this conversation, what do you think is key that people should take away from this that’ll, in, in either of the three groups we’ve been talking about, what is a lesson that would be helpful for them to take away from this conversation? Lacy Fabian: I think that it’s important for the individual always to remember their agency. In their engagements. And so I know when I’m a person in the audience, listening to these types of things, it can feel very overwhelming again to figure out what’s enough, where to start, and how to do it without making a big mistake. I think that all of those things are valid. Most of us in our professional lives who are likely listening to this, we show up at meetings, we take notes. We’re chatting with people, engaging with professional colleagues, or connecting with the community. And I think that we can continue to be intentional with those engagements and take that reflective pause before them to think about what we’re bringing. So if we’re coming into that program with our research hat on, or with our funder hat on, what are we bringing to the table that might make it hard for the person on the other side to have an equitable conversation with us? If you’re worried about whether you’ll be able to keep your program alive and get that check, that’s not a balanced conversation. And so if you are the funder coming in, what can you do to put that at ease or acknowledge it? Suppose you are the person in the community who goes into someone’s home and sees them in a really vulnerable position, with limited access to healthcare services or the things they need. What can you do to center that person, still like in their humanity, and not just this one problem space? And that they’re just this problem because that’s, I think, where we go astray and we lose ourselves and lose our solidarity and connection. So I would just ask that people think about those moments as much as they can. Obviously, things are busy and we get caught up, but finding those moments to pause, and I think it can have that snowball effect in a good way, where it builds and we see those opportunities, and other people see it and they go, Huh, that was a neat way to do it. Maybe I’ll try that too. 15. Listen and Learn Health Hats: Thank you. Kirk. Kirk Knestis: Yeah. A hundred percent. I’m having a tough time finding anything to disagree with what Lacy is sharing. And so I’m tempted just to say, “Yeah, what Lacy said.” But I think it’s important that, in addition to owning one’s agency and taking responsibility for one’s own self, one stands up for one’s own interests. At the same time, that person has to acknowledge that everybody else knows that the three legs of that stool I described earlier have to do the same thing, right? Yeah. So, it’s about a complicated social contract among all those different groups. When the researchers talk to the program participant, they must acknowledge the value of each person’s role in the conversation. And when I, as the new nonprofit manager, am talking to funders, I’ve got to make sure I understand that I’ve got an equal obligation to stand up for my program, my stakeholders, and the ideals that are driving what I’m doing. But at the same time, similarly, respecting the commitment obligation that the funder has made. Because it never stops. The web gets bigger and bigger, right? I had a lovely conversation with a development professional at a community foundation today. And they helped me remember that they are reflecting the interests and wishes of different donor groups or individuals, and there’s got to be a lot of back-and-forth at the end of the day. I keep coming back to communication and just the importance of being able to say, okay, we’re talking about, in our case, mobility. That means this. Are we clear? Everybody’s on the same page. Okay, good. Why is that important? We think that if that gets better, these things will, too. Oh, have you thought about this thing over here? Yeah, but that’s not really our deal, right? So having those conversations so that everybody is using the same lingo and pulling in the same direction, I think, could have a significant effect on all of those relationships. Health Hats: Here’s my list from the listening agency, fear, mistake, tolerance, grace, continual Learning, communication, transparency. Kirk Knestis: and equal dollops of tolerance for ambiguity and distrust of ambiguity. Yes, there you go. I think that’s a pretty good list, Danny. Lacy Fabian: It’s a good list to live by. Health Hats: Thank you. I appreciate this. Reflection Everyone in a relationship faces power dynamics – who's in control and who's not? These dynamics affect trust and the relationship’s overall value, and they can shift from moment to moment. Changing dynamics takes mindfulness and intention. The community wanting answers, the researcher seeking evidence-based answers, and those funding the studies, have a complex relationship. Before this conversation, I focused on the community-research partnership, forgetting it was a triad, not a dyad. The Central Paradox: We have exponentially more information at our disposal for research, yet we’re becoming more disconnected. Lacy identifies this as the core problem: we’ve stopped seeing each other as human beings and lost the touchpoints that enable genuine collaboration—when connection matters most. This is true for any relationship. The Hidden Cost Structure Kirk’s 1/3:1/3:1/3 breakdown is golden—one-third for data collection and analysis (adds value), one-third for organizational operations, and one-third for reports (mostly shelf-ware). The key takeaway: we’re allocating one-third of resources to deliverables that don’t directly benefit the people we’re trying to help. Perhaps more of the pie could be spent on sharing and using results. Three Different “Utilities” Are Competing Kirk explains what most evaluation frameworks hide: funder utility (accountability), research utility (understanding models), and community utility (immediate benefit) are fundamentally different. Until you specify which one you’re serving, you’re likely to disappoint two of the three audiences. Data Parties Solve the Funder Problem Pragmatically. Rather than choosing between accountability and flexibility, data parties and face-to-face analysis let stakeholders interpret findings in real time – the data party. I love that visual. It’s formative, not summative. It’s relational, not transactional. The Funding Question Reverses the Power Dynamic. Currently, funders place the burden of proving impact on programs through monthly reports and compliance documentation. Lacy’s alternative is simpler: what if the funder hired someone to observe the program, gather the information, and report back? This allows the program to stay focused on its mission while the funder gains the accountability they need. But the structure shifts—the program no longer reports to the funder; instead, the funder learns from the program. That’s the difference between equity as a theory and equity as built-in. Related episodes from Health Hats Artificial Intelligence in Podcast Production Health Hats, the Podcast, utilizes AI tools for production tasks such as editing, transcription, and content suggestions. While AI assists with various aspects, including image creation, most AI suggestions are modified. All creative decisions remain my own, with AI sources referenced as usual. Questions are welcome. Creative Commons Licensing CC BY-NC-SA This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:    BY: credit must be given to the creator.   NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.    SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms. Please let me know. danny@health-hats.com. Material on this site created by others is theirs, and use follows their guidelines. Disclaimer The views and opinions presented in this podcast and publication are solely my responsibility and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute®  (PCORI®), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee. Danny van Leeuwen (Health Hats)

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.

Is it true that people with bipolar disorder have different sleep needs to maintain wellness? How many hours of sleep is optimal? Dr. Holly Swartz breaks down why sleep regularity is so essential for mood stability - and what the science actually tells us.Bipolar Explained is a new #talkBD series spotlighting expert perspectives on the history, biology, and management of bipolar disorder.--Dr. Holly A. Swartz is Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and President of the International Society of Bipolar Disorders (ISBD). She received her undergraduate degree from Harvard College, medical degree from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and completed her psychiatric residency training at New York Hospital / Cornell University School of Medicine. Dr. Swartz's research focuses on understanding and optimizing treatments for mood disorders. She is well known for her work evaluating Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) and Interpersonal and Social Rhythm Therapy (IPSRT) as treatments for depression and bipolar disorder. Her research focuses on the role of IPSRT and pharmacotherapy in the management of bipolar II depression and IPT in the management of maternal depression. She is engaged in collaborative projects to develop computational frameworks to model dyadic interpersonal behaviors in relation to psychotherapy process and outcomes and to understand neural correlates of change in chronotherapeutic behavioral interventions. Her research has been funded by the National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation.

The holidays are upon us, bringing a time for more gatherings, more shared meals, and more chances to be present with the people we love. But in a world wired to our phones, how do we make sure that being together really means being together? Thursday on the "Sound of Ideas," we're diving into how children can stay safe on the internet, how adults can navigate their own social media use and how devices, while powerful tools for connection, can also drive a wedge between us. On one hand, smartphones help us stay in touch, share memories and learn. On the other hand, they carry risks. A recent study funded by the National Institutes of Health found that among preteens ages 11 to 12, having a phone in the bedroom was linked to shorter sleep duration and greater sleep disturbances. During the hour, we'll also talk about healthy digital habits and fostering spaces that feel friendly to both devices and intimate connection. And, we'll get into "phubbing," or phone snubbing. It's the act of ignoring those around us in favor of our screens. It's a real phenomenon, and its effects can be more than just annoying. Guests:- Maureen Kyle, Host, "Parenting Playbook," Fox 8 & Communications Consultant- Shane Tilton, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Writing and Multimedia Studies, Ohio Northern University- Francesca Varga, Senior Prevention Coordinator, Community Prevention Services, Prevention Action Alliance

In this episode of the Heart to Heart podcast, Dr. Mike Hart chats with Tony Ricci, an athletic performance and mental health coach for athletes. Tony shares his fascinating journey from studying exercise physiology to working with elite athletes like MMA fighter Chris Weidman. They discuss the critical impact of mental resilience on athletic performance, practical strategies for mental and physical training, and bridging the gap between nutrition, conditioning, and mental skills training. Additionally, the conversation touches on the role of technology like HRV and sleep tracking in athlete performance, effective supplement strategies, and the nuanced benefits of practices like cold plunges and saunas. Tony also reflects on adjustments he has made in his training approach over the years to avoid overtraining fighters.   Tony Ricci is a veteran performance coach and sport scientist specializing in the intersection of strength training, nutrition, and mental performance for combat athletes. With a background spanning exercise physiology, sports science, and nutrition—as well as decades of hands-on coaching—Tony has trained world-class fighters and helped shape modern approaches to MMA preparation. Connect with Tony on Instagram at sportpsy_sci_doc or at tony@fightshape.net   Links: Chris Weidman Creatine for Neuroprotection & Brain Health Beetroot/Nitrate Supplementation for endurance Zone 2 Training & Mitochondrial Biogenesis    Show Notes: 00:00 Welcome back to the Hart2Heart podcast with Dr. Mike Hart 00:30 Tony Ricci's background in athletic performance 02:00 The importance of mental performance in sports 04:30 Strategies for mental resilience in athletes 09:00 Psychological resilience and childhood experiences 13:02 "Yes, you can still build mental toughness without trauma. Many champions had good parents, good support, and still developed world-class grit." 14:30 Discipline: self-trained vs. innate 18:00 Using technology to monitor athlete performance 31:30 Handling poor sleep before a big fight 33:30 The role of caffeine in training camps 35:30 Creatine usage and dosage 37:30 Recommended supplements for athletes 39:30 Beta-alanine and its benefits 43:30 Exploring other supplements: beetroot, HMB, and Alpha GPC 48:00 Exogenous ketones and ketogenic diets 54:00 The benefits of cold plunges and saunas 58:00 Evolving training methods for fighters 01:00:30 Optimizing cardio training for fighters     — 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

Weight loss and diabetes drugs in the class called GLP-1s have exploded onto the market, starting to put a real dent in the obesity epidemic. And as doctors are gathering more data, it looks like the medications may also provide real benefits for cardiac health, liver disease, kidney function and possibly even addiction and sleep disorders. In this episode, a panel of experts explains how the drugs work, why they've been so effective, and how hopeful we might be about other uses. Cedars Sinai cardiologist Martha Gulati joins Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Diana Thiara, an obesity expert at UCSF, for a forward-looking conversation about this potentially game-changing medical advancement. Time Magazine health reporter Alice Park moderates the conversation.

In this story, we discuss an overview of the history of Disability rights and the developments therein. With Blaise Bryant, a fellow contributor to the Hudson Mohawk Magazine, we learn more about the root of disability rights. Story by Sean Bernyk Image Attribution: By Disability symbols 16.png: NPS Graphics, put together by WcommonsPictograms-nps-accessibility-wheelchair-accessible.svg: NPS Graphics, converted by ZyMOSPictograms-nps-accessibility-low vision access.svg: NPS Graphics, converted by ZyMOSPictograms-nps-accessibility-sign language interpretation.svg: NPS Graphics, converted by ZyMOSAutismbrain.jpg: National Institutes of Mental Health, National Institutes of Healthderivative work: Hamiltonham - Disability symbols 16.pngPictograms-nps-accessibility-wheelchair-accessible.svgPictograms-nps-accessibility-low vision access.svgPictograms-nps-accessibility-sign language interpretation.svgAutismbrain.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12864774

storically tumultuous year for federal employees didn't dim the public's pre-shutdown view of government services, according to a new survey that largely credited tech adoption for the positive perceptions. The 2025 American Customer Satisfaction Index Federal Government Study, released Tuesday, found citizen satisfaction with federal government services at a 19-year high with a score of 70.4 on a 0-to-100 scale, a 1% jump from 2024. The survey of 6,914 randomly chosen respondents was conducted before the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, but ACSI's director of research emeritus emphasized that the results still “reflect real momentum in improving how citizens experience federal services.” Forrest Morgeson, an associate professor of marketing at Michigan State in addition to his role at ACSI, said that the introduction of AI is making a large impact, and such advancement “signal a future where government services can be more responsive and accessible to all.” Many of the highest-ranking federal agencies in customer satisfaction were lauded for their implementation of technologies, including USDA, the State Department and the Small Business Administration. The National Institutes of Health didn't ensure that the entity housing personal health information of over 1 million people — including biosamples — implemented proper cybersecurity protocols, according to an internal watchdog. In a report publicly released Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General made five recommendations for the security of the All of Us program — a database of diverse health information from 1 million participants that's meant to aid research — after finding weaknesses. According to the report, while the award recipient operating the program's Data and Research Center implemented some cybersecurity measures, NIH failed to ensure other controls were addressed. The report found that NIH didn't ensure that the awardee, which wasn't identified, appropriately limited access to the program's data and didn't communicate national security concerns related to maintaining genomic data — or data relating to DNA. It also failed to ensure that weaknesses in security and privacy were fixed within a timeline outlined in federal requirements. The audit was initially conducted by the inspector general due to the threats that cyberattacks and the potential exposure of sensitive information can pose to the agency's programs. The watchdog's objective was to scrutinize the access, security and privacy controls of the program. Also in this episode: HPE Networking Chief AI Officer Bob Friday joins SNG host Wyatt Kash in a sponsored podcast discussion on how agencies can leverage cloud and AI to build more automated, secure and mission-ready networks. This segment was sponsored by HPE.

Full Show Notes: https://bengreenfieldlife.com/lnsleepspace/ In this "Best of LIFE Network's Experts" episode, I speak with Dr. Dan Gartenberg, creator of SleepSpace and a fiercely intelligent mind. Dan is a sleep scientist with a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology, currently the CEO of SleepSpace, and an adjunct professor at Penn State University in the Department of Biobehavioral Health. With 15 years under his belt developing sleep technology, and a resume working for artificial intelligence groups in the Navy and the Air Force, Dan has garnered more than $3.5 million in grant awards from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Aging. The purpose? To address a problem that affects not just the developed world, but billions around the globe: Poor sleep quality. Episode sponsors: Muse: Muse S Athena combines clinical-grade EEG and fNIRS technology to train your brain in real time while tracking sleep with 86% expert-level accuracy. Get 15% off at choosemuse.com/BENGREENFIELD or use code BENGREENFIELD at checkout. Organifi Shilajit Gummies: Harness the ancient power of pure Himalayan Shilajit anytime you want with these convenient and tasty gummies. Get them now for 20% off at organifi.com/Ben. BiOptimizers Holiday Offer: Trust me when I say this – you won't find a better Black Friday deal anywhere else, not even on the mighty Amazon. The biggest discount you can get and amazing gifts with purchase are available only on my page bioptimizers.com/ben with code BEN15. BlockBlueLight: BlockBlueLight BioLights are the only lights extensively tested and recommended by building biologist Brian Hoyer as truly flicker-free, ultra-low EMF, and circadian-friendly, with three modes (day, evening, night) that support natural rhythms and optimize sleep quality. Get 10% off your first order at blockbluelight.com/Ben (discount autoapplied at checkout). Sunlighten: Infrared isn’t just heat, it’s cellular training. Sunlighten’s mPulse Smart Sauna delivers precise near, mid, and far infrared plus red light with patented technology to recharge mitochondria, speed recovery, and lower inflammation. Built clean with ultra-low EMFs, it’s the ultimate biohacker tool I trust to upgrade performance, resilience, and longevity. Get yours now by going to get.sunlighten.com/bengift and save up to $2,200 + FREE shipping on your sauna purchase with code BEN25.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Military service personnel have been seeking outside legal advice about some of the missions the Trump administration has assigned them. The strikes against alleged drug traffickers and deployments to U.S. cities have sparked a debate over their legality. Amna Nawaz discussed more with Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, which runs The Orders Project. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

View the Show Notes For This Episode Dr. Peter Bongiorno discusses Natural Solutions for Depression and Anxiety with Dr. Ben Weitz.   [If you enjoy this podcast, please give us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts, so more people will find The Rational Wellness Podcast. Also check out the video version on my WeitzChiro YouTube page.]  Podcast Highlights An Integrative Approach to Managing Depression and Anxiety with Dr. Peter Bongiorno In this episode of the Rational Wellness Podcast, Dr. Ben Weitz talks with Dr. Peter Bongiorno, a naturopathic doctor and acupuncturist, about an integrative approach to treating depression and anxiety. They explore how conventional treatments often fail to address underlying issues and discuss the potential benefits of functional medicine. The conversation covers dietary recommendations, the role of neurotransmitters, and the use of various supplements and lifestyle changes to support mental health. They also touch on the significance of vagal nerve tone, the impact of social media, and the importance of personalized patient care.   00:00 Introduction to the Rational Wellness Podcast 00:30 Understanding Depression and Anxiety 01:33 Meet Dr. Peter Bongiorno 02:23 The Integrative Approach to Mood Disorders 07:30 The Role of Neurotransmitters 16:47 Diet and Mood Disorders 18:46 The Mediterranean Diet Explained 22:33 Alcohol and Coffee: Effects on Mood 26:46 Low Carb and Ketogenic Diets 29:05 Product Spotlight: The Apollo Wearable 29:56 Benefits of Apollo Neuro 30:36 Key Lab Tests for Patients 33:56 Importance of Sleep 34:44 Supplements for Sleep 35:54 Nutritional Supplements for Depression and Anxiety 41:57 The Role of Lithium in Mental Health 46:50 Impact of Social Media on Mental Health 49:24 Vagus Nerve and Mental Health 52:28 Final Thoughts and Contact Information     Dr. Peter Bongiorno is a Naturopathic Doctor and Acupuncturist and he is the co-director of InnerSource Natural Health and Acupuncture, with offices in New York City and on Long Island.  He also works with clients around the world via phone or Zoom.  Dr. Bongiorno did research at the National Institutes of Health in the department of Neuroimmunology and then went to Bastyr University to study naturopathic medicine and acupuncture.  He wrote a number of books, including Healing Depression in 2010 and Holistic Solutions for Anxiety and Depression in 2015, both targeted for physicians, as well as How Come They're Happy and I'm Not, and Put Anxiety Behind You: The Complete Drug Free Program. His website is DrPeterBongiorno.com. Dr. Ben Weitz is available for Functional Nutrition consultations specializing in Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders like IBS/SIBO and Reflux and also Cardiometabolic Risk Factors like elevated lipids, high blood sugar, and high blood pressure.  Dr. Weitz has also successfully helped many patients with managing their weight and improving their athletic performance, as well as sports chiropractic work by calling his Santa Monica office 310-395-3111.

About this episode: Between lawsuits, layoffs, and lags in funding, NIH has undergone significant changes in how it reviews and approves grant proposals for critical research. In this episode: Jeremy Berg, a former NIH leader, talks about what's changed and what's to come for indirect cost reimbursements, funding approvals, and the scientific research ecosystem as a whole. Guests: Jeremy M. Berg, PhD, is a professor of computational and systems biology at the University of Pittsburgh, where he is also the Associate Senior Vice Chancellor of Science Strategy and Planning. He previously served as the Director of the National Institute for General Medical Sciences at NIH. Host: Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast, an editor for Expert Insights, and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Show links and related content: Appeals court judges seem skeptical of Trump administration's defense of capping NIH overhead payments—STAT Trump order gives political appointees vast powers over research grants—Nature Life-saving medicines begin in the basic research DOGE wants to stop funding—Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Transcript information: Looking for episode transcripts? Open our podcast on the Apple Podcasts app (desktop or mobile) or the Spotify mobile app to access an auto-generated transcript of any episode. Closed captioning is also available for every episode on our YouTube channel. Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed Note: These podcasts are a conversation between the participants, and do not represent the position of Johns Hopkins University.

Millions of dollars in federal grants have been terminated, throwing cutting-edge research at American universities into crisis. On this week's On the Media, meet the two men at the center of the fight over the future of academia.[0:00] Harvard president Alan Garber and National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya are 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 adviser 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.  On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

Most of us have a daily plan that includes a routine of productive habits. Sometimes the plan happens. And you have a few days, maybe even a week of things running smoothly. Then there is an interruption. And all of the sudden days have gone by and your plan hasn't happened at all. At the top of this list is often our habits regarding eating and exercise. In all our areas of life where we seek to develop good habits and get better results, there is new information that the areas of diet and exercise don't work like the others and are the areas we most fail, because, life happens. This new information is brought to us by Dr Michelle Segar who sat down with a couple of years ago. Michelle takes our cultural concept of habits to task. We're going to talk about her groundbreaking, decision-making framework—and the science behind it—to give hope to the millions of what she calls, “unhabiters,” who are frustrated with their failure to keep up all the good habits they intend to engage with, and discuss a behavior-change solution designed for them. We are enamored with creating habits in our lives that will give us the success we want, but what you're about to find out is the normal framework and perspective of habits we have doesn't work for…a lot of us. But there is a solution that will, and it's why I have Michelle on the show. Michelle is an award-winning, National Institute of Health funded sustainable behavior change researcher at the University of Michigan and a lifestyle coach. For nearly three decades, she has pioneered methods to create sustainable healthy behavior changes that are being used to boost patient health, employee well-being, and even gym membership retention. I'm pulling info from her book, The Joy Choice: How To Finally Achieve Lasting Changes In Eating and Exercise. Sign up for your $1/month trial period at shopify.com/kevin Go to shipstation.com and use code KEVIN to start your free trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices