Podcasts about National Science Foundation

In this conversation, host David Bryan speaks with Dr. Tracie Canada about her recent book, which explores the intersection of race, gender, and college football. They discuss the unique experiences of Black college football players, the implications of a Black feminist perspective, and the importance of community and care among players. The conversation highlights the exploitation faced by student-athletes and the broader societal issues impacting their lives. Canada discusses the intricate dynamics of college athletics, focusing on the bonds formed among players, the challenges they face in balancing education and sports, and the systemic issues within the NCAA. She emphasizes the importance of brotherhood among athletes, the complexities of their educational experiences, and potential solutions to improve their circumstances, including unionization and cost-sharing. The conversation also critiques the term 'student-athlete' and advocates for a more honest representation of their roles within the collegiate sports system. Big-time college football promises prestige, drama, media attention, and money. Yet most athletes in this unpaid, amateur system encounter a different reality, facing dangerous injuries, few pro-career opportunities, a free but devalued college education, and future financial instability. In one of the first ethnographies about Black college football players, anthropologist Tracie Canada reveals the ways young athletes strategically resist the exploitative systems that structure their everyday lives.Tackling the Everyday shows how college football particularly harms the young Black men who are overrepresented on gridirons across the country. Although coaches and universities constantly invoke the misleading "football family" narrative, this book describes how a brotherhood among Black players operates alongside their caring mothers, who support them on and off the field. With a Black feminist approach—one that highlights often-overlooked voices—Canada exposes how race, gender, kinship, and care shape the lives of the young athletes who shoulder America's favorite gameDr. Tracie Canada is a socio-cultural anthropologist whose ethnographic research uses sport to theorize race, kinship and care, gender, and the performing body. Her work focuses on the lived experiences of Black football players. Canada is the Andrew W. Mellon Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology & Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies at Duke University. I'm also the founder and director of the Health, Ethnography, and Race through Sports (HEARTS) Lab.Her research has been supported by various agencies, including the Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship, the National Science Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.In addition to her academic writing, her work has been featured in public venues and outlets like The Museum of Modern Art, TIME, The Guardian, and Scientific American.

Today I am both excited and frightened to talk with Tamara Kneese and Xiaowei Wang, two individuals whose research, writing, and activism has for years insisted on the materiality of the technologies that have brought us things like artificial intelligence, the Cloud, data centers, and digital agriculture.  They explain why and how these technologies clothe themselves in ethereal garb and notions of a frictionless, beneficent capitalism while diverting attention from the vast natural and human resources they plunder to make a profit, and colonize more and more land, water, and minerals. We move from corrective histories and analyses to case histories that show how  these technologies materialize in settler colonial practices, and end decisively on stories of how people are fighting back, and creating alternate software, hardware, and cultural and social practices that offer a window onto a much less violent and dismal world than the one technofascism wants us to be hypnotized by.  Here, we set to break that spell.Tamara Kneese directs Data & Society Research Institute's Climate, Justice, and Technology program and previously led the Algorithmic Impact Methods Lab. Before joining D&S, she was director of developer engagement on the Green Software team at Intel and assistant professor of Media Studies and director of Gender and Sexualities Studies at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of Death Glitch: How Techno-Solutionism Fails Us in This Life and Beyond (Yale University Press, 2023), co-author of Notes Toward a Digital Workers' Inquiry (Common Notions Press, 2025), and the co-editor of The New Death: Mortality and Death Care in the Twenty-First Century (School for Advanced Research/University of New Mexico Press, 2022). Her work has been published in academic journals including Social Text, Social Media + Society, and the International Journal of Communication and in popular outlets such as Wired, The Verge, and The Baffler. Her research has been supported by the Internet Society Foundation, National Science Foundation, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Mellon Foundation, and the American Council of Learned Societies. Xiaowei R. Wang is an artist, writer, organizer and coder. They are the author of the book Blockchain Chicken Farm: And Other Stories of Tech In China's Countryside, a 2023 National Book Foundation Science and Literature Award winner. Their multidisciplinary work over the past 15 years sits at the intersection of tech, digital media, art, and environmental justice. Currently, they are a Mancosh Fellow at Northwestern University and one of the stewards of Collective Action School (formerly known as Logic School), an organizing community for tech workers. In 2024 they were a Eyebeam Democracy Machine Fellow, which supported their work with forms of soft data storage and transmission using textiles. 

Jan Doering, Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto explores the complex relationship between sound, behavior, and social conflict, unpacking the social, cultural, and neurological dimensions of sound, and discussing how we can move toward a more considerate coexistence in our shared environments.Sound that delights one person can deeply distress another. Clare and Jan explore how our appreciation of sound is deeply subjective and why this gap often turns into tension in urban life. Through examples from everyday environments, they discuss how noise reflects culture, how it can become a form of power and resistance, and why some people respond to it with frustration or even aggression.The conversation challenges policymakers, urban planners, and designers to take sound seriously as an issue of well-being issue and accessibility, highlighting how neurological safety and collective responsibility can help create more peaceful and inclusive soundscapes.Clare and Jan also reflect on the deeper psychological and emotional layers behind how we relate to sound, revealing that finding peace in a noisy world might start with changing how we listen.Jan Doering is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto. His research explores social control and conflict in urban neighborhoods, as well as how individuals experience and respond to discrimination. He has received research funding from the National Science Foundation, the Fulbright Commission, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councils.His first book, “Us Versus Them: Race, Crime, and Gentrification in Chicago Neighborhoods” (Oxford University Press, 2020), examines the dynamics of community conflict and identity during the era of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown.Key TakeawaysHearing is a sense we cannot turn off, making sound a constant, shared experience.Noise is not just about volume - there are more elements to consider Urban “vibrancy” often comes at the expense of rest and recovery, highlighting a policy blind spot.Municipalities, designers, and leaders can promote neurological safety by designing environments that support well-being and reduce sensory stress.CHAPTERS03:00 Introduction06:05 Tension Around Noise09:10 Defining Noise and Perception12:16 Reframing Noise Experiences18:05 Joy in Noise: Machines and Gender22:18 Noise and Cultural Responsibility29:08 Government and Policy Failures36:50 Consequences of Noise Stress45:50 Allergic to Peace?51:31 Sadism, Pleasure, and Noise-Making Behavior58:45 Emotional vs. Intellectual Arguments for Quiet01:04:40 Density, Well-being, and Cultural Vision01:08:00 Creative Solutions and Happy SpacesSourcesClamor by Chris Berdik — https://www.chrisberdik.comGolden: The Power of Silence in a World Full of Noise by Justin Zorn & Leigh Marz — https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Power-Silence-World-Noise/dp/0063027607Just Think: The Challenges of the Disengaged Mind – Wilson, T.D. et al., Science (2014) — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4330241Epstein, M. J. (2020). Sound and noise: A listener's guide to everyday life. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP....

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.

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)

In this powerful wrap-up episode, Eric Coffie holds nothing back. He reminds listeners that opportunity doesn't just knock—it shows up at your event and waits for you to walk through the door. From the Department of Defense's Acting Deputy Chief Digital AI Officer to Central Command and the National Science Foundation's Cyber Infrastructure Director, Eric reveals how he brought top-tier federal decision-makers directly to his community—and most people still didn't show up. He shares a transparent look into his own network-building approach, proving that access, generosity, and opportunity are everywhere for those willing to participate. Key Takeaways: Access is earned by showing up: The DoD AI Chief, Central Command, and NSF all attended Eric's event—and only a handful of people seized the chance. Generosity builds trust: The same partners who spoke at his event sponsored the bar tab—proof that strong relationships lead to goodwill and access. Visibility beats anonymity: If you're hiding behind "LinkedIn User," no one can find or help you—visibility builds credibility. Learn more: https://federalhelpcenter.com/ https://govcongiants.org/  Listen to the FULL Youtube Live here: https://youtube.com/live/CSj43yA6vcI  All the video links discussed. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zEcjpP-CcDTdVggNyY1qsJUGECZNGZeW9luftdAS39U/edit?usp=sharing

Our very special guest today is Angus Fletcher, professor of story science at Ohio State's Project Narrative. His research has been called “life-changing” by Brené Brown and “mind blowing” by Malcolm Gladwell; has been endorsed by psychologists, neuroscientists, and doctors such as Martin Seligman and Antonio Damasio; and has been supported by institutions ranging from the National Science Foundation to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. In 2023, he was awarded the Commendation Medal by the U.S. Army for his “groundbreaking research” with U.S. Army Special Operations into primal intelligence. His latest book is called Primal Intelligence: You Are Smarter Than You Know. There are very few books or writers who have affected me as much as Angus and this book have. In the few weeks since I have read it, my coaching has changed. My thoughts about intuition, imagination and emotion have changed. I've watched close to 20 videos featuring Angus on youtube… and I don't typically ever watch that many videos about one person. Dr. Fletcher says that as humans, we think in story, not in words or pictures. He has plenty of research and street cred to back this up. Hollywood studios consult with him regularly. In addition to everything else, he's a screenwriter, and a very compelling author. I could go on and on but that wouldn't leave much time for us to talk, would it? So I will start with something familiar, and soon you will discover how mind-blowingly different some of Angus's groundbreaking ideas are. But first, the amazingly familiar part… Copy is powerful. You're responsible for how you use what you hear on this podcast. Most of the time, common sense is all you need. But if you make extreme claims... and/or if you're writing copy for offers in highly regulated industries like health, finance, and business opportunity... you may want to get a legal review after you write and before you start using your copy. My larger clients do this all the time. 1. A lot of people in the direct marketing community have felt boxed-in by the conventional wisdom that the only true kind of story is a hero's journey. I believe you have a very different point of view about stories, that includes that anatomy of the brain. Could you tell us about it? 2. Let's talk about primal intelligence. When I first found out about your book and before I read it, my guess about primal intelligence was, well, pretty primal. Lizard brain stuff. That is, the animal description that you either mate with something, or you kill it, or you eat it. You have a different and I think much more sophisticated and I would say much more useful definition of primal intelligence and it has to do with four qualities of thinking that have nothing to do with logic. Could you talk about that? 3. Our listeners are copywriters and business owners who use direct response copy in their businesses. Pragmatic creativity is high on the list of capabilities people always want to increase. Could you share your thoughts on what creativity is, from the point of view of primal intelligence? And how to increase our abilities to be creative? 4. In your book there's a surprisingly long list of people, including politicians, scientists and even a famous classical composer, as well as writers, who have mentioned Shakespeare as a major influence in their lives. What is it about Shakespeare's work that is so valuable to all these people? 5. Can you give us some more tips about using stories in our content and advertising that will capture people's attention and help us with our businesses? 6. Tell us about your work with Army special operators? 7. Would you like to give us a preview of the book Primal Intelligence? Links: Primal Intelligence https://www.amazon.com/Primal-Intelligence-Smarter-Than-Know/dp/0593715306 Angus's LinkedIn Address https://www.linkedin.com/in/angus-fletcher-99713617/ Download.

I've recorded hundreds of conversations with incredible people working on the front lines of the future. People who've asked the most important question: what can I do? Who found their answer and followed it. But for today's conversation, we're going back to the front lines of the past because the past can tell us a whole hell of a lot about today and how tomorrow might go.But only if we tell the full story of how we got here, about who got us here, about how my great-great-grandparents got here. And how my grandma got here fleeing the Nazis, and how millions of Africans were forcibly brought here, over 35,000 trips across the middle passage over almost 300 years. The full story of the choices we made then, which was not so long ago, and continue to make now about wars and heritage and bondage and family and land and more.And how, if we can break from the stories we've been told and continue to tell ourselves to choose history over nostalgia, to choose facts over memory and infinite disinformation on demand, we can make different choices. My guest today is Clint Smith. Clint is the number one New York Times bestselling author of How the Word Is Passed: A Reckoning With the History of Slavery Across America, he's the winner of the National Book Critic Circle Award for nonfiction, the Hillman Prize for book journalism, the Stowe Prize, the Dayton Literary Peace Prize, and was selected by the New York Times as one of the 10 best books of 2021.And now in 2025, the Young Reader's Edition has just come out and it is wonderful. Clint is also the author two books of poetry, the New York Times bestselling collection Above Ground, as well as Counting Dissent. Both poetry collections were winners of the Literary Award for Best Poetry Book from the Black Caucus of the American Library Association, and both were finalists for NAACP Image Awards.Clint is a staff writer at The Atlantic and he has received fellowships for the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, New America, the Emerson Collective, the Art for Justice Fund, Cave Canum, and the National Science Foundation. His essays, poems, and scholarly writing have been published in The New Yorker, New York Times Magazine, the New Republic, Poetry Magazine, the Paris Review, the Harvard Educational Review, and elsewhere. Clint is a former National Poetry Slam Champion, and the recipient of the Jerome Jay Shestack Prize from the American Poetry Review.-----------Have feedback or questions? Tweet us, or send a message to questions@importantnotimportant.comNew here? Get started with our fan favorite episodes at podcast.importantnotimportant.com.Take Action at www.whatcanido.earth-----------INI Book Club:How The Word Is Passed by Clint SmithHow The Word Is Passed Young Readers Edition by Clint Smith, Adapted by Sonja Cherry-PaulFind all of our guest recommendations at the INI Book Club:

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.

On today's program, Michael Rogers talks with Hussein Mokahal, owner of LED LION in Westland, selected by Michigan Celebrates Small Business as a member of the Michigan 50 Companies to Watch for 2025. LED LION handles the foundational side of projects like underground utilities, concrete foundations and infrastructure work for public and private sectors, and 3D concrete printing for bridges and infrastructure. The company has partnered on significant projects like the 2024 NFL draft and has collaborated with Lawrence Tech University and the National Science Foundation. Hall advises small business owners to practice proactive property maintenance. "A lot of property owners wait until they start seeing cracks and leaks or drainage issues, and by then the fix is probably far more expensive, so simple, routine inspections, especially around drainage systems, concrete slabs and foundations can ultimately save thousands down the line," he says. The Small Business Association of Michigan is the only statewide and state-based association that focuses solely on serving the needs of Michigan's small business community. We have been successfully serving small businesses like yours in all 83 counties of Michigan since 1969. We're located in Lansing, just one block from the Capitol. Our mission is to help Michigan small businesses succeed by promoting entrepreneurship, leveraging buying power and engaging in political advocacy. When small businesses band together through the Small Business Association of Michigan, they achieve more than they could on their own.  Our 32,000 members are as diverse as Michigan's economy. From accountants to appliance stores, manufacturers to medical, and restaurants to retailers, what unites the SBAM membership is the spirit of entrepreneurship…a spirit that drove you to start and continue to operate your own business because you believe you can do something better than anyone else is doing it! (music licensed from www.jukedeck.com)

Dr. Jonathan Payne is a Professor and Chair of Geological Sciences at Stanford University. He also holds a courtesy appointment in Biology, is a Member of Stanford's interdisciplinary biosciences institute Bio-X, and is an Affiliate of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Jonathan studies the history of life on Earth. He is interested in the interactions between the changes in earth's environments and the evolution of life on Earth. In particular, Jonathan focuses on large extinction events like asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions, and how these impacted life in the oceans. When not working, Jonathan is often going to sporting events, traveling, and playing Nerf basketball in his house with his wife and two kids. He also enjoys hiking and working out at the gym. Jonathan received his B.A. in Geosciences from Williams College. Afterwards, he worked as a high school math and science teacher in Switzerland for two years before returning to graduate school. Jonathan was awarded his Ph.D. in Earth and Planetary Sciences from Harvard University, and he conducted postdoctoral research at Pennsylvania State University before joining the faculty at Stanford. Jonathan has received many awards and honors for his work, including the Stanford University Medal for excellence in advising undergraduate research, the Charles Schuchert Award from the Paleontological Society, and a CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation. He has also been named a Fellow of the Geological Society of America as well as a Fellow of the Paleontological Society. In this podcast interview, Jonathan spoke with us about his experiences in life and science.

Why does bipolar disorder exist? And what if bipolar disorder isn't just an illness, but also an evolutionary adaptation? Dr. Holly Swartz reveals the evolutionary secrets of bipolar disorder - from flexible circadian rhythms that once helped our ancestors survive, to the creativity and boldness often linked with mania.(0:00) Evolution(0:22) Circadian Control in Nature(1:43) Advantages of Flexible Biological Clocks(4:48) Risk-Taking & CreativityBipolar 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.

For three decades, conservatives abandoned science policy. Now they have a chance to rebuild it.That rebuilding effort comes with political challenges. Republicans' trust in science dropped thirty points over those decades. DOGE recently  slashed budgets at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. And HHS Sec RFK jr. is casting doubt on the efficacy of vaccines to the alarm of many Republicans in Congress. But beyond the politics, American science is also facing a competitive threat from China. The Middle Kingdom invests tens of billions in biotech and quantum computing, and outpaces the U.S. in PhD STEM grads.Meanwhile, American research became a system that rewards process over results. Researchers spend 42% of their time on paperwork. Only 46% of cancer studies could be replicated. And our guest today argues that perverse incentives and bureaucracy led to decades wasted on Alzheimer's research that turned out to be fraudulent—among other misfires.Ian Banks is Director of Science Policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, which recently established the science program he leads at the organization. He and Evan discuss his vision for a renewed conservative approach to science—one that learns from diversified investment portfolios that maintain safe bets while also making room for moonshots. They get into the political challenges created by hot button issues like climate change and COVID response, how to properly fund science in the era of DOGE, and what the proper role for politics in science should be.Previously, Banks served in research roles at the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions, the American Enterprise Institute and as a legislative aide to Rep. Bill Posey, where he focused on science, energy, and health policy. His Oxford master's thesis examined the replication crisis, and he brings firsthand experience navigating these questions during COVID from his time working on the Hill.

The Page One Podcast, produced and hosted by author Holly Lynn Payne, celebrates the craft that goes into writing the first sentence, first paragraph and first page of your favorite books. The first page is often the most rewritten page of any book because it has to work so hard to do so much—hook the reader. We interview master storytellers on the struggles and stories behind the first page of their books.About the guest author:In addition to being the author of The Way of The Rose,  which she spoke about with her co-author and husband Clark Strand on Ep. 49 of the Page One Podcast, Perdita Finn is the author of several children's books and middle grade novels, including the Time Flyers series for Scholastic Books, My Little Pony Books, among many others and has worked as ghostwriter, book doctor, copy editor and writing teacher. Perdita Finna also has done extensive study with Zen masters, priests, and healers, and apprenticed with the psychic Susan Saxman, with whom she wrote The Reluctant Psychic. She currently leads popular workshops on Collaborating with the Other Side, in which participants are empowered to activate the magic in their own lives with the help of their ancestors. She lives with her husband in the Catskill Mountains of New York.About the host:Holly Lynn Payne is an award-winning novelist and writing coach, and the former CEO and founder of Booxby, a startup that built an AI book discovery platform with a grant from the National Science Foundation. She is an internationally published author of four historical fiction novels. Her debut, The Virgin's Knot, was a Barnes & Noble Discover Great New Writers book. Her latest book, Rose Girl: A Story of Resilience and Rumi, a medieval, mystical thriller was awarded a Kirkus (starred) review and named Editors Choice from the Historical Novel Society. Holly lives on a houseboat near the Golden Gate Bridge with her daughter and Labrador retriever, and enjoys mountain biking, hiking, swimming and pretending to surf. To learn more about her books and writing coaching services, please visit her at hollylynnpayne.com  and subscribe to her FREE weekly mini-masterclass, Power of Page One, a FREE newsletter on Substack, offering insights on becoming a better storyteller and tips on hooking readers from page one! (And bonus: discover some great new books!)Tune in and reach out:If you're an aspiring writer or a book lover, this episode of Page One offers a treasure trove of inspiration and practical advice. I offer these conversations as a testament to the magic that happens when master storytellers share their secrets and experiences. We hope you are inspired to tune into the full episode for more insights. Keep writing, keep reading, and remember—the world needs your stories. If I can help you tell your own story, or help improve your first page, please reach out @hollylynnpayne or visithollylynnpayne.com. You can listen to Page One on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, Stitcher and all your favorite podcast players. Hear past episodes. If you're interested in getting writing tips and the latest podcast episode updates with the world's beloved master storytellers, please sign up for my very short monthly newsletter at hollylynnpayne.com and follow me @hollylynnpayne on Instagram, Twitter, Goodreads, and Facebook. Your email address is always private and you can always unsubscribe anytime. The Page One Podcast is created on a houseboat in Sausalito, California, is a labor of love in service to writers and book lovers. My intention is to inspire, educate and celebrate. Thank you for being a part of my creative community! Be well and keep reading,Holly@hollylynnpayne on IG Thank you for listening to the Page One Podcast! I hope you enjoyed this episode as much as I loved hosting, producing, and editing it. If you liked it too, here are three ways to share the love:Please share it on social and tag @hollylynnpayne.Leave a review on your favorite podcast players. Tell your friends. Please keep in touch by signing up to receive my Substack newsletter with the latest episodes each month. Delivered to your inbox with a smile. You can contact me at @hollylynnpayne on IG or send me a message on my website, hollylynnpayne.com.For the love of books and writers,Holly Lynn Payne@hollylynnpaynehost, author, writing coachwww.hollylynnpayne.com

In this episode of Talking Technicians you'll meet Oscar Rodriguez, a technician at Jireh Semiconductor. Oscar shares his journey from Southern California to Portland, Oregon, and his transition from various service industry jobs to the semiconductor field. He discusses the importance of education, particularly the microelectronics program at Portland Community College, and the challenges he faced when he became a student. Oscar also reflects on his experiences at Jireh, the unexpected aspects of working in the industry, and offers valuable advice for aspiring technicians.The Talking Technicians podcast is produced by MNT-EC, the Micro Nano Technology Education Center, through financial support from the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education grant program.Opinions expressed on this podcast do not necessarily represent those of the National Science Foundation.Join the conversation. If you are a working technician or know someone who is, reach out to us at info@talkingtechnicians.org.Links from the show:Episode Web Page:https://micronanoeducation.org/students-parents/talking-technicians-podcast/Careers at Jireh: https://www.aosmd.com/careers

What if everything you believe about workplace wellness is only part of the story? In this episode, Kevin welcomes Dr. Katina Sawyer and Dr. Patricia Grabarek to discuss the real drivers of well-being at work and the critical role leaders play in shaping thriving environments. Drawing on their research, Katina and Patricia challenge the overreliance on surface-level wellness programs and demonstrate how authentic leadership, trust, and team connection have far greater impact. They introduce the concept of "generators", leaders who energize and empower their teams and contrast them with "extinguishers," who unintentionally drain motivation and wellness. Patricia and Katina also explore ideas like authenticity within professional boundaries, person-centered leadership, and the practical importance of being a "boundary bouncer." Listen For 0:00 The importance of wellness at work 0:33 Welcome and introduction by Kevin Eikenberry 1:29 About Kevin's book Flexible Leadership 2:18 Introducing guests Dr. Patricia Grabarek and Dr. Katina Sawyer 4:19 How their friendship led to writing Leading for Wellness 6:01 The research behind workplace wellness 7:05 The big idea Why leaders drive wellness 8:10 Defining workplace wellness 9:26 Work life balance myths and realities 10:18 Common misconceptions about wellness at work 11:37 Why wellness and productivity go hand in hand 13:30 The bolt on problem with wellness programs 14:01 What is a Generator leader 15:19 Authenticity and trust in leadership 17:14 What authenticity really means at work 18:40 Avoiding the stoic leader trap 20:26 Sharing your human side builds trust 21:01 Leaders as Boundary Bouncers 22:26 Protecting boundaries and modeling balance 24:15 Real life examples of healthy boundaries 25:01 Person centered leadership and Carl Rogers' influence 26:36 Knowing your people as individuals 28:17 Why understanding your team makes leadership easier 29:28 Building team culture where everyone thrives 30:23 What Katina and Patricia do for fun 32:37 What they're reading 34:04 Learn more about Worker Being and Leading for Wellness 35:19 Kevin's closing challenge Now what 35:54 Farewell and next episode reminder Their Story: Dr. Patricia Grabarek, PhD and Dr.Katina Sawyer, PhD, are the authors of Leading for Wellness: How to Create a Team Culture Where Everyone Thrives. They are the co-founders of Workr Beeing. Patricia is a seasoned Industrial/Organizational Psychologist specializing in workplace wellness, organizational culture, employee engagement, diversity and inclusion, and leadership development. With a background in both consulting and internal roles, Dr. Grabarek has led people analytics and talent management initiatives for more than 60 organizations across various industries. Her work focuses on research-based strategies to improve well-being, retention, performance, and diversity efforts. Named one of Culture Amp's Top 25 Emerging Culture Creators for 2024, Dr. Grabarek's insights have appeared in The Los Angeles Times, CBS News, and CBC Radio. She holds a PhD and MS in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Penn State and a BA in Psychology from UCLA. Katina is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist and an Associate Professor of Management and Organizations at the University of Arizona's Eller College of Management. A leading expert in work-life balance, leadership, positive workplace behaviors, and diversity, she has published more than 50 peer-reviewed studies, book chapters, and articles in outlets like Harvard Business Review. Dr. Sawyer's work has been featured in major media such as The Washington Post, Bloomberg Businessweek, The Atlantic, and Forbes. Receiving grants from the National Science Foundation and the Society for Human Resource Management, her groundbreaking research has established her as a thought leader in positive workplace behaviors. Among Philadelphia Business Journal's "Top 40 Under 40" in 2017, Dr. Sawyer also consults with organizations, offering data-driven solutions to create healthier, more productive workplaces. She holds a BA in Psychology from Villanova University and a dual PhD and MS in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Women's Studies from Penn State. https://workrbeeing.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/katina-sawyer-ph-d/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/patriciagrabarek/ https://www.instagram.com/workrbeeing/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQGtAaCiNV2qR4HxgBvAkrg This Episode is brought to you by... Flexible Leadership is every leader's guide to greater success in a world of increasing complexity and chaos. Book Recommendations Leading for Wellness: How to Create a Team Culture Where Everyone Thrives by Patricia Grabarek and Katina Sawyer Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground by Kurt Gray Like a Wave We Break: A Memoir of Falling Apart and Finding Myself by Jane Marie Chen Like this? Solving the Culture Puzzle with Mario Moussa and Derek Newberry How Leaders Can Create a Company Culture That Doesn't Suck with S. Chris Edmonds and Mark Babbitt Creating a Work Culture Everyone Wants with Jennifer Moss Podcast Better! Sign up with Libsyn and get up to 2 months free! Use promo code: RLP Leave a Review If you liked this conversation, we'd be thrilled if you'd let others know by leaving a review on Apple Podcasts. Here's a quick guide for posting a review. Review on Apple: https://remarkablepodcast.com/itunes Join Our Community If you want to view our live podcast episodes, hear about new releases, or chat with others who enjoy this podcast join one of our communities below. Join the Facebook Group Join the LinkedIn Group

Many of us wrestle with the unsettling truth that everyone – including ourselves and those we love – will one day die. Though this awareness is uncomfortable, research suggests that the human capacity to contemplate death is a byproduct of consciousness itself. In fact, our efforts to cope with mortality are at the core of culture, religion, the desire for wealth, and even many of today's societal crises. How might a deeper understanding of our implicit reactions to mortality help us turn towards responses that are more supportive of our species and planet?  In this episode, Nate is joined by Sheldon Solomon, a psychologist and co-developer of Terror Management Theory, which posits that while all living beings strive to survive, humans are unique in knowing that death is unavoidable. Solomon explores some of our instinctual coping mechanisms, including clinging to existing cultural worldviews and activities that bolster our self-esteem, even when they may have negative consequences for those around us. He also explains how these defensive mechanisms manifest in modern society, influencing politics, consumerism, and religious beliefs.  Why does our fear of death drive materialism and the endless hunger for "more"? How do reminders of death impact our attitudes toward people with different political or religious beliefs? And lastly, could practices rooted in mindfulness, gratitude, and awe help us to more skillfully relate to death anxiety by strengthening our relationships, giving to our community, and reveling in the expansive magnificence of the universe in which we get to inhabit?  (Conversation recorded on September 25th, 2025)   About Sheldon Solomon: Sheldon Solomon is Professor of Psychology at Skidmore College. His research on the behavioral effects of the unique human awareness of death have been supported by the National Science Foundation and the Ernest Becker Foundation, and were featured in the award winning documentary film Flight from Death: The Quest for Immortality.  Sheldon is the co-author of the book In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror and The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life. Additionally, he is an American Psychological Society Fellow, as well as a recipient of an American Psychological Association Presidential Citation (2007) and a Lifetime Career Award by the International Society for Self and Identity (2009).   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  

Send us a textA nationwide talent engine for chips is taking shape—and it's built to scale. Recorded live at SEMICON West in Phoenix, we sit down with SEMI Foundation leaders to unpack the National Network for Microelectronics Education, a hub-and-node model designed to align schools, employers, and workforce systems. Backed by CHIPS Act funding through the National Science Foundation, NNME will fund multi-state regional nodes that modernize curricula, streamline upskilling, and share proven playbooks across the country. We also unveil the refreshed Chip Path portal, which maps your skills and interests to real jobs in fabs, equipment, and materials, and we highlight SEMI-Quest, a hands-on STEM experience designed to spark early curiosity about microelectronics.Then we turn to sustainability where momentum is accelerating. The Semiconductor Climate Consortium has grown past 100 members and is shifting from baselines to projects that deliver measurable impact. We explore how the Energy Collaborative pushes for policy that opens affordable renewable power, while SCC advances user-side strategies—better emissions accounting, renewable procurement models, and fab energy efficiency. A core challenge emerges: hyperscalers often target net zero by 2030, while many chipmakers point to 2050. We dig into how coordinated innovation, shared standards, and advocacy can close that 20-year gap.AI's energy appetite raises the stakes, so we tackle both sides of the equation: adding clean capacity where it matters most and designing for lower power at the chip and fab level. From global cooperation across APAC, EU, and the U.S. to practical ways individuals and companies can act now, the throughline is collaboration with urgency. Ready to find your role in the future of chips—whether building skills, hiring smarter, or decarbonizing faster? Subscribe, share this episode with your team, and leave a review to help more people find these insights.SEMIA global association, SEMI represents the entire electronics manufacturing and design supply chain. Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showBecome a sustaining member! Like what you hear? Follow us on LinkedIn and TwitterInterested in reaching a qualified audience of microelectronics industry decision-makers? Invest in host-read advertisements, and promote your company in upcoming episodes. Contact Françoise von Trapp to learn more. Interested in becoming a sponsor of the 3D InCites Podcast? Check out our 2024 Media Kit. Learn more about the 3D InCites Community and how you can become more involved.

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Alexander Rosenberg is the R. Taylor Cole Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Duke University. In 2016 he was the Benjamin Meaker Visiting Professor at the University of Bristol. He has held fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. In 1993, Dr. Rosenberg received the Lakatos Award in the philosophy of science. In 2006-2007 he held a fellowship at the National Humanities Center. He's the author of both fictional and non-fictional literature, including The Atheist's Guide to Reality, The Girl from Krakow, How History Gets Things Wrong, and Blunt Instrument: Why Economic Theory Can't Get Any Better...Why We Need It Anyway. In this episode, we focus on Blunt Instrument. We start by discussing why we need to know about economic theory, whether economics is a science, and how it is theory-driven. We also discuss whether Homo economicus exists, explanation and prediction in economics, and whether it is ideology-driven. We talk about game theory, why we can't do without economic theory, and institution design. Finally, we discuss economics and political activism.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, HEDIN BRØNNER, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, HUGO B., JAMES, JORDAN MANSFIELD, CHARLOTTE ALLEN, PETER STOYKO, DAVID TONNER, LEE BECK, PATRICK DALTON-HOLMES, NICK KRASNEY, RACHEL ZAK, AND DENNIS XAVIER!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, AND PER KRAULIS!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Dr. Bob Davis in an internationally recognized scientist in his field. He graduated with a Ph.D. in Sensory Neuroscience from The Ohio State University, and served as professor of neuroscience at the State University of New York for over 30 years. Bob has published over 60 articles in scholarly journals, lectured at national and international scientific conferences, and was awarded several major research grants from the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation. Since his retirement, he has co-authored articles in the Journal of Consciousness Studies and the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Dr. Davis has written three books entitled: Unseen Forces: The Integration of Science, Reality and You, The UFO Phenomenon: Should I Believe? and Life after Death: An Analysis of the Evidence. Davis has also lectured on these topics at both national and international conferences. Website: www.bobdavisspeakes.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertdavislectures/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-x-zone-radio-tv-show--1078348/support.Please note that all XZBN radio and/or television shows are Copyright © REL-MAR McConnell Meda Company, Niagara, Ontario, Canada – www.rel-mar.com. For more Episodes of this show and all shows produced, broadcasted and syndicated from REL-MAR McConell Media Company and The 'X' Zone Broadcast Network and the 'X' Zone TV Channell, visit www.xzbn.net. For programming, distribution, and syndication inquiries, email programming@xzbn.net.We are proud to announce the we have launched TWATNews.com, launched in August 2025.TWATNews.com is an independent online news platform dedicated to uncovering the truth about Donald Trump and his ongoing influence in politics, business, and society. Unlike mainstream outlets that often sanitize, soften, or ignore stories that challenge Trump and his allies, TWATNews digs deeper to deliver hard-hitting articles, investigative features, and sharp commentary that mainstream media won't touch.These are stories and articles that you will not read anywhere else.Our mission is simple: to expose corruption, lies, and authoritarian tendencies while giving voice to the perspectives and evidence that are often marginalized or buried by corporate-controlled media

In this episode, Dr. Kevin Esterling, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at UC Riverside, talks with the UC Riverside School of Public Policy about using technology to make public meetings more inclusive and effective. This is the seventh episode in our 11-part series, Technology vs. Government, featuring former California State Assemblymember Lloyd Levine.About Dr. Kevin Esterling:Kevin Esterling is Professor of Public Policy and Political Science, chair of political science, and the Director of the Laboratory for Technology, Communication and Democracy (TeCD-Lab) at the University of California, Riverside, and affiliate of the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC). He is the past interim dean and associate dean of the UCR Graduate Division. His research focuses on technology for communication in democratic politics, and in particular the use of artificial intelligence and large language models for understanding and improving the quality of democratic communication in online spaces. His methodological interests are in artificial intelligence, large language models, Bayesian statistics, machine learning, experimental design, and science ethics and validity. His books have been published on Cambridge University Press and the University of Michigan Press, and his journal articles have appeared in such journals as Science, Nature, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature Human Behavior, the American Political Science Review, Political Analysis, the Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, and the Journal of Politics. His work has been funded by the National Science Foundation, The Democracy Fund, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Institute of Education Sciences. Esterling was previously a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in Health Policy Research at the University of California, Berkeley and a postdoctoral research fellow at the A. Alfred Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions at Brown University. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago in 1999.Interviewer:Lloyd Levine (Former California State Assemblymember, UCR School of Public Policy Senior Policy Fellow)Music by: Vir SinhaCommercial Links:https://spp.ucr.edu/ba-mpphttps://spp.ucr.edu/mppThis is a production of the UCR School of Public Policy: https://spp.ucr.eduSubscribe to this podcast so you do not miss an episode. Learn more about the series and other episodes at https://spp.ucr.edu/podcast.

Internationally recognized neuroscientist Aileen Anderson – a professor of physical medicine & rehabilitation, anatomy & neurobiology and neurosurgery, and the former director of the Sue & Bill Gross Stem Cell Research Center – started her tenure as UC Irvine's vice chancellor for research on July 1. She had no opportunity to ease into her new, important role. In her first month at the helm, the federal government announced it was suspending approximately $584 million in funding from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and other agencies to UCLA, putting the entire UC system on alert for what might be next. In the months since, several federal court orders have restored vast amounts of those grants, but the situation remains in flux. On Aug. 21, Anderson hosted a town hall to address how federal funding suspensions impact UC Irvine. To make clear her position, her campuswide emails offering updates to the latest developments all end with this quote: “The Office of Research and I stand with our research community. We appreciate your resilience and remain committed to supporting you every step of the way.” In this episode of The UC Irvine Podcast, Anderson demonstrates that dedication by sharing what she knows about the current state of federal funding, how cuts are affecting the research community at UC Irvine and globally, and what these changes could mean for the future of the university, its faculty and students, science, medicine, and, eventually, the health of Americans and international reputation of the United States. “Building Blocks,” the music for this episode, was provided by Nate Blaze, via the audio library in YouTube Studio.

Even in high school, Katherine Mizrahi Rodriguez was interested in arts, crafts – and chemistry. Now co-founder and Chief Implementation Officer at Osmoses, she is revolutionizing clean energy production through a breakthrough membrane technology. In this installment of “The FutureWork Playbook” series spotlighting founders on Forbes' “30 Under 30,” Katherine discusses her past and looks to the future with host Natalie Pierce. Osmoses has developed molecular filters 100,000 times smaller than human hair to replace century-old, energy-intensive gas separation processes. With pilot programs launching in Canada and partnerships with global petrochemical companies, Osmoses could reduce the 15% of global energy consumption currently devoted to industrial gas separations. “We've always seen that value and potential for the market, which is something that drives us,” Katherine says.Episode HighlightsA native of Venezuela who immigrated to the United States at age 12, Katherine participated in – and founded – initiatives that support underrepresented minorities in science.At MIT, Katherine studied Material Science and Engineering, which allowed her to merge her interest in arts and crafts with her love of science and chemistry.Osmoses was born through the National Science Foundation's iCorps program, where Katherine and her co-founders conducted over 100 customer interviews to validate market need for their membrane technology.Industrial gas separations consume 15% of the world's energy, creating an opportunity for Osmoses' molecular filters to reduce energy consumption in applications from medical oxygen generation to renewable natural gas production.The company has secured non-recurring engineering revenue from a global petrochemical company and has two pilot programs launching in Canada at landfill and anaerobic digester sites.Katherine emphasizes the importance of cross-functional collaboration and mentorship in cleantech, explaining that diverse expertise is needed “so that a common problem can be solved because the complexity of these challenges is just so large.”

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,For most of history, stagnation — not growth — was the rule. To explain why prosperity so often stalls, economist Carl Benedikt Frey offers a sweeping tour through a millennium of innovation and upheaval, showing how societies either harness — or are undone by — waves of technological change. His message is sobering: an AI revolution is no guarantee of a new age of progress.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Frey about why societies midjudge their trajectory and what it takes to reignite lasting growth.Frey is a professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and a fellow of Mansfield College, University of Oxford. He is the director of the Future of Work Programme and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at the Oxford Martin School.He is the author of several books, including the brand new one, How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations.In This Episode* The end of progress? (1:28)* A history of Chinese innovation (8:26)* Global competitive intensity (11:41)* Competitive problems in the US (15:50)* Lagging European progress (22:19)* AI & labor (25:46)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. The end of progress? (1:28). . . once you exploit a technology, the processes that aid that run into diminishing returns, you have a lot of incumbents, you have some vested interests around established technologies, and you need something new to revive growth.Pethokoukis: Since 2020, we've seen the emergence of generative AI, mRNA vaccines, reusable rockets that have returned America to space, we're seeing this ongoing nuclear renaissance including advanced technologies, maybe even fusion, geothermal, the expansion of solar — there seems to be a lot cooking. Is worrying about the end of progress a bit too preemptive?Frey: Well in a way, it's always a bit too preemptive to worry about the future: You don't know what's going to come. But let me put it this way: If you had told me back in 1995 — and if I was a little bit older then — that computers and the internet would lead to a decade streak of productivity growth and then peter out, I would probably have thought you nuts because it's hard to think about anything that is more consequential. Computers have essentially given people the world's store of knowledge basically in their pockets. The internet has enabled us to connect inventors and scientists around the world. There are few tools that aided the research process more. There should hardly be any technology that has done more to boost scientific discovery, and yet we don't see it.We don't see it in the aggregate productivity statistics, so that petered out after a decade. Research productivity is in decline. Measures of breakthrough innovation is in decline. So it's always good to be optimistic, I guess, and I agree with you that, when you say AI and when you read about many of the things that are happening now, it's very, very exciting, but I remain somewhat skeptical that we are actually going to see that leading to a huge revival of economic growth.I would just be surprised if we don't see any upsurge at all, to be clear, but we do have global productivity stagnation right now. It's not just Europe, it's not just Britain. The US is not doing too well either over the past two decades or so. China's productivity is probably in the negative territory or stagnant, by more optimistic measures, and so we're having a growth problem.If tech progress were inevitable, why have predictions from the '90s, and certainly earlier decades like the '50s and '60s, about transformative breakthroughs and really fast economic growth by now, consistently failed to materialize? How does your thesis account for why those visions of rapid growth and progress have fallen short?I'm not sure if my thesis explains why those expectations didn't materialize, but I'm hopeful that I do provide some framework for thinking about why we've often seen historically rapid growth spurts followed by stagnation and even decline. The story I'm telling is not rocket science, exactly. It's basically built on the simple intuitions that once you exploit a technology, the processes that aid that run into diminishing returns, you have a lot of incumbents, you have some vested interests around established technologies, and you need something new to revive growth.So for example, the Soviet Union actually did reasonably well in terms of economic growth. A lot of it, or most of it, was centered on heavy industry, I should say. So people didn't necessarily see the benefits in their pockets, but the economy grew rapidly for about four decades or so, then growth petered out, and eventually it collapsed. So for exploiting mass-production technologies, the Soviet system worked reasonably well. Soviet bureaucrats could hold factory managers accountable by benchmarking performance across factories.But that became much harder when something new was needed because when something is new, what's the benchmark? How do you benchmark against that? And more broadly, when something is new, you need to explore, and you need to explore often different technological trajectories. So in the Soviet system, if you were an aircraft engineer and you wanted to develop your prototype, you could go to the red arm and ask for funding. If they turned you down, you maybe had two or three other options. If they turned you down, your idea would die with you.Conversely, in the US back in '99, Bessemer Venture declined to invest in Google, which seemed like a bad idea with the benefit of hindsight, but it also illustrates that Google was no safe bet at the time. Yahoo and Alta Vista we're dominating search. You need somebody to invest in order to know if something is going to catch on, and in a more decentralized system, you can have more people taking different bets and you can explore more technological trajectories. That is one of the reasons why the US ended up leading the computer revolutions to which Soviet contributions were basically none.Going back to your question, why didn't those dreams materialize? I think we've made it harder to explore. Part of the reason is protective regulation. Part of the reason is lobbying by incumbents. Part of the reason is, I think, a revolving door between institutions like the US patent office and incumbents where we see in the data that examiners tend to grant large firms some patents that are of low quality and then get lucrative jobs at those places. That's creating barriers to entry. That's not good for new startups and inventors entering the marketplace. I think that is one of the reasons that we haven't seen some of those dreams materialize.A history of Chinese innovation (8:26)So while Chinese bureaucracy enabled scale, Chinese bureaucracy did not really permit much in terms of decentralized exploration, which European fragmentation aided . . .I wonder if your analysis of pre-industrial China, if there's any lessons you can draw about modern China as far as the way in which bad governance can undermine innovation and progress?Pre-industrial China has a long history. China was the technology leader during the Song and Tang dynasties. It had a meritocratic civil service. It was building infrastructure on scales that were unimaginable in Europe at the time, and yet it didn't have an industrial revolution. So while Chinese bureaucracy enabled scale, Chinese bureaucracy did not really permit much in terms of decentralized exploration, which European fragmentation aided, and because there was lots of social status attached to becoming a bureaucrat and passing the civil service examination, if Galileo was born in China, he would probably become a bureaucrat rather than a scientist, and I think that's part of the reason too.But China mostly did well when the state was strong rather than weak. A strong state was underpinned by intensive political competition, and once China had unified and there were fewer peer competitors, you see that the center begins to fade. They struggle to tax local elites in order to keep the peace. People begin to erect monopolies in their local markets and collide with guilds to protect production and their crafts from competition.So during the Qing dynasty, China begins to decline, whereas we see the opposite happening in Europe. European fragmentation aids exploration and innovation, but it doesn't necessarily aid scaling, and so that is something that Europe needs to come to terms with at a later stage when the industrial revolution starts to take off. And even before that, market integration played an important role in terms of undermining the guilds in Europe, and so part of the reason why the guilds persist longer in China is the distance is so much longer between cities and so the guilds are less exposed to competition. In the end, Europe ends up overtaking China, in large part because vested interests are undercut by governments, but also because of investments in things that spur market integration.Global competitive intensity (11:41)Back in the 2000s, people predicted that China would become more like the United States, now it looks like the United States is becoming more like China.This is a great McKinsey kind of way of looking at the world: The notion that what drives innovation is sort of maximum competitive intensity. You were talking about the competitive intensity in both Europe and in China when it was not so centralized. You were talking about the competitive intensity of a fragmented Europe.Do you think that the current level of competitive intensity between the United States and China —and I really wish I could add Europe in there. Plenty of white papers, I know, have been written about Europe's competitive state and its in innovativeness, and I hope those white papers are helpful and someone reads them, but it seems to be that the real competition is between United States and China.Do you not think that that competitive intensity will sort of keep those countries progressing despite any of the barriers that might pop up and that you've already mentioned a little bit? Isn't that a more powerful tailwind than any of the headwinds that you've mentioned?It could be, I think, if people learn the right lessons from history, at least that's a key argument of the book. Right now, what I'm seeing is the United States moving more towards protectionist with protective tariffs. Right now, what I see is a move towards, we could even say crony capitalism with tariff exemptions that some larger firms that are better-connected to the president are able to navigate, but certainly not challengers. You're seeing the United States embracing things like golden shares in Intel, and perhaps even extending that to a range of companies. Back in the 2000s, people predicted that China would become more like the United States, now it looks like the United States is becoming more like China.And China today is having similar problems and on, I would argue, an even greater scale. Growth used to be the key objective in China, and so for local governments, provincial governments competing on such targets, it was fairly easy to benchmark and measure and hold provincial governors accountable, and they would be promoted inside the Communist Party based on meeting growth targets. Now, we have prioritized common prosperity, more national security-oriented concerns.And so in China, most progress has been driven by private firms and foreign-invested firms. State-owned enterprise has generally been a drag on innovation and productivity. What you're seeing, though, as China is shifting more towards political objectives, it's harder to mobilize private enterprise, where the yard sticks are market share and profitability, for political goals. That means that China is increasingly relying more again on state-owned enterprises, which, again, have been a drag on innovation.So, in principle, I agree with you that historically you did see Russian defeat to Napoleon leading to this Stein-Hardenberg Reforms, and the abolishment of Gilded restrictions, and a more competitive marketplace for both goods and ideas. You saw that Russian losses in the Crimean War led to the of abolition of serfdom, and so there are many times in history where defeat, in particular, led to striking reforms, but right now, the competition itself doesn't seem to lead to the kinds of reforms I would've hoped to see in response.Competitive problems in the US (15:50)I think what antitrust does is, at the very least, it provides a tool that means that businesses are thinking twice before engaging in anti-competitive behavior.I certainly wrote enough pieces and talked to enough people over the past decade who have been worried about competition in the United States, and the story went something like this: that you had these big tech companies — Google, and Meta, Facebook and Microsoft — that these were companies were what they would call “forever companies,” that they had such dominance in their core businesses, and they were throwing off so much cash that these were unbeatable companies, and this was going to be bad for America. People who made that argument just could not imagine how any other companies could threaten their dominance. And yet, at the time, I pointed out that it seemed to me that these companies were constantly in fear that they were one technological advance from being in trouble.And then lo and behold, that's exactly what happened. And while in AI, certainly, Google's super important, and Meta Facebook are super important, so are OpenAI, and so is Anthropic, and there are other companies.So the point here, after my little soliloquy, is can we overstate these problems, at least in the United States, when it seems like it is still possible to create a new technology that breaks the apparent stranglehold of these incumbents? Google search does not look quite as solid a business as it did in 2022.Can we overstate the competitive problems of the United States, or is what you're saying more forward-looking, that perhaps we overstated the competitive problems in the past, but now, due to these tariffs, and executives having to travel to the White House and give the president gifts, that that creates a stage for the kind of competitive problems that we should really worry about?I'm very happy to support the notion that technological changes can lead to unpredictable outcomes that incumbents may struggle to predict and respond to. Even if they predict it, they struggle to act upon it because doing so often undermines the existing business model.So if you take Google, where the transformer was actually conceived, the seven people behind it, I think, have since left the company. One of the reasons that they probably didn't launch anything like ChatGPT was probably for the fear of cannibalizing search. So I think the most important mechanisms for dislodging incumbents are dramatic shifts in technology.None of the legacy media companies ended up leading social media. None of the legacy retailers ended up leading e-commerce. None of the automobile leaders are leading in EVs. None of the bicycle companies, which all went into automobile, so many of them, ended up leading. So there is a pattern there.At the same time, I think you do have to worry that there are anti-competitive practices going on that makes it harder, and that are costly. The revolving door between the USPTO and companies is one example of that. We also have a reasonable amount of evidence on killer acquisitions whereby firms buy up a competitor just to shut it down. Those things are happening. I think you need to have tools that allow you to combat that, and I think more broadly, the United States has a long history of fairly vigorous antitrust policy. I think it'd be a hard pressed to suggest that that has been a tremendous drag on American business or American dynamism. So if you don't think, for example, that American antitrust policy has contributed to innovation and dynamism, at the very least, you can't really say either that it's been a huge drag on it.In Japan, for example, in its postwar history, antitrust was extremely lax. In the United States, it was very vigorous, and it was very vigorous throughout the computer revolution as well, which it wasn't at all in Japan. If you take the lawsuit against IBM, for example, you can debate this. To what extent did it force it to unbundle hardware and software, and would Microsoft been the company it is today without that? I think AT&T, it's both the breakup and it's deregulation, as well, but I think by basically all accounts, that was a good idea, particularly at the time when the National Science Foundation released ARPANET into the world.I think what antitrust does is, at the very least, it provides a tool that means that businesses are thinking twice before engaging in anti-competitive behavior. There's always a risk of antitrust being heavily politicized, and that's always been a bad idea, but at the same time, I think having tools on the books that allows you to check monopolies and steer their investments more towards the innovation rather than anti-competitive practices, I think is, broadly speaking, a good thing. I think in the European Union, you often hear that competition policy is a drag on productivity. I think it's the least of Europe's problem.Lagging European progress (22:19)If you take the postwar period, at least Europe catches up in most key industries, and actually lead in some of them. . . but doesn't do the same in digital. The question in my mind is: Why is that?Let's talk about Europe as we sort of finish up. We don't have to write How Progress Ends, it seems like progress has ended, so maybe we want to think about how progress restarts, and is the problem in Europe, is it institutions or is it the revealed preference of Europeans, that they're getting what they want? That they don't value progress and dynamism, that it is a cultural preference that is manifested in institutions? And if that's the case — you can tell me if that's not the case, I kind of feel like it might be the case — how do you restart progress in Europe since it seems to have already ended?The most puzzling thing to me is not that Europe is less dynamic than the United States — that's not very puzzling at all — but that it hasn't even managed to catch up in digital. If you take the postwar period, at least Europe catches up in most key industries, and actually lead in some of them. So in a way, take automobiles, electrical machinery, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, nobody would say that Europe is behind in those industries, or at least not for long. Europe has very robust catchup growth in the post-war period, but doesn't do the same in digital. The question in my mind is: Why is that?I think part of the reason is that the returns to innovation, the returns to scaling in Europe are relatively muted by a fragmented market in services, in particular. The IMF estimates that if you take all trade barriers on services inside the European Union and you add them up, it's something like 110 percent tariffs. Trump Liberation Day tariffs, essentially, imposed within European Union. That means that European firms in digital and in services don't have a harmonized market to scale into, the way the United States and China has. I think that's by far the biggest reason.On top of that, there are well-intentioned regulations like the GDPR that, by any account, has been a drag on innovation, and particularly been harmful for startups, whereas larger firms that find it easier to manage compliance costs have essentially managed to offset those costs by capturing a larger share of the market. I think the AI Act is going in the same direction there, ad so you have more hurdles, you have greater costs of innovating because of those regulatory barriers. And then the return to innovation is more capped by having a smaller, fragmented market.I don't think that culture or European lust for leisure rather than work is the key reason. I think there's some of that, but if you look at the most dynamic places in Europe, it tends to be the Scandinavian countries and, being from Sweden myself, I can tell you that most people you will encounter there are not workaholics.AI & labor (25:46)I think AI at the moment has a real resilience problem. It's very good that things where there's a lot of precedent, it doesn't do very well where precedence is thin.As I finish up, let me ask you: Like a lot of economists who think about technology, you've thought about how AI will affect jobs — given what we've seen in the past few years, would it be your guess that, if we were to look at the labor force participation rates of the United States and other rich countries 10 years from now, that we will look at those employment numbers and think, “Wow, we can really see the impact of AI on those numbers”? Will it be extraordinarily evident, or would it be not as much?Unless there's very significant progress in AI, I don't think so. I think AI at the moment has a real resilience problem. It's very good that things where there's a lot of precedent, it doesn't do very well where precedence is thin. So in most activities where the world is changing, and the world is changing every day, you can't really rely on AI to reliably do work for you.An example of that, most people know of AlphaGo beating the world champion back in 2016. Few people will know that, back in 2023, human amateurs, using standard laptops, exposing the best Go programs to new positions that they would not have encountered in training, actually beat the best Go programs quite easily. So even in a domain where basically the problem is solved, where we already achieved super-human intelligence, you cannot really know how well these tools perform when circumstances change, and I think that that's really a problem. So unless we solve that, I don't think it's going to have an impact that will mean that labor force participation is going to be significantly lower 10 years from now.That said, I do think it's going to have a very significant impact on white collar work, and people's income and sense of status. I think of generative AI, in particular, as a tool that reduces barriers to entry in professional services. I often compare it to what happened with Uber and taxi services. With the arrival of GPS technology, knowing the name of every street in New York City was no longer a particularly valuable skill, and then with a platform matching supply and demand, anybody could essentially get into their car who has a driver's license and top up their incomes on the side. As a result of that, incumbent drivers faced more competition, they took a pay cut of around 10 percent.Obviously, a key difference with professional services is that they're traded. So I think it's very likely that, as generative AI reduces the productivity differential between people in, let's say the US and the Philippines in financial modeling, in paralegal work, in accounting, in a host of professional services, more of those activities will shift abroad, and I think many knowledge workers that had envisioned prosperous careers may feel a sense of loss of status and income as a consequence, and I do think that's quite significant.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Julie M. Liss, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is Senior Associate Dean in the College of Health Solutions and Professor of Speech and Hearing Science at Arizona State University. A certified speech-language pathologist, she is internationally recognized for advancing the use of artificial intelligence in speech-language pathology. Her work has focused on transforming clinical speech science into digital tools that can detect and track neurological disease, expand access to care, and support more precise clinical decision-making. As co-founder of Aural Analytics, Dr. Liss has helped pioneer speech-based biomarkers and AI-driven assessment platforms now in use around the world. She is also a thought leader in promoting the ethical and responsible application of AI in healthcare and scientific publishing. Beyond her research and innovation, Dr. Liss has served in key leadership roles with ASHA, including as Editor-in-Chief and now Chair of the ASHA Journals Board, where she is helping shape policy around emerging technologies in scholarly communication. In recognition of her impact on the profession and her leadership at the intersection of speech science and technology, Dr. Liss is receiving Honors of the Association from ASHA in 2025. Visar Berisha, Ph.D., is a Professor at Arizona State University with a joint appointment in the College of Engineering and the College of Health Solutions and Associate Dean for Research Commercialization in the College of Engineering. His main research interests reside at the intersection of AI and the human voice. He has developed and commercialized new speech AI models for healthcare. This work is primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the National Science Foundation. This work has led to many academic publications, several patents, and two companies. Dr. Berisha's work has been featured in the New York Times, on ESPN, National Public Radio, the Wall Street Journal, and a number of other international media outlets. He was the 2023-2024 ISCA Distinguished Lecturer. References: Berisha, V., & Liss, J. M. (2024). Responsible development of clinical speech AI: Bridging the gap between clinical research and technology. npj Digital Medicine, 7, Article 208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01199-1 Liss, J., & Berisha, V. (2024). Operationalizing clinical speech analytics: Moving from features to measures for real-world clinical impact. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 67(11), 4226-4232. Liss, J., & Berisha, V. (2020, August). How will artificial intelligence reshape speech-language pathology services and practice in the future? ASHA Journals Academy. https://academy.pubs.asha.org/2020/08/how-will-artificial-intelligence-reshape-speech-language-pathology-services-and-practice-in-the-future/ Xu, L., Chen, K., Mueller, K. D., Liss, J., & Berisha, V. (2025). Articulatory precision from connected speech as a marker of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease risk-enriched cohorts. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 103(2), 476-486. Yeo, E., Liss, J., Berisha, V., & Mortensen, D. (2025). Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Cross-language Intelligibility Assessment of Dysarthric Speech. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15858

As the federal government races to adopt AI, many agencies are looking to buy and build the same exact solutions. Recognizing this, the General Services Administration earlier this year launched USAi, a platform that offers agencies access to leading commercial AI models that they can deploy in a streamlined manner, eliminating redundancy across government and leading to greater efficiencies at scale. Zach Whitman, chief data scientist and chief AI officer for the GSA, recently joined me for a discussion at the Agentic AI Government Summit and Jamfest in Washington, D.C., to highlight the USAi effort, how it's progressing, the challenges GSA faces and what's next. The Department of Health and Human Services has tapped DOGE affiliate Zachary Terrell to be its chief technology officer, sources told FedScoop. Terrell's CTO title was confirmed by three officials, who were granted anonymity to be more candid. Taking on the role of CTO comes after his involvement in Department of Government Efficiency work at both HHS and the National Science Foundation, including the cancellation of grants at the science agency. One of those sources told FedScoop that Terrell has been in the technology chief role since the beginning of this month and is still at the NSF as well. While his leadership role is new, Terrell has previously been involved in work at HHS, including as a member of the department's DOGE team, according to a recent legal filing by the government. Per that document, Terrell was listed as one of the 10 team members given access to at least one sensitive system as part of the DOGE work. Specifically, Terrell was one of five team members who weren't directly employed by the U.S. DOGE Service — the White House home for the group. Congress is poised to make yet another run at legislation to reform agency software purchasing practices, with the reintroduction in the House last week of the Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act. The SAMOSA Act, which passed the House last December, would require federal agencies to comprehensively assess their software licensing practices, a move aimed at curbing duplicative tech, streamlining future purchases and reducing IT costs. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., chair of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, said in a press release: “The GAO has found the federal government spends more than $100 billion annually on information technology and cybersecurity, including software licenses. Far too often, taxpayer dollars are wasted on these systems and licenses agencies fail to use.” The SAMOSA Act, Mace goes on to say, “requires agencies to account for existing software assets and consolidate purchases: reducing redundancy, increasing accountability, and saving potentially billions for American taxpayers.” Also in this episode: Salesforce Global Digital Transformation Executive Nadia Hansen joins SNG host Wyatt Kash in a sponsored podcast discussion on how Agentic AI is reshaping the way government teams work and why agencies need top-level sponsorship, transparent governance and workforce training to realize its potential. This segment was by sponsored by Salesforce. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

AgriNovus CEO, Christy Wright, and Vice President, Libby Fritz, recap September with Cayla Chiddister and discuss the month's news, including additions to our team via our Field Atlas Ambassador program, our participation in the One Health Summit in Indianapolis and several industry stories to share.Meet our Field Atlas Ambassadors Read Christy's Food Dive StoryAgriNovus Partners with BioCrossroads and Elanco for the Life Sciences Summit 2025Aaron Schacht to Speak at Life Sciences Summit 2025 | Watch Aaron Schacht - BiomEdit on AgbioscienceKeystone Cooperative's Kevin Still Announces Intention to Retire | Watch Kevin Still -- Keystone Cooperative on AgbioscienceSePro Corporation Announces Two AcquisitionsInsignum AgTech Raises $2.4MPurdue Researchers Develop Rapid Test for HPAIIntegrated Dynamics (Velocity Winner) Awarded $245,000 from National Science Foundation for Phase 1 SBIR GrantField Atlas AMP Applications Now Open | Apply Here

Dr. Al Grauer hosts. Dr. Albert D. Grauer ( @Nmcanopus ) is an observational asteroid hunting astronomer. Dr. Grauer retired from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2006. travelersinthenight.org From May 2025. Today's 2 topics: - On May 5, 2014 when I discovered 2014 JO25 with the Catalina Sky Survey's 60 inch telescope on Mt. Lemmon, Arizona it was the brightest, fastest asteroid I had ever seen. In April of 2017, 2014 JO25 returned to come within 1.1 million miles of us at 21 mi/s. This rare, very close approach by an asteroid, of 2014 JO25's size allowed scientists at NASA's Goldstone Solar System Radar in California and the National Science Foundation's Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico to obtain radar images of it.    - The NASA Kepler Spacecraft has discovered more than 2,000 planets which have been confirmed to be orbiting distant stars. It performs this remarkable feat by imaging more than 145,000 stars simultaneously to observe and measure the tiny dips in light which occur as a planet passes in front of its star. Astronomers have long known that many of the solar systems in the Milky Way have more than one star.    We've added a new way to donate to 365 Days of Astronomy to support editing, hosting, and production costs.  Just visit: https://www.patreon.com/365DaysOfAstronomy and donate as much as you can! Share the podcast with your friends and send the Patreon link to them too!  Every bit helps! Thank you! ------------------------------------ Do go visit http://www.redbubble.com/people/CosmoQuestX/shop for cool Astronomy Cast and CosmoQuest t-shirts, coffee mugs and other awesomeness! http://cosmoquest.org/Donate This show is made possible through your donations.  Thank you! (Haven't donated? It's not too late! Just click!) ------------------------------------ The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Planetary Science Institute. http://www.psi.edu Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org.

Kevin Werbach interviews Dean Ball, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation and one of the key shapers of the Trump Administration's approach to AI policy. Ball reflects on his career path from writing and blogging to shaping federal policy, including his role as Senior Policy Advisor for AI and Emerging Technology at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where he was the primary drafter of the Trump Administration's recent AI Action Plan. He explains how he has developed influence through a differentiated viewpoint: rejecting the notion that AI progress will plateau and emphasizing that transformative adoption is what will shape global competition. He critiques both the Biden administration's “AI Bill of Rights” approach, which he views as symbolic and wasteful, and the European Union's AI Act, which he argues imposes impossible compliance burdens on legacy software while failing to anticipate the generative AI revolution. By contrast, he describes the Trump administration's AI Action Plan as focused on pragmatic measures under three pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and international security. Looking forward, he stresses that U.S. competitiveness depends less on being first to frontier models than on enabling widespread deployment of AI across the economy and government. Finally, Ball frames tort liability as an inevitable and underappreciated force in AI governance, one that will challenge companies as AI systems move from providing information to taking actions on users' behalf. Dean Ball is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, author of Hyperdimensional, and former Senior Policy Advisor at the White House OSTP. He has also held roles at the National Science Foundation, the Mercatus Center, and Fathom. His writing spans artificial intelligence, emerging technologies, bioengineering, infrastructure, public finance, and governance, with publications at institutions including Hoover, Carnegie, FAS, and American Compass. Transcript https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zLLOkndlN2UYuQe-9ZvZNLhiD3e2TPZS/view America's AI Action Plan Dean Ball's Hyperdimensional blog  

Feeling stressed, overwhelmed, or burned out? You're not alone—and stress isn't your enemy. In this compelling episode of the Marli Williams Podcast, Marli welcomes Dr. Rebecca Heiss, author of “Springboard,” to unpack how “life will life you” and why stress is actually an essential ingredient for meaningful, purpose-filled lives. Together, they challenge cultural myths that stress must be avoided, explore the science of stress physiology, and introduce the notion of “post traumatic growth.” With powerful reframes and practical strategies, they tease a step-by-step process that transforms stressful moments into a springboard for growth, resilience, and even excitement. If you're an authentic leader, facilitator, or simply craving actionable ways to turn stress into your superpower, you won't want to miss these insights. Ready to shift your relationship with stress forever? Tune in for inspiration, laughter, and brand-new tools for thriving under pressure.About Dr. Rebecca Heiss:Dr. Rebecca Heiss is a stress expert dedicated to transforming our fears into fuel we can use through her T-minus 3 Technique. Her research has been designated "transformative" by the National Science Foundation. When she's not on a stage, she is happiest when hiking or surfing with her two spoiled rotten dogs Guinness and Murphy.To learn more about Dr. Heiss, visit her website at rebeccaheiss.com. Her brand-new book, Springboard, is out now and ready to inspire you—find it wherever books are sold! And you heard it here first: Rebecca has a brand-new course launching next week, created especially for younger generations. Don't miss this chance to learn directly from her latest work!Marli Williams is an international keynote speaker, master facilitator, and joy instigator who has worked with organizations such as Nike, United Way, Doordash, along with many colleges and schools across the United States. She first fell in love with transformational leadership as a camp counselor when she was 19 years old. After getting two degrees and 15 years of leadership training, Marli decided to give herself permission to be the “Professional Camp Counselor” she knew she was born to be. Now she helps incredible people and organizations stop waiting for permission and start taking bold action to be the leaders and changemakers they've always wanted to be through the power of play and cultivating joy everyday. She loves helping people go from stuck to STOKED and actually created her own deck of inspirational messages called StokeQuotes™ which was then followed by The Connect Deck™ to inspire more meaningful conversations. Her ultimate mission in the world is to help others say YES to themselves and their big crazy dreams (while having fun doing it!) To learn more about Marli's work go to www.marliwilliams.com and follow her on Instagram @marliwilliamsStay Connected to The Marli Williams PodcastFollow us on Instagram: @marliwilliamsOur Website: www.podcast.marliwilliams.comHire Marli to Speak at your next event, conference, workshop or retreat!

In this episode, we welcome Javiera Barandiarán, a persistent advocate for environmental justice, as she shares insights from her research regarding the Puna de Atacama of Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina. We explore the delicate ecosystems of the Atacama Desert and the challenges posed by lithium mining. Javiera discusses her upcoming book, "Living Minerals: Nature, Trade, and Power in the Race for Lithium," and delves into the importance of restorative environmental work, the complexities of environmental justice, and the urgent need for sustainable practices in a rapidly changing world. Join us for an enlightening conversation that reveals the intricate connections between nature, community, and the vagaries of capitalism. We include musical interludes from Illapu [https://illapu.cl/], a Chilean folk and Andean musical ensemble that was formed in 1971 in Antofagasta. They are known for their participation in the Nueva Canción Chilena movement and their exile under the Pinochet regime. Support the Podcast via PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=LBGXTRM292TFC&source=url For an extended interview and other benefits, become an EcoJustice Radio patron at https://www.patreon.com/ecojusticeradio Javiera Barandiarán PhD [https://www.global.ucsb.edu/people/javiera-barandiaran] is an Associate Professor in the Global Studies program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Barandiarán received her Ph.D. in 2013 from the University of California, Berkeley in Environmental Science, Policy and Management. She holds a Masters in Public Policy also from Berkeley and received her B.A. in politics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. For her work on lithium she was selected for a Bellagio Residency by the Rockefeller Foundation and a Berlin Prize from the American Academy. Her research has been awarded support from the National Science Foundation, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, Chile's National Agency for Science (ANID) and others. Her work explores the intersection of science, environment, and development in Latin America. She is Director and Co-Founder of the Center for Restorative Environmental Work (CREW) [https://crew.global.ucsb.edu/] Jack Eidt is an urban planner, environmental journalist, and climate organizer, as well as award-winning fiction writer. He is Co-Founder of SoCal 350 Climate Action and Executive Producer of EcoJustice Radio. He writes a column on PBS SoCal called High & Dry [https://www.pbssocal.org/people/high-dry]. He is also Founder and Publisher of WilderUtopia [https://wilderutopia.com], a website dedicated to the question of Earth sustainability, finding society-level solutions to environmental, community, economic, transportation and energy needs. Podcast Website: http://ecojusticeradio.org/ Podcast Blog: https://www.wilderutopia.com/category/ecojustice-radio/ Support the Podcast: Patreon https://www.patreon.com/ecojusticeradio PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=LBGXTRM292TFC&source=url Executive Producer and Host: Jack Eidt Engineer and Original Music: Blake Quake Beats Episode 268 Photo credit: American Academy in Berlin

We have a big announcement: Tumble en Español is returning on September 25th! This is a rebroadcast of an episode of Tumble from last season. If you can't wait to hear the Spanish-language version, just go subscribe to Tumble en Español wherever you get your podcasts. Why are there so many axolotls in fishtanks, and so few in the wild? That's what Maximiliano wants to know. You may have found axolotls in the lush caves of Minecraft, but in real life, they live in the lakes and canals of Xochimilco, near Mexico City. But the species is slowly disappearing from its native habitat. Axolotl veterinarian Horacio Mena takes us on a journey to Xochimilco to find out what scientists are doing to save these adorable amphibians. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2415575. Want to hear Aidee's Album "Nothing Rhymes With Orange?" Just click here. (https://platoon.lnk.to/nothing-rhymes-with-orange) Also don't forget to support Tumble on Patreon by going to patreon.com/tumblepodcast. Our t-shirts can be found at tumblepodcast.dashery.com. Also subscribe to Tumble en Español wherever you get your podcasts, or at https://pod.link/1521514886 You can also find more resources about axolotls on our blog at sciencepodcastforkids.com.

Dr. Rebecca Heiss shares powerful perspectives for reframing stress. — YOU'LL LEARN — 1) Why stress fuels meaning and purpose 2) The formula that helps harness stress 3) The 6-minute practice that reframes stress Subscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep1092 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT REBECCA — Dr. Rebecca Heiss is a stress expert dedicated to transforming our fears into fuel we can use through her T-minus 3 Technique. Her research has been designated “transformative” by the National Science Foundation. When she's not on stage, she is happiest when hiking or surfing with her two spoiled rotten dogs Guinness and Murphy. • Book: Springboard: Transform Stress to Work for You• Instagram: @drrebeccaheiss• Website: RebeccaHeiss.com— RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Book: The Upside of Stress: Why Stress Is Good for You, and How to Get Good at It by Kelly McGonigal• Book: Untamed by Glennon Doyle• Book: Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert Sapolsky• Study: Amy Cuddy's Harvard study• Article: Tony Robbins on power poses• Study: Milkshake study• Tool: Whoop band• Tool: Oura ring• Tool: Lief— THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/Awesome• LinkedIn Jobs. Post your job for free at linkedin.com/beawesome• Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome• Square. See how Square can transform your business by visiting Square.com/go/awesomeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Any donation is greatly appreciated! 47e6GvjL4in5Zy5vVHMb9PQtGXQAcFvWSCQn2fuwDYZoZRk3oFjefr51WBNDGG9EjF1YDavg7pwGDFSAVWC5K42CBcLLv5U OR DONATE HERE: https://www.monerotalk.live/donate TODAY'S SHOW: In this episode of Monero Talk, host Douglas Tuman interviews Dr. K, a proof-of-work researcher with over eight years of experience. They dive into Monero's ongoing “qubic attack,” where mining pool Qubic controls ~35% of the network's hash rate and causes chain reorganizations. Dr. K, whose background spans ConsenSys, Grid Plus (creator of the Lattice One wallet), and a National Science Foundation grant for PoW research, proposes a fix: work shares. By sampling multiple proofs per block instead of one, work shares make the network resistant to attacks from miners with less than 51% hash power. Dr. K is already drafting a pull request to add this to Monero's code.The discussion also explores why Dr. K views proof-of-work as superior to proof-of-stake—emphasizing immutability, permissionlessness, and competitive fairness—and his own project, Quiet Network (QUI), a scalable PoW blockchain with an energy-based token (QI) designed for stable purchasing power. TIMESTAMPS: (00:02:28) Dr. K introduces himself and his background (00:04:44) Dr. K's crypto journey and early experiences (00:14:21) Dr. K's views on privacy in cryptocurrency (00:18:45) Dr. K explains why he's a proof of work maximalist (00:29:03) Discussion of proof of stake vs. proof of work (00:41:13) Dr. K introduces work shares as a solution to Monero's problems (00:48:09) Technical details of implementing work shares in Monero (01:15:06) Comparison of work shares to other proposed solutions (01:31:22) Introduction to Quiet Network and Qi (01:38:49) Closing thoughts on unity in the cryptocurrency community GUEST LINKS: https://x.com/mechanikalk Purchase Cafe & tip the farmers w/ XMR! https://gratuitas.org/ SPONSORS: Cakewallet.com, the first open-source Monero wallet for iOS. You can even exchange between XMR, BTC, LTC & more in the app! Monero.com by Cake Wallet - ONLY Monero wallet (https://monero.com/) StealthEX, an instant exchange. Go to (https://stealthex.io) to instantly exchange between Monero and 450 plus assets, w/o having to create an account or register & with no limits. WEBSITE: https://www.monerotopia.com CONTACT: monerotalk@protonmail.com ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@MoneroTalk:8 TWITTER: https://twitter.com/monerotalk FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/MoneroTalk HOST: https://twitter.com/douglastuman INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/monerotalk TELEGRAM: https://t.me/monerotopia MATRIX: https://matrix.to/#/%23monerotopia%3Amonero.social MASTODON: @Monerotalk@mastodon.social MONERO.TOWN: https://monero.town/u/monerotalkAny donation is greatly appreciated!Any donation is greatly appreciated!

Heather Mac Donald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss Mac Donald's recent article, which is critical of the changes the Trump Administration has made with the National Science Foundation. Mac Donald's article, "Trump Takes on Big Science," is available now from City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-national-science-foundation-education-grant-funding

In this episode Dominic Bowen and Professor Kimberly Clausing examine the return of tariffs to the centre of U.S. economic strategy and the risks this shift creates for the global economy. Find out more about how protectionism and populism are reshaping U.S. trade policy, why tariffs act as a hidden tax on consumers and small businesses, the political dynamics driving short-term wins over long-term stability, the impact on supply chains and export industries such as higher education, tourism, and technology, the risks of corruption and rent-seeking in tariff exemptions, and how international trust in the United States is being tested as allies confront unpredictable economic behaviour, and more.Professor Kimberly Clausing holds the Eric M. Zolt Chair in Tax Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. Professor Clausing is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. During the first part of the Biden Administration, Clausing was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis in the US Department of the Treasury, serving as the lead economist in the Office of Tax Policy. Professor Clausing has published widely on taxation, climate policy, and international trade, and is the author of Open: The Progressive Case for Free Trade, Immigration, and Global Capital (Harvard University Press, 2019). International Monetary Fund, the Hamilton Project, the Brookings Institution, the Tax Policy Center, and the Center for American Progress and has testified before the U.S. Congress on multiple occasions. She has received two Fulbright Research Awards, and her research has been supported by the National Science Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the International Centre for Tax and Development, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organised crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you're a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter. The International Risk Podcast – Reducing risk by increasing knowledge.Follow us on LinkedIn and Subscribe for all our updates!Tell us what you liked!

We've been told stress will kill us. That we need to yoga-breathe it away, book a retreat, or stuff it down with a pint of Ben & Jerry's (using your car key as a spoon… iykyk). But what if stress isn't the villain? What if it's actually the fuel for our best work? This week, we're joined by Dr. Rebecca Heiss — a stress physiologist, researcher, keynote speaker, and author of Springboard: Transform Stress to Work for You. She's also the creator of the Fearless Stress Formula and has been recognized by the National Science Foundation for her groundbreaking research. Her mission? To help us stop fearing fear, stop fighting stress, and instead transform both into fuel for growth, performance, and purpose. Rebecca brings her science background together with real talk and humor, making the hard stuff (like stress) not only make sense but feel doable. She's passionate about helping women shift out of survival mode and into a place of clarity, confidence, and community. Together, we dive into why stress isn't something to eliminate but energy we can reframe, channel, and actually use to show up stronger. We explore: Why your “effortless, overwhelmed” game isn't working The three steps to stop fighting stress and start using it How to “invite the tiger to tea” (yes, really) Why service and community are the real antidote to overwhelm The competitive advantage women have when it comes to stress Because friend, stress isn't proof you're broken. It's proof you care. And when you learn to use it, it becomes your edge. Connect with Rebecca: Website: www.rebeccaheiss.com Book: https://a.co/d/6ReB5Nr  IG: https://www.instagram.com/drrebeccaheiss/  Related Podcast Episodes The Stress Paradox: Why We Need Stress (and How to Make It Work for Us) with Dr. Sharon Horesh Bergquist | 294 How to Become Panic Proof with Dr. Nicole Cain | 269 Stress Less and Fear(Less) with Rebecca Heiss | 181 Share the Love: If you found this episode insightful, please share it with a friend, tag us on social media, and leave a review on your favorite podcast platform!

In this episode of Sci on the Fly, host Connie Bolte, current Executive Branch Fellow at the National Science Foundation, speaks with Dr. Angela Bednarek, who leads Pew Charitable Trusts' scientific advancement portfolio. Dr. Bednarek's AAAS STPF Fellowship at the U.S. Department of State revealed how researchers often failed to provide timely, relevant information to policymakers grappling with complex environmental issues. This experience led her to establish the Impact Funders Forum, a global collaborative that brings together funders across diverse fields to develop more effective strategies for supporting policy-relevant research. The conversation explores "engaged research," a collaborative approach that involves stakeholders throughout the entire research process, from co-developing research questions to ongoing implementation. Dr. Bednarek emphasizes a fundamental shift in researcher mindset: moving from "how can my research help" to "what challenges do decision-makers face, and how can I design research to address those specific needs." While these approaches aren't entirely new, there is growing recognition of their necessity for tackling complex societal challenges in an increasingly interconnected world. This podcast does not necessarily reflect the views of AAAS, its Council, Board of Directors, officers, or members. AAAS is not responsible for the accuracy of this material. AAAS has made this material available as a public service, but this does not constitute endorsement by the association.

Think about the times you've assumed someone's behavior revealed exactly what they were thinking. Nicholas Epley, our guest for this episode, explains this as correspondence bias and, through his book Mindwise, teaches us about the concept of correspondence bias and explains how we often believe that a person's actions correspond directly to their mental state. You'll hear about his research into social cognition and how it reveals that while humans are generally adept at reading others, we frequently overestimate our accuracy. The episode also covers practical experiments on how engaging with strangers can significantly boost our happiness, despite our fears and misconceptions, and the importance of curiosity in overcoming social anxieties and making positive first impressions. Listen and Learn: How our unique “sixth sense” of mind reading, our ability to understand, predict, and connect with others' invisible thoughts, shapes human connection and survivalWhy our ability to read other people's minds is far less accurate than we think, and what makes understanding others such a difficult challengeWhy we often overestimate how well we understand those closest to us, and how even long-term partners are not as accurate at reading each other's thoughts and feelings as they believeWhat drives our brains to form first impressions in an instant, how overconfidence shapes the way we read others, and why moment-to-moment cues like facial expressions play a bigger role in social interactions than we often realize?How can you make a great first impression without overthinking body language or tricks, simply by staying curious and genuinely interested in the person you're talking to?How correspondence bias makes us assume people's actions reflect their true thoughts and feelings, why this can lead to misjudgments, and how showing confidence, curiosity, or kindness can positively influence how others respond to youCan striking up a conversation with a stranger boost happiness more than staying to yourself, even though we usually expect the interaction to go badly?Resources: Mindwise: Why We Misunderstand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want: https://bookshop.org/a/30734/9780307743565 Nicholas' website: https://www.nicholasepley.com/About Nicholas EpleyNicholas Epley is the John Templeton Keller Distinguished Service Professor of Behavior Science and Director of the Center for Decision Research at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He studies social cognition—how thinking people think about other thinking people—to understand why smart people so routinely misunderstand each other. He teaches an ethics and well-being course to MBA students called Designing a Good Life. His research has been featured by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Wired, and National Public Radio, among many others, and has been funded by the National Science Foundation and the Templeton Foundation. He has been awarded the 2008 Theoretical Innovation Award from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2011 Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology from the American Psychological Association, the 2015 Book Prize for the Promotion of Social and Personality Science, and the 2018 Career Trajectory Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. Epley was named a "professor to watch" by the Financial Times, one of the "World's Best 40 under 40 Business School Professors" by Poets and Quants, and one of the 100 Most Influential in Business Ethics by Ethisphere. He is the author of Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want, and of a forthcoming book to be published in the fall of 2026 tentatively titled, Dare to connectRelated Episodes413. Validate with Caroline Fleck393. Supercommunicators with Charles Duhigg374. Developing and Deepening Connections with Adam Dorsay360. The Laws of Connection with David Robson329. The Power of Curiosity with Scott ShigeokaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this week's episode, both of our storytellers transform into someone they admire—one quite literally, the other more figuratively.Part 1: While juggling climate science studies and a budding comedy career, Rollie Williams finds an unexpected niche impersonating his environmental hero, Al Gore.Part 2: Scott Acton longs to follow in Hemingway's footsteps, but when his English teacher squashes his writing dreams, he reluctantly accepts his role as “the computer guy.”Rollie Williams is a Brooklyn-based comedian, video editor, and guy with both student debt and a Climate Science & Policy degree from Columbia University. He is the creator and host of the digital comedy series Climate Town. In the past few years, the channel has amassed 600,000 subscribers, several millions views, and a handful of awards. Rollie is also the co-creator and co-host of podcast The Climate Denier's Playbook. Formerly, Rollie performed a monthly comedy show 'An Inconvenient Talk Show' doing sketches and comedic deep dives by pairing comedians (SNL, The Daily Show, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, etc) together with climate scientists (NASA, MIT, Harvard). When he's not doing climate stuff, Rollie plays an unhealthy amount of billiards and recently achieved his dream of commentating for the World Cup of Pool in England. Scott Acton is Professor and Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Virginia. He did his undergraduate studies at Virginia Tech and graduate studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Scott's laboratory is called VIVA – Virginia Image and Video Analysis. They work on image analysis problems from imaging for Alzheimer's disease to analyzing classroom videos for improving elementary math education. Scott also recently worked for the National Science Foundation as a program director for programs in signal processing and artificial intelligence. When he's not doing research at UVA, you will find him in the mountains on his purple mountain bike.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Pamela Karlan interviews her Stanford Law School colleague Professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette about actions by the Trump administration that Ouellette says are undermining scientific research and jeopardizing America's longstanding global leadership in medicine and innovation. Drawing on an essay she penned for Just Security, Ouellette explains how decades of bipartisan support for federally funded science—an engine of American innovation since World War II—is now at risk. From canceling grants already approved through peer review, to capping essential “indirect cost” reimbursements, she details how these moves threaten not just labs and universities but also patients, whose clinical trials are being abruptly halted.  Ouellette also highlights a second front in her current scholarship: how drug development policy can be better aligned with public health needs. As a member of a National Academies committee, she recently co-authored a report showing that both private investment and federal funding often fail to prioritize diseases causing the greatest suffering. Links:Lisa Larrimore Ouellette >>> Stanford Law pageThe Trump Administration's Multi-Front Assault on Federal Research Funding  >>> Just Security pageStanford Law's Lisa Ouellette Helps Shape New Report on Drug Development Reform  >>> Stanford Lawyer online featureConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Research Funding (05:01) The Competitive Grant Process (15:01) Addressing Disease Burden (20:00) Impacts of Stopped Clinical Trials (25:01) The Role of Federal Investment in Innovation 

The Trump administration's crackdown on universities across the country for alleged antisemitism has made its way from the East Coast to the West Coast. Earlier this month, the administration demanded the University of California Los Angeles pay $1-billion to the federal government to resolve what it's calling civil rights violations. That was on top of more than half a billion dollars in cuts to federal research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and other federal sources. But, a federal judge on Friday said the cuts to UCLA's funding violated a previous order and ruled some of the funding must be restored. To talk more about the impact the funding cuts have had, we spoke with Dr. Aradhna Tripati, a professor of climate science and geochemistry at UCLA. Joining her in the conversation is Monique Trinh, a program Manager in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine.And in the headlines: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is set to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House, Secretary of State Marco Rubio defends the department's decision to halt visitor visas for people from Gaza, and more National Guard troops are headed to DC at the behest of Trump.Show Notes:Call Congress – 202-224-3121Check out Save Our Science – https://sites.google.com/view/saveourscienceinitiative/home?authuser=0Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

Robert Masse is the founder of Astrolabe Analytics, a battery software startup improving safety and extending the lifespan of battery-powered fleets. Backed by grants and contracts from the U.S. Air Force and National Science Foundation, Astrolabe's work bridges cutting-edge research with real-world applications. Robert launched Astrolabe while earning his PhD in Materials Science at the University of Washington. With over 15 years of experience researching materials for batteries and catalysts at UW, Pacific Northwest National Lab, and University of Wisconsin–Madison, Robert brings rare technical depth to the fast-evolving battery industry.

There are many benefits to cultivating a positive mindset, including reduced stress and better mental health. But did you know that positive thinking plays a major role when it comes to how well we age and even how long we live?   With the start of school just around the corner and schedules changing, this is a great time to revisit this conversation with Dr. Catherine Sanderson. Whitney and Dr. Sanderson discuss her book, The Positive Shift: Mastering Mindset to Improve Happiness, Health and Longevity.   They explore the latest research on mindset and discuss how negative beliefs about aging can dampen your experience and even curtail your time on Earth. While adopting a positive mindset requires effort, Dr. Sanderson shares science-based strategies that can enhance your happiness and quality of life now, as well as boost your longevity.   Dr. Sanderson holds a bachelor's degree in psychology with a specialization in health and development from Stanford, as well as both a master's and a doctorate in psychology from Princeton. Her research has received grant funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health.   Here's what to look forward to in today's episode: What inspired Dr. Sanderson to write her book The difference between a growth mindset and a fixed mindset Why labeling your child as “smart” can cause them to have a fixed mindset, and what kind of compliments we can give to help foster a growth mindset Ways that we can nurture our growth mindset Shifting our mindset when it comes to stress and anxiety How mindset can impact longevity How negative thoughts about aging can impact us and how different cultures look at aging Why comparison is the thief of joy Ways we can invite more happiness into our lives   Ready to reclaim connection and presence in your life? Then check out the FREE Tend to Your Soul Toolkit!   Join the waitlist for the next round of Season to Shift starting Fall 2025   Connect with Whitney: Instagram l Website l 5 Days to Less Stress, More Satisfaction l Tend to Your Soul Toolkit l 10 Soulful Journaling Prompts | Electric Ideas Podcast   Connect with Catherine: Instagram | Twitter | Book: Positive Shift

In this episode of Birds of a Feather Talk Together, we welcome back Jenna McCullough, a third-generation birdwatcher from Boise, Idaho, with a PhD in Biology from the University of New Mexico. Currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Kentucky and soon to begin a prestigious National Science Foundation fellowship at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and UCLA, Jenna has traveled the globe in search of one of the world's most fascinating bird families—the kingfishers.Join hosts Shannon Hackett, John Bates, RJ Pole, and Amanda Pole as they dive into stories of rare and colorful kingfisher sightings from around the world, birdwatching adventures in exotic locations, and the science behind these incredible birds. Whether you're a passionate birder, a wildlife enthusiast, or just love hearing about nature and travel, this fun and engaging episode will inspire your next birding trip.Here are links to our social and YouTube pages, give us a follow: YouTube Instagram TikTok BlueSky

Astronomers have discovered a companion star in an incredibly tight orbit around Betelgeuse using the NASA and U.S. National Science Foundation-funded ‘Alopeke instrument on Gemini North, one half of the International Gemini Observatory, partly funded by the NSF and operated by NSF NOIRLab. In this podcast, Dr. Steve Howell describes the possible discovery of this long sought after companion and future observations research into this type of star system.    Bios:  - Rob Sparks is in the Communications, Education and Engagement group at NSF's NOIRLab in Tucson, Arizona. - Dr. Howell has spent over 40 years as a professional astronomer. During that time, he developed digital (CCD) imaging instrumentation and data reduction techniques space and ground-based telescopes, performed research in a wide variety of astronomical areas and collaborated with hundreds of astronomers world-wide. His areas of expertise are instrumentation, interacting binaries, stellar evolution, and exoplanets. Howell's professional work has providing community service to the field of astronomy as well as formal and informal STEM education. Links: NOIRLab Press Release: https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2523/ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adeaaf https://www.nasa.gov/science-research/astrophysics/nasa-scientist-finds-predicted-companion-star-to-betelgeuse/ https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2523/ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/21/science/betelgeuse-star-companion.html NOIRLab social media channels can be found at: https://www.facebook.com/NOIRLabAstro https://twitter.com/NOIRLabAstro https://www.instagram.com/noirlabastro/ https://www.youtube.com/noirlabastro   We've added a new way to donate to 365 Days of Astronomy to support editing, hosting, and production costs.  Just visit: https://www.patreon.com/365DaysOfAstronomy and donate as much as you can! Share the podcast with your friends and send the Patreon link to them too!  Every bit helps! Thank you! ------------------------------------ Do go visit http://www.redbubble.com/people/CosmoQuestX/shop for cool Astronomy Cast and CosmoQuest t-shirts, coffee mugs and other awesomeness! http://cosmoquest.org/Donate This show is made possible through your donations.  Thank you! (Haven't donated? It's not too late! Just click!) ------------------------------------ The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Planetary Science Institute. http://www.psi.edu Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org.

It's a weird time to be an environmental scientist. The proposed cuts to federal science funding in the United States are profound, and if they come to pass, it's not clear what American science will look like on the other side. But for many researchers, science is much more than a career: it's a community, lifestyle, and sometimes even a family business. Outside/In producer Justine Paradis tagged along with researchers in the field to learn what it's like to be a scientist right now. We visit one of the oldest atmospheric monitoring stations in the country, and venture onto the Finger Lakes with an ad-hoc group of researchers struggling to understand an emerging threat to water quality: harmful algal blooms.This is a glimpse of the people behind the headlines, navigating questions both personal and professional, and trying to find ways to continue their work, even as much of their funding is simultaneously collapsing around them. Featuring Bob Howarth, Joshua Thienpont, Irena Creed, Nico Trick, Anita Dedić, and Tom Butler, with appearances from Roxanne Marino, Renee Santoro, and Garreth Smith.  SUPPORTTo share your questions and feedback with Outside/In, call the show's hotline and leave us a voicemail. The number is 1-844-GO-OTTER. No question is too serious or too silly.Outside/In is made possible with listener support. Click here to become a sustaining member of Outside/In. Subscribe to our newsletter (it's free!).Follow Outside/In on Instagram and BlueSky, or join our private discussion group on Facebook. LINKSNY67, one of the oldest atmospheric monitoring stations in the U.S., was established by Gene Likens, who helped discover acid rain in the 1960s (The Guardian). More on the cuts to the National Science Foundation from The Guardian. It references a Federal Reserve Bank analysis, finding that for every dollar spent on R&D by the major federal agencies, there's been a return to U.S. taxpayers of $1.50-$3.00—in other words, 150-300%.The American Association for the Advancement of Science has been tracking the federal science budget for decades, and publishes an ongoing analysis breaking down the proposed cuts.A map tracking harmful algal blooms in New York State. In the early 2000s, some wondered if seeding the ocean with iron could be a climate solution. They hoped that the iron would trigger the growth of marine phytoplankton and sequester carbon in the ocean. But when Charlie Trick and his colleagues studied it, they learned it had unintended consequences: it triggered the growth of highly toxic algal blooms.A paper on the rise of ammonia, using data from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program and co-authored by Tom Butler.A letter condemning the proposed cuts to science in FY26, signed by more than 1200 members of the National Academy of Sciences. CREDITS Produced by Justine Paradis. For full credits and transcript, visit outsideinradio.org. WIN A NEW CAR OR 25K IN CASH DURING NHPR'S SUMMER RAFFLE! GET YOUR TICKETS HERE.

Thursday, July 24th, 2025Today, Judge Xinis bars ICE from detaining Mr. Abrego in Tennessee and Judge Crenshaw orders Mr. Abrego's release on bond; The Wall Street Journal drops another bombshell reporting that Pam Bondi told Trump he was in the Epstein files two months ago; a DoD watchdog reports that Kegseth's Signal chat messages came from an email marked classified; 140 members of the National Science Foundation have penned a letter of dissent amid fear of retaliation; Louisville Kentucky is changing its jail policy to get off the “sanctuary city list”; The Pentagon withdraws the Marines from Los Angeles; California's Department of Motor Vehicles is seeking to ban Tesla from selling cars in the state because of how it presented automated driving; and Allison delivers the good news.Thank You, PiqueGet 10% off for life with link piquelife.com/dailybeans.Guest: Yasmin Radjy of SwingLeft SwingLeft“Ground Truth”: Swing Left's Big Bet for 2026https://secure.actblue.com/donate/sl-house-2026?refcode=ig-20250703@swingleft.bsky.social - Bluesky, Swing Left (@swingleft) - InstagramStoriesJustice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files | WSJHegseth Signal messages came from email classified ‘SECRET,' watchdog told | The Washington PostAmid Fear of Retaliation, N.S.F. Workers Sign Letter of Dissent | The New York TimesTesla fights two court battles over claims it misled consumers about automated driving | The Washington PostLouisville changing jail policy to get off 'sanctuary city' list | WLKYPentagon withdraws 700 Marines from Los Angeles | AP NewsGood Trouble Good evening, lovely purveyors of the Bean. I've heard that the tangerine toddler's regime is trying to erase our historic parks.  We might not be able (yet!) to save them but we CAN do this: https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/save-our-signsBasically, take pictures & upload them to the website. Every tiny bit of resistance will be a work of art. From The Good NewsSave Our SignsCrocheting the National Parks by Krista Ann | Quarto At A GlanceNATIONAL SEWING MONTH | SeptemberResistance resources for political newbieskindergarten book list - Amazon Wish ListStatement from Parish of St. AnnAPPEARANCES – DANA GOLDBERGReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Donate to the MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory FundMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beans Federal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back Described as having “something approaching rock star status” in her field by The New York Times Magazine, Joan C. Williams is a scholar of social inequality and a prominent public intellectual. Williams is the author of 12 books and 116 academic articles in law, sociology, psychology, medical and management journals. She is the 11th most cited legal scholar both in critical theory and employment law. She is a Sullivan Professor and the Founding Director of the Equality Action Center at UC Law San Francisco, former Founding Director of the Center for WorkLife Law. She has three TED/TEDx talks, including one with over 1.3 million views. Her 2016 essay on why Trump attracted so many non-college voters went viral, with over 3.7 million reads, becoming the most-read article in the 90-year history of Harvard Business Review. She is widely known for “bias interrupters,”—an evidence-based metrics-driven approach to eradicating implicit bias introduced in the Harvard Business Review in 2014. The website  biasinterrupters.org with open-sourced toolkits for individuals and organizations has been accessed over 500,000 times. She was profiled in Financial Times and has published on class dynamics in American politics in The New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Politico, The Hill, the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. Her work on class includes her upcoming book Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class – And How to Win Them Back (forthcoming St. Martin's, May 2025) and her critically acclaimed 2017 book White Working Class – one of three books President Biden carried, dog-eared and annotated, during his 2020 presidential campaign, according to the Washington Post. Her work on gender includes What Works for Women at Work: Four Patterns Working Women Need to Know (NYU Press, 2014) and her prize-winning Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It (Oxford, 1999). Williams' work helped create the field of work-family studies, modern workplace flexibility policies, and the study of maternal wall bias in sociology. Her work on race includes eight studies documenting how racial and gender bias play out in today's workplaces, including two focused specifically on women of color: Pinning down the Jellyfish: Racial and Gender Bias against Women in Tech (2022) and Double Jeopardy? Gender Bias against Women of Color in STEM (2014). She is a leading voice on diversity, equity, and inclusion; with her team, she has published 39 articles published in Harvard Business Review. In 2014, she launched Bias Interrupters, a data-driven approach to interrupting bias in organizations whose website has been downloaded over half a million times. Williams has received awards in several different fields. For her contributions to the legal profession, she is one of the few people to receive both the American Bar Foundation's Outstanding Scholar Award (2012) and the ABA's Margaret Brent Women Award for Lawyers of Achievement (2006).  For her contributions to the work-family field, she received the Work Life Legacy Award from the Families and Work Institute (2014) and MSOM Responsible Research Award in Operations Management (2022). For her contributions to women's advancement in engineering, she received the President's Award from the Society of Women Engineers (2019). For contributions to psychology, she received the Distinguished Publication Award from the Association for Women in Psychology (2005). Her work has been funded by three National Science Foundation grants, as well as grants from Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the W. W. Kellogg Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She holds degrees from Yale, Harvard, and MIT as well as an honorary PhD from Utrecht University in the Netherlands. Join us Monday's and Thursday's at 8EST for our Twice Weekly Happy Hour Hangout's !  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift

Thursday, June 26th, 2025Today, Republicans capitulated to the lies that spewed forth from the mouth of Emil Bove in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Wednesday; Zohran Mamdani defeated Cuomo in the New York City mayoral primary sending another message that people power is strong than the political money machine; the Trump administration is kicking the National Science Foundation out of its offices as HUD moves in; a suspect linked to a Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing has died in federal custody; Representative LaMonica McIver has pled not guilty to the ridiculous charges brought against her by parking lot lawyer Alina Habba; a federal judge has halted Trump's bid to end collective bargaining rights for federal workers; a judge holds a hearing over bail conditions for Kilmar Abrego Garcia; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, Naked WinesTo get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to nakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password.Thank You, Native PathGet up to 66% Off, free shipping, and a 365-Day Money Back Guarantee at nativekrill.com/dailybeansCheck out Dana's social media campaign highlighting LGBTQ+ heroes every day during Pride Month - IG|dgcomedy, Dana Goldberg (@dgcomedy.bsky.social)Protected Whistleblower Disclosure of Erez Reuveni - Free Bonus Episode of UnJustified Guest: Nick SchwellenbachStephen Miller's Financial Stake in ICE Contractor PalantirProject On Government Oversight (POGO)@schwellenbach - Blue Sky StoriesAaron Rupar: "SCHIFF: Did you suggest telling the courts 'fuck you' in any manner? BOVE: I don't recall SCHIFF: You just don't remember that" — BlueskyRep. McIver pleads not guilty to assault charges following immigration center visit - ABC NewsTrump Administration Ousts National Science Foundation from Headquarters Building | Scientific AmericanFederal judge halts Trump's order to end collective bargaining rights for many federal workers | CNN PoliticsDaniel Park, suspect linked to Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing, dies in federal custody, Bureau of Prisons says | CBS NewsGood Trouble: The new Battle Buddies program asks veterans to sign up to attend public immigration court hearings, escort Afghan allies into and out of court and “show silent support” for individuals involved. Battle Buddies — #AfghanEvacAdvocates recruit vets to attend Afghan allies' immigration hearings | Military Times From The Good NewsZohran Mamdani pledged millions to trans health care if elected NYC mayor. He just won a key victory. - LGBTQ NationLA County Overdose PreventionLA Community Health Project - Los AngelesTexas Equal Access FundTEA Fund Become A GEM - YouTubeCurative ConnectionsRabbit.orgWaffles, a Netherland Dwarf & Bunny Rabbit Mix in Baltimore, MD | PetfinderReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good Trouble Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts