Podcasts about national science foundation nsf

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

Competitiveness in advanced telecommunications technologies is critical to American innovation and national security. The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently announced the new Verticals-enabling Intelligent NEtwork Systems (VINES) program to foster U.S. leadership in advanced telecommunications and foster innovative real-world applications. NSF Acting Assistant Director of Computer and Information Science and Engineering Ellen Zegura says that VINES is focused on advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, which will bring significant advantages in cost reduction and improved network reliability and availability through automation of processes. AI-native networks, Zegura adds, create more "capable" networks, which open the door for new use of wireless networks. Zegura also discusses the collaborative aspect of the program. VINES brings together industry leaders like Intel and Qualcomm with federal agencies, as well as partnerships with the governments of Finland, Japan, India and Sweden. This global collaboration leverages resources and strengthens network operation and interoperability across national boundaries, which are often vulnerable points, Zegura explained.

We welcomed Dr. Robert Bishop of Texas A&M University to The Space Show for a wide-ranging discussion on space exploration, technology, and education—highlighting Texas A&M's expanding leadership in space science, engineering, and research.After introducing the program and reminding listeners that The Space Show is a nonprofit, listener-supported initiative, I welcomed our guest, Dr. Robert Bishop, Vice Chancellor and Dean of Engineering at Texas A&M. Dr. Bishop began by outlining the university's major space and science research initiatives. While state-supported, he explained, much of the research is funded through contracts and grants from NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other agencies. A key development is a new 400,000-square-foot research facility under construction near NASA's Johnson Space Center, featuring simulated lunar and Martian environments for both academic and industry use.Dr. Bishop addressed concerns about potential federal science funding cuts. He expressed confidence in adapting through more efficient funding models, such as forming a 501(c)(3) and expanding contract-based research. He emphasized that contracts should supplement—not replace—traditional grant funding, especially for open-ended basic research. He also called for a reevaluation of indirect cost structures to better sustain future research.We explored Texas A&M's national security-related research, including work in cybersecurity, hypersonics, and space defense. Dr. Bishop underscored the university's partnerships with federal and military organizations and emphasized the need to safeguard critical infrastructure amid rising global competition in space. He expressed concern about the uncertain future of U.S. space dominance.Dr. Bishop also introduced the TAMU Spirit platform, developed by Aegis Aerospace, which will host up to 12 experiments every six months aboard the International Space Station (ISS). While acknowledging the ISS's limited remaining operational timeline, he confirmed that contingency planning is underway for future commercial platforms.On space launch, I raised concerns about reliance on SpaceX and recent Starship test failures. Dr. Bishop noted that launch systems fall outside his expertise but acknowledged the importance of diversified infrastructure.We discussed Texas A&M's new space engineering program, which began as a master's degree in Fall 2023 and will expand to a bachelor's program in Fall 2024. The program integrates disciplines such as agriculture, architecture, and public policy, with a focus on sustaining human life on the Moon and Mars. While the university is not involved in space medicine or weapons research, it conducts foundational research in hypersonics and maintains active collaborations with astronauts and researchers at JSC.Our conversation also touched on the broader Texas space ecosystem, with contributions from UT Austin, Rice, and Baylor. Dr. Bishop emphasized the importance of interdisciplinary research—including studies on the environmental impact of space exploration and the use of small modular nuclear reactors for lunar power. In response to a listener question, he noted that while A&M is not currently working on space-based solar power, they are actively researching nuclear technologies for both Earth and space applications.Dr. Bishop spoke to the surging demand for engineering education at Texas A&M, which enrolls over 25,000 engineering students but still cannot meet national workforce needs. On the topic of AI, he described early efforts to create a comparative framework across disciplines, with ethical considerations woven throughout the curriculum—not as standalone courses, but through an integrated, vertical approach. He stressed academia's responsibility in helping industry navigate the ethical challenges of space exploration.In response to one of the many listener questions for this program, we discussed commercial opportunities in cislunar space, including communication, landing, and timing infrastructure. Dr. Bishop described cislunar space as a testbed for Earth-beneficial technologies like space medicine and advanced systems. We also explored concepts such as cycling trajectories between Earth and the Moon, space tourism, and large-scale orbital construction. While he believes current engineering capabilities can support such ambitions, he pointed to the need for more robust launch infrastructure Dr. Bishop highlighted Texas A&M's contributions to food production research aboard the ISS and noted the ongoing challenges of limited resources and talent shortages. He spoke positively about the university's close ties with government stakeholders and voiced support for bold space development goals. Before concluding, we briefly touched on student enthusiasm, space settlement, O'Neilian colonies, superstructures, and the emerging potential of space medicine.We invite you to share your thoughts and questions for Dr. Bishop on our Space Show blog or Substack page: doctorspace.substack.com.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4388: Sunday, June 22: 12 PM PDT; Dr. Karen Lloyd re her book “Intra-terrestrials: Discovering the Strangest Life on Earth”Broadcast 4389: Dr. Karen Lloyd | Sunday 22 Jun 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. Karen LloydDr. Lloyd talks about her new book, "intra-Terrestrials: Discovering the strangest life on Earth."Broadcast 4390: Dr. Saralyn Mark | Tuesday 24 Jun 2025 700PM PTGuests: Dr. Saralyn MarkDr. Mark on advancing human spaceflight and health here on Earth and in space.Broadcast 4391: Hotel Mars with Doug Messier | Wednesday 25 Jun 2025 930AM PTGuests: John Batchelor, Dr. David Livingston, Douglas MessierDoug plans on addressing all things SpaceX, Starship and Elon Musk.Broadcast 4392: BY ZOOM: Dr. Ersilia Vaudo from France | Thursday 26 Jun 2025 930AM PTGuests: Dr. Ersilia VaudoDr. Vaudo will highlight her new book, The Story of Astrophysics in Five Revolutions.Broadcast 4393: Casey Dreier of The Planetary Society | Friday 27 Jun 2025 930AM PTGuests: Casey DreierCasey address the skinny budget for NASA science and space project cutbacksBroadcast 4394: Dr. Young Bay | Sunday 29 Jun 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. Young K. BaeDr. Bay addresses the development of fusion energyLive Streaming is at https://www.thespaceshow.com/content/listen-live with the following live streaming sites:Stream Guys https://player.streamguys.com/thespaceshow/sgplayer3/player.php#FastServhttps://ic2646c302.fastserv.com/stream Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe

NSF NOIRLab, funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), has released the fulldome planetarium show, Messengers of Time and Space. This free-to-download production brings the combination of the International Gemini Observatory, funded in part by NSF and operated by NSF NOIRLab, and NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory, funded by NSF and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science and jointly operated by NOIRLab and DOE's SLAC, to the forefront of humanity's quest to understand our ever-changing cosmos. This podcast discusses the production process of this planetarium show and tells listeners where how they can view the show.   Bios:  - Rob Sparks is in the Communications, Education and Engagement group at NSF's NOIRLab in Tucson, Arizona. - Peter Michaud is a member of the Communications, Education and Engagement group at Gemini Observatory in Hawaii. - Ron Proctor is an experienced science communicator and immersive media producer specializing in astronomy data visualization. With a background in planetarium education and a deep knowledge of Blender, Ron transforms complex scientific discoveries into compelling visual experiences for planetarium domes, Science on a Sphere, media releases and public outreach. Currently at NSF NOIRLab, Ron leads the creation of 360º content and tools that bring cutting-edge research to general audiences. Ron's work bridges the gap between scientists and the public, driven by a passion for storytelling, education, and technological innovation.   Links: NOIRLab Press Release: https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2518/  Messengers Of Space And Time Download: https://noirlab.edu/public/videos/messengers/  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.

On May 1st, 2025, the UAP Disclosure Fund held its first-ever UAP / UFOs experts panel in Washington, DC. The event was attended by lawmakers Anna Paulina-Luna, Eric Burlison, and Tim Burchett. The final presentation was made by Dr. Anna Brady-Estevez, who has been working behind the scenes for UAP transparency for some time. Today is part one of a two-part exclusive interview with Anna as we explore her work to bring the UAP reality to entrepreneurs, the world of finance, blockchain, space, and more. Dr. Anna Brady-Estevez is a distinguished leader in deep technology investment, innovation policy, and science-driven entrepreneurship. She is the Founding Partner of American DeepTech, a deep technology investment firm dedicated to advancing transformative technologies across sectors such as space, energy, biotechnology, AI and secure digital systems.Anna is a Kauffman Fellow investor, ranked as the #7 woman globally, in the Kauffman Fellows Fund Returners Index (a ranking similar to Forbes Midas list).In her previous role as a Program Director at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Dr. Brady-Estevez managed the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) portfolio, directing $250 million in grants to early-stage startups. She directed the commercial national portfolios in Energy, Space tech, Clean tech, Digital Assets & Blockchain and Chemical Technologies at NSF. Her early stage portfolio has achieved more than $8.5 billion in follow-on financing and over $17 billion in total company valuations for companies like Ascend Elements, Epirus, Stoke Space Technologies, and Syzygy Plasmonics. Dr. Brady-Estevez has also served as a Senior Investment Advisor and Venture Partner at the U.S. Small Business Administration's SBIC program, which invests over $5 billion annually in venture capital and private equity. Her government service includes co-chairing the U.S. Space Economy Interagency Working Group alongside NASA and the U.S. Digital Assets R&D Agenda alongside the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Segment Producer: Ali Travis Links:Linktree: https://linktr.ee/thegoodtroubleshowPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/TheGoodTroubleShow YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheGoodTroubleShowX/Twitter: https://twitter.com/GoodTroubleShow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thegoodtroubleshow/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@goodtroubleshowFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/The-Good-Trouble-Show-With-Matt-Ford-106009712211646 Threads: @TheGoodTroubleShowBlueSky: @TheGoodTroubleShowBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-good-trouble-show-with-matt-ford--5808897/support.

Dean's Chat hosts, Drs. Jeffrey Jensen and Johanna Richey welcome Dr. David Armstrong to the podcast.  This discussion wasn't about the "Diabetic Foot" as much as it was getting to know what makes the world leader in "Diabetic Foot" click.  His background and fascination with technology, intro to podiatry (he considered law) to transforming clinical opportunities at Kern Hospital and UT- San Antonio.   Dr. Armstrong is Distinguished Professor of Surgery and Neurological Surgery with Tenure at the University of Southern California. Dr. Armstrong holds a Master of Science in Tissue Repair and Wound Healing from the University of Wales College of Medicine and a PhD from the University of Manchester College of Medicine, where he was appointed Visiting Professor of Medicine. He is founder and co-Director of the Southwestern Academic Limb Salvage Alliance (SALSA).  Dr. Armstrong has produced more than 720 peer-reviewed research papers in dozens of scholarly medical journals as well as over 120 books or book chapters. He is founding co- Editor of the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) Clinical Care of the Diabetic Foot, now in its fourth edition.  Armstrong is Director of USC's National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Center to Stream Healthcare in Place (C2SHiP) which places him at the nexus of the merger of consumer electronics, wearables, and medical devices in an effort to maximize hospital-free and activity-rich days. Dr. Armstrong was selected as one of the first six International Wound Care Ambassadors and is the recipient of numerous awards and degrees by universities and international medical organizations including the inaugural Georgetown Distinguished Award for Diabetic Limb Salvage. In 2008, he was the 25th and youngest-ever member elected to the Podiatric Medicine Hall of Fame. He was the first surgeon to be appointed University Distinguished Outreach Professor at the University of Arizona. He was also the first podiatric surgeon to be selected as President of Faculty at Keck School of Medicine of USC. Furthermore, he was the first podiatric surgeon to become a member of the Society of Vascular Surgery, and the first US podiatric surgeon named fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, Glasgow. He is the 2010 and youngest ever recipient of both the ADA's Roger Pecoraro Award and 2023 recipient of the ISDF's Karel Bakker Award, the highest awards given in the field. Dr. Armstrong is past Chair of Scientific Sessions for the ADA's Foot Care Council, and a past member of the National Board of Directors of the American Diabetes Association. He sits on the Infectious Disease Society of America's (IDSA) Diabetic Foot Infection Advisory Committee and is the US appointed delegate to the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). Dr. Armstrong is the founder and co-chair of the International Diabetic Foot Conference (DF-Con), the largest annual international symposium on the diabetic foot in the world. He is also the Founding President of the American Limb Preservation Society (ALPS), a medical and surgical society dedicated to building interdisciplinary teams to eliminate preventable amputation in the USA and worldwide. https://limbpreservationsociety.org/ https://bakodx.com/ https://bmef.org/ www.explorepodmed.org https://podiatrist2be.com/  

In this timely and urgent episode, we explore the devastating impact of recent budget cuts and defunding of the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the U.S. scientific community. Originally planning to discuss Wood Ducks, our conversation quickly shifted to the broader crisis facing science in America today.Join married ornithologists John and Shannon as they share firsthand insights into how these funding cuts are affecting scientific research, biodiversity studies, and the future of environmental conservation. With Shannon also bringing a Canadian perspective, the discussion highlights both domestic and international implications of these policy decisions.This is a must-listen episode for anyone passionate about science, environmental policy, and the future of research in North America. Be sure to subscribe and stay tuned for our upcoming episode focused specifically on Wood Ducks.

Send us a textToday, we are joined by Ariel Parker, Director of Partnerships and Legacy at the Center for Engineering MechanoBiology (CEMB)–a science and technology center funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The CEMB represents faculty across various disciplines at multiple institutions within mechanobiology, an interdisciplinary field exploring how physical forces affect living things. In her role, Ariel manages the educational programs, recruits new students, provides first-hand research experiences, organizes a postdoc preview day and much, much more. While Ariel's role doesn't require using a pipette anymore, she has made use of translational skills, such as successful project planning and knowing what questions to ask during the planning process. “A good researcher thinks not only about today, but their Tuesday, 3 months from now,” explains Ariel. Two of the favorite things about her job are the diversity of the tasks and responsibilities, and working with her colleagues. A challenge that Ariel encounters in her role is, of course, funding and the uncertainty this can create in providing sustainability for CEMB. Looking back at some of the events Ariel has organized for K-12 outreach, she recalls an outreach day where students conducted experiments with venus flytrap plants. The event allowed the students to have memorable experiences beyond simply learning the science. “Exposure, equity and access–those three things allow us to change outcomes for people,” Ariel explains. One piece of advice from Ariel is to embrace pursuing your interests broadly to find your perfect fit.   Tune into this episode to hear Ariel share:How her values drive her decisions in her career path Why there is no such thing as useless knowledge Reach out to Ariel: LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/ariel-parker/Email: pariel@seas.upenn.eduIf you enjoyed this episode, also listen to:Ep 36: Sista, Sista! Graduate School Years - The WorkEp 12: Immunology and squidTHE ADMISSIONS GAME - SATIRE EDITIONYour satirical guide to elite college admissions by the fictional counselor to the...Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify Support the Show: WeLoveSciencePodcast.com Reach out to Fatu:www.linkedin.com/in/fatubmInstagram: @thee_fatu_band LoveSciencePodcast@gmail.com Reach out to Shekerah:www.linkedin.com/in/shekerah-primus and LoveSciencePodcast@gmail.com Music from Pixabay: Future Artificial Intelligence Technology 130 by TimMoorMusic from https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Scott_Holmes: Hotshot by ScottHolmesMusic

I start this interview with a super simple question: where is the Arctic? As it turns out, the answer may not be so simple. In fact, it's a serious question that invokes geopolitical conflicts that seem to be undermining the "exceptionalism" of the Arctic. ►In this interview, I discuss the following with Dr. Troy Bouffard: Countries in the Arctic - the Arctic 8, 5 & 3. China - a "Near Arctic Country" Russia and China joint show of force in the Arctic - a wakeup call for America! Can/could Russia embarrass the U.S. with its Arctic forces? Is America prepared to enforce Arctic security? Is Canada prepared to enforce Arctic security? How have supersonic weapons changed Arctic security? Why don't satellites and lasers work in the Arctic? Why role does Greenland play in Arctic security?

In May 2000, 32-year-old Australian astrophysicist Rodney Marks died suddenly on an Antarctica base after falling ill just 36 hours earlier. The National Science Foundation (NSF) released a statement saying he most likely died of natural causes. But when the toxicology report came back, it revealed he had actually been poisoned by methanol. How did the methanol get in his system? And why did New Zealand authorities feel like the NSF wanted to stonewall their investigation? We spoke with reporter Stephen Davis, whose own investigation into the death of Rodney Marks first began more than two decades ago Stephen is also a professor and the host of the audio series The Secret History of Antarctica. It's available on Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Conspiracy Theories is on Instagram @theconspiracypod! Follow us to keep up with the show and get behind-the-scenes updates from Carter and the team. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Scientific Sense ® by Gill Eapen: Prof. Prem Kumar is Professor of Information Technology in the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science and Professor of Physics and Astronomy in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences at Northwestern University. His current research is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Army Research Office (ARO), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR).Please subscribe to this channel:https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1

From the Commerce Department: U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released a database identifying over 3,400 grants, totaling more than $2.05 billion in federal funding awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) during the Biden-Harris administration. This funding was diverted toward questionable projects that promoted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or advanced neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda. I saw many scientists complain that the projects from their universities that made Cruz's list were unrelated to wokeness. This seemed like a surprising failure mode, so I decided to investigate. The Commerce Department provided a link to their database, so I downloaded it, chose a random 100 grants, read the abstracts, and rated them either woke, not woke, or borderline. Of the hundred: 40% were woke 20% were borderline 40% weren't woke This is obviously in some sense a subjective determination, but most cases weren't close - I think any good-faith examination would turn up similar numbers. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-only-about-40-of-the-cruz-woke-science 

Alan's Soaps https://www.alansartisansoaps.comUse coupon code ‘TODD' to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bioptimizers https://Bioptimizers.com/ToddEnter promo code TODD to get 10% off any order.Bonefrog https://bonefrogcoffee.com/toddCelebrate the coffee lover in your life this Valentine's day with a special box from Bonefrog.  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Bulwark Capital Bulwark Capital Management (bulwarkcapitalmgmt.com)Get a second opinion on the health of your retirement portfolio today.  Schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio review go to KnowYourRiskRadio.com today.Native Path Krill https://GetKrill.com/ToddVisit GetKrill.com/Todd to get your special offer of NativePath Antarctic Krill Oil for as low as $19 a bottle.Renue Healthcare https://renue.healthcare/toddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit renue.healthcare/toddEverything I said about the Mockingbird Media was correct…  So how did I know? I'm looking at a definitive government contract awarded to Thomson Reuters Special Services, for “active social engineering defense” and “large scale social engineering”… Episode Links:The Media Are Now Desperately Trying to Save Government WorkersDOGE: When Clinton paid 114,000 federal workers $25,000 to resign and NOT return to federal employment for 5 years no one sued him. Now that Trump is giving 40,000 federal workers an 8 month paid vacation he's sued by the unions and, ironically, a Clinton-appointed judge blocked the vacation plans. Trump could offer $25,000 to each worker under current federal law, but to increase that amount Congress would need to act - something they never seem prepared to do.A865018C7886 Definitive Contract:Thomson Reuters Special Services ACTIVE SOCIAL ENGINEERING DEFENSE (ASED) LARGE SCALE SOCIAL DECEPTION (LSD)Federal records show the U.S. government has sent The New York Times over $50 million since 2021—despite much lower payments in previous years. The biggest spender?  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at $26.9M, followed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) at $19.15M.Karoline Leavitt just hung the media out to DRY for denying the COVID lab-leak truth right to their faces. "Several years ago, when I worked in this press shop, and [Trump briefed the media] on COVID-19, he suggested that COVID may have come from a lab in Wuhan, China - and many members in this VERY ROOM mocked him for that... said he was spewing 'conspiracy theories.' He was not. We now know that to be the truth. The president was right again."The Massive Progressive Dark-Money Group You've Never Heard OfOver the past half decade, Democrats have quietly pulled ahead of Republicans in untraceable political spending. One group helped make it happen. By Emma GreenRedeeming Babel, founded by Russell Moore, @DavidAFrench, and @curtischangRB, took $308K from the USAID-funded Rockefeller Foundation and $200K from @BillKristol's Defending Democracy to push The After Party curriculum in churches. The leftist infiltration is fully exposed.Christianity Today's 2023 IRS 990 also confirms what others are finding from @DataRepublican. $1.8 million in government grants in 2023. Yet they received nothing from the government in 2022. Why the huge shift

Astronomy Daily - The Podcast: S04E17Join host Steve Dunkley and his digital offsider Hallie, for another enlightening episode of Astronomy Daily, where we delve into the mysteries of space and the latest astronomical developments. Today, we explore intriguing stories that will captivate your imagination and expand your cosmic knowledge.Highlights:- China's Spaceplane Returns: China's enigmatic spaceplane has returned after 268 days in orbit. Discover the secretive nature of its mission and the potential future of reusable spacecraft.- Arecibo Observatory Collapse Report: A comprehensive report on the collapse of the iconic Arecibo Observatory has been released. Learn about the findings and the future plans for this historic site.- SpaceX's Starship Test Mishap: The FAA investigates the recent explosion during SpaceX's Starship test flight. Uncover what went wrong and SpaceX's plans for future launches.- Light Pollution Threat to VLT: The ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile faces a threat from a proposed renewable energy project. Explore the potential impact on astronomical observations and the debate over sustainable development.For more cosmic updates, visit our website at astronomydaily.io. Join our community on social media by searching for #AstroDailyPod on Facebook, X, and YouTubeMusic. Share your thoughts and connect with fellow space enthusiasts. Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTubeMusic, iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts.Thank you for tuning in. This is Steve signing off. Until next time, keep looking up and stay curious about the wonders of our universe.00:00 - Happy birthday to my favorite person in the world, Graham Dunkley00:59 - China's reusable spaceplane returns to Earth after 268 days in orbit03:18 - The Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico collapsed in 2020 following Hurricane Maria08:04 - FAA to investigate Starship 7 test explosion the U S. agency says10:47 - World's most precious sky observing location faces risk of light pollution from renewable project✍️ Episode ReferencesXinhua[Xinhua News Agency](http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/)Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[Harvard Smithsonian](https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/)Arecibo Observatory[Arecibo Observatory](https://www.naic.edu/)National Science Foundation[NSF](https://www.nsf.gov/)University of Central Florida[UCF](https://www.ucf.edu/)SpaceX[SpaceX](https://www.spacex.com/)European Southern Observatory[ESO](https://www.eso.org/)AES Energy[AES Energy](https://www.aes.com/)Renewables Now[Renewables Now](https://renewablesnow.com/)Contact (Movie)[Contact on IMDb](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/astronomy-daily-the-podcast--5648921/support.

Brendon Allen has some exoskeletons in his closet, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) wants to find out more about them.The assistant professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering was recently tapped for a five-year $588,408 NSF CAREER Award aimed at increasing access to rehabilitation for individuals with movement disorders through a deep learning control framework for home-based hybrid exoskeletons.

In this episode, I interviewed Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Australia is facing something pretty scary—a megadrought that could be unlike anything it's seen before. Scientists say the country's dry spells are getting longer and more intense, with some areas already suffering from severe water shortages. This megadrought could last for decades, making it harder for farmers to grow crops and putting pressure on wildlife and the environment. Credit: East Australian Fires: By NASA Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) - https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... Rivers of air: By Original: NOAA アメリカ海洋大気庁, Baba 496 - https://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/model-guida..., https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... ice core: By NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Ludovic Brucker, https://science.nasa.gov/science-rese... dark band: By Heidi Roop, National Science Foundation (NSF), https://science.nasa.gov/science-rese... Global surface temperature: By NASA/Visualizations by Lori Perkins, Mark SubbaRao, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... 21st Century Temperature: By NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center - http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/goto?4110, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... Hurricanes and Aerosols Simulation: By NASA Goddard / YouTube Transition From La Niña to El Niño: By NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio - NASA/GSFC/AMA/Kathleen Gaeta Greer, KBR Wyle Services, LLC/Jefferson Beck, NASA/GSFC/Greg Shirah, NASA/GSFC/Atousa Saberi, https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/14646, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... Supercomputing the Climate: By NASA Multimedia - https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/?medi..., https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... Tree rings: By James St. John - https://flic.kr/p/21VCQ3o, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/..., https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... KültepeUnterstadt1: By Klaus-Peter Simon, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/..., https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... Black Summer Bushfires: By MDRX, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... Family home destroyed: By Raginginsanity, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... Home & Machinery Shed Destroyed: By Raginginsanity, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... Yanderra Bushfire: By Helitak430, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... Orroral Valley Fire: By Nick-D, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... Sydney Smoke Haze: By Sardaka, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... Assyrie general en: By Sémhur, Zunkir, Morningstar1814, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index... Animation is created by Bright Side. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Music from TheSoul Sound: https://thesoul-sound.com/ Check our Bright Side podcast on Spotify and leave a positive review! https://open.spotify.com/show/0hUkPxD... Subscribe to Bright Side: https://goo.gl/rQTJZz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our Social Media: Facebook:   / brightside   Instagram:   / brightside.official   TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@brightside.of... Stock materials (photos, footages and other): https://www.depositphotos.com https://www.shutterstock.com https://www.eastnews.ru ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more videos and articles visit: http://www.brightside.me ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This video is made for entertainment purposes. We do not make any warranties about the completeness, safety and reliability. Any action you take upon the information in this video is strictly at your own risk, and we will not be liable for any damages or losses. It is the viewer's responsibility to use judgement, care and precaution if you plan to replicate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Christy Nittrouer is a tenure-track, assistant professor in the management area at the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University. She earned her Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Rice University. She has raised over $1 million in grant dollars to support her research on allyship and the experiences of minoritized employees in the workplace from funding sources such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Texas State agencies. Her work has received a variety of awards including the 2023 Texas Tech University Alumni Association's New Faculty Award, the 2020 Ralph Alexander Best Dissertation Award from the Academy of Management, the 2019 Outtz Grant for Student Research in Diversity, and the 2019 Graduate Student Scholarship by the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Foundation, and a 2019 Vaughn Fellowship awarded annually by Rice University. She has 28 published peer-reviewed papers and book chapters (at outlets including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Personnel Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Harvard Business Review). She has given over 60 presentations on the impact of diversity in the workplace, with a special focus on selection. Her work has been featured in The Atlantic, National Public Radio (NPR), The New York Times, ABC News, and the Houston Chronicle. She was nominated for the 2023 Rawls Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching award and received Rice University's 2020 graduate teaching award for her outstanding work teaching undergraduates. She has consulted for companies and served on panels for NASA, as well as LyondellBasell (global legal team), Exxon Mobil (affinity group), Baylor College of Medicine (medical students), Proctor & Gamble (global talent assessment team), and non-profits (selection). Connect with Christy: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christy-nittrouer/ Email: cnittrou@ttu.edu For more information about Eric Jorgensen you can find him here: Web: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://visiblenationaltrust.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Waypoints: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://waypoints.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-jorgensen-visible-national-trust/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ As an Amazon Associate, I earn commissions from qualifying purchases. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/abcs-disability-planning/support

Simge Küçükyavuz is Chair and David A. and Karen Richards Sachs Professor in the Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences Department at Northwestern University. She is an expert in mixed-integer, large-scale, and stochastic optimization, with applications in complex computational problems across numerous domains, including social networks, computing and energy infrastructure, statistical learning, and logistics. Her research has been supported by multiple grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). She is an INFORMS Fellow, and the recipient of the NSF CAREER Award and the INFORMS Computing Society (ICS) Prize. She is the past chair of ICS and serves on the editorial boards of Mathematics of Operations Research, Mathematical Programming, Operations Research, SIAM Journal on Optimization, and MOS-SIAM Optimization Book Series. She received her Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research from the University of California, Berkeley.

In this episode, we are joined by Jeff Alstott, expert at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and director of the Center for Technology and Security Policy at RAND, to discuss past technology forecasting across the national security community (20:45) and a new NSF initiative called Assessing and Predicting Technology Outcomes (APTO) (31:30).  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/new.nsf.gov/tip/updates/nsf-invests-nearly-52m-align-science-technology__;!!KRhing!eOu1AsJT51VVjrOK6T3-do43HgthGjQ9H0JkwgwH774TXBgeHKT2IweoShOS_F8P27yWUnkbispIRQ$

A Microsoft outage linked to CrowdStrike has disrupted several federal agencies. CISA and DHS are collaborating with CrowdStrike, Microsoft, and others to address the outages. President Biden has been briefed and is in contact with affected entities. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has closed all offices, warning of longer wait times and unavailable online services. The Justice Department and Department of Veterans Affairs are also affected, with some DHS staff facing login issues. The FAA is monitoring airline IT issues but reports no impact on operations. The Energy Department's website is offline, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports normal operations. In other news, the White House has announced nearly $100 million in commitments to enhance access to emerging tech talent. OSTP revealed pledges from the National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Digital Response, and several universities. The NSF will provide at least $48 million, with $32 million for its Emerging and Novel Technologies program and $16 million for the Responsible Design, Development, and Deployment of Technologies program. U.S. Digital Response aims to double its support for under-resourced state and local governments. Academic institutions like San José State University, Spelman College, Georgetown University, the University of Michigan, and New York University have committed to various tech initiatives. Stay tuned to the Daily Scoop Podcast for more insights and updates on these stories and other developments in the federal tech space.

This episode is sponsored by Oracle. AI is revolutionizing industries, but needs power without breaking the bank. Enter Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI): the one-stop platform for all your AI needs, with 4-8x the bandwidth of other clouds. Train AI models faster and at half the cost. Be ahead like Uber and Cohere.   If you want to do more and spend less like Uber, 8x8, and Databricks Mosaic - take a free test drive of OCI at https://oracle.com/eyeonai     In this episode of the Eye on AI podcast, join us as we sit down with Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), where we explore the impact of AI on research and innovation.   Dr. Panchanathan delves into his journey from PhD student in machine learning to leading one of the most pivotal science organizations in the world. With a background in vector quantization and neural networks, his extensive experience positions him at the forefront of AI advancements.   Discover how the NSF is revolutionizing AI through strategic investments and initiatives like the AI Institutes and the National AI Research Resource (NAIR). Dr. Panchanathan explains how these programs democratize access to cutting-edge computational resources, fostering innovation across diverse regions and disciplines.   Learn about NSF's $828 million investment in AI for 2023 and the agency's unique approach to allocating funds across various scientific domains. Dr. Panchanathan shares insights on the importance of partnerships with industries, educational institutions, and international bodies, emphasizing the need for a collaborative ecosystem to drive AI progress.   He also touches on the role of AI in addressing societal challenges and the ethical considerations in AI development.   Tune in to understand how NSF is leading the charge in AI research and development, ensuring the US remains at the cutting edge of technological innovation.   Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell for more deep dives into the technologies shaping our world.     Stay Updated: Craig Smith Twitter: https://twitter.com/craigss Eye on A.I. Twitter: https://twitter.com/EyeOn_AI This episode is sponsored by Vanta, The security and compliance platform trusted by more than 7,000 customers.With Vanta, you can unify your security program management with a built-in risk register and reporting, and proactively manage security reviews with AI-powered security questionnaires.   Listeners get $1,000 off Vanta at https://vanta.com/eyeonai (00:00) Preview and Introduction (02:31) Dr. Panchanathan's Background and Path to NSF (05:45) Overview of NSF's Funding and Research Initiatives (08:17) AI Funding and Allocation Strategy at NSF (11:57) Importance of AI Institutes and Collaborative Efforts (14:55) Democratizing AI Access through NAIR (20:04) NAIR Pilot Projects and Partnerships (24:23) Accessing Compute Resources via NAIR (27:43) Scaling NAIR and Future Projections (30:14) Broader NSF Funding Allocation and Strategic Planning (33:34) Utilizing AI for NSF Operations (37:09) International Collaborations and Comparisons (42:05) Staying Ahead in Global Research Investments (46:03) Focus on Innovation and Talent Development (48:40) Regional Innovation Engines and Future Plans for NSF

Welcome to the Big Glass Wars! That's right, just when you thought you'd heard it all, turns out there's hot competition among a few countries to stay on the cutting edge of optical astronomy, and to do that, you need a great big hunk of glass to gather light from distant galaxies and stellar systems. Enter the Carnegie Observatories and their partners on the Thirty Meter Telescope and the Giant Magellan Telescope. Both are currently under construction, and both are threatened by budget parsimony from the U.S. Congress. Dr. John Mulchaey, Director of the Carnegie Observatories, joins us to discuss what's happening, why it matters, and what you can do to help maintain U.S. leadership in astronomy, cosmology, and other STEM-related fields. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner launch to the ISS delayed again, this time due to a helium leak in the service module. The launch is now targeted for no earlier than May 21st. Blue Origin plans to conduct its first crewed suborbital flight since August 2022 on May 19th, carrying six passengers including the first Black astronaut candidate Ed Dwight. A massive sunspot caused spectacular auroras visible as far south as Alabama and turned skies purple and orange. More solar activity is expected as another large sunspot emerges. Main Topic: The Big Glass Wars with Dr. John Mulchaey Dr. Mulchaey provides an overview of the Carnegie Observatories, founded in 1904, and their historic telescopes at Mount Wilson that helped launch modern astronomy. He discusses the need for extremely large next-generation ground-based telescopes, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) and Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), to study earth-like exoplanets and the early universe. These ambitious segmented mirror telescopes will be 5-10 times larger than today's biggest telescopes and cost billions of dollars to construct. While substantial private funding has been raised, the projects need investment from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. government to be completed. However, the NSF has proposed only partial funding. Dr. Mulchaey emphasizes the importance of the U.S. having both telescope projects to provide full-sky coverage, double the observation time, and maintain the nation's leadership in astronomy research or risk losing top talent to competing projects in Europe and China. He notes that delaying a decision on full funding is causing the estimated costs to escalate as the projects are forced to wait. Dr. Mulchaey argues passionately that inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers by investing in these telescopes is critical for the country's future productivity and innovation. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Dr. John Mulchaey Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsor: wix.com/studio

Welcome to the Big Glass Wars! That's right, just when you thought you'd heard it all, turns out there's hot competition among a few countries to stay on the cutting edge of optical astronomy, and to do that, you need a great big hunk of glass to gather light from distant galaxies and stellar systems. Enter the Carnegie Observatories and their partners on the Thirty Meter Telescope and the Giant Magellan Telescope. Both are currently under construction, and both are threatened by budget parsimony from the U.S. Congress. Dr. John Mulchaey, Director of the Carnegie Observatories, joins us to discuss what's happening, why it matters, and what you can do to help maintain U.S. leadership in astronomy, cosmology, and other STEM-related fields. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner launch to the ISS delayed again, this time due to a helium leak in the service module. The launch is now targeted for no earlier than May 21st. Blue Origin plans to conduct its first crewed suborbital flight since August 2022 on May 19th, carrying six passengers including the first Black astronaut candidate Ed Dwight. A massive sunspot caused spectacular auroras visible as far south as Alabama and turned skies purple and orange. More solar activity is expected as another large sunspot emerges. Main Topic: The Big Glass Wars with Dr. John Mulchaey Dr. Mulchaey provides an overview of the Carnegie Observatories, founded in 1904, and their historic telescopes at Mount Wilson that helped launch modern astronomy. He discusses the need for extremely large next-generation ground-based telescopes, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) and Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), to study earth-like exoplanets and the early universe. These ambitious segmented mirror telescopes will be 5-10 times larger than today's biggest telescopes and cost billions of dollars to construct. While substantial private funding has been raised, the projects need investment from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. government to be completed. However, the NSF has proposed only partial funding. Dr. Mulchaey emphasizes the importance of the U.S. having both telescope projects to provide full-sky coverage, double the observation time, and maintain the nation's leadership in astronomy research or risk losing top talent to competing projects in Europe and China. He notes that delaying a decision on full funding is causing the estimated costs to escalate as the projects are forced to wait. Dr. Mulchaey argues passionately that inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers by investing in these telescopes is critical for the country's future productivity and innovation. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Dr. John Mulchaey Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsor: wix.com/studio

Welcome to the Big Glass Wars! That's right, just when you thought you'd heard it all, turns out there's hot competition among a few countries to stay on the cutting edge of optical astronomy, and to do that, you need a great big hunk of glass to gather light from distant galaxies and stellar systems. Enter the Carnegie Observatories and their partners on the Thirty Meter Telescope and the Giant Magellan Telescope. Both are currently under construction, and both are threatened by budget parsimony from the U.S. Congress. Dr. John Mulchaey, Director of the Carnegie Observatories, joins us to discuss what's happening, why it matters, and what you can do to help maintain U.S. leadership in astronomy, cosmology, and other STEM-related fields. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner launch to the ISS delayed again, this time due to a helium leak in the service module. The launch is now targeted for no earlier than May 21st. Blue Origin plans to conduct its first crewed suborbital flight since August 2022 on May 19th, carrying six passengers including the first Black astronaut candidate Ed Dwight. A massive sunspot caused spectacular auroras visible as far south as Alabama and turned skies purple and orange. More solar activity is expected as another large sunspot emerges. Main Topic: The Big Glass Wars with Dr. John Mulchaey Dr. Mulchaey provides an overview of the Carnegie Observatories, founded in 1904, and their historic telescopes at Mount Wilson that helped launch modern astronomy. He discusses the need for extremely large next-generation ground-based telescopes, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) and Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), to study earth-like exoplanets and the early universe. These ambitious segmented mirror telescopes will be 5-10 times larger than today's biggest telescopes and cost billions of dollars to construct. While substantial private funding has been raised, the projects need investment from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. government to be completed. However, the NSF has proposed only partial funding. Dr. Mulchaey emphasizes the importance of the U.S. having both telescope projects to provide full-sky coverage, double the observation time, and maintain the nation's leadership in astronomy research or risk losing top talent to competing projects in Europe and China. He notes that delaying a decision on full funding is causing the estimated costs to escalate as the projects are forced to wait. Dr. Mulchaey argues passionately that inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers by investing in these telescopes is critical for the country's future productivity and innovation. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Dr. John Mulchaey Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsor: wix.com/studio

Welcome to the Big Glass Wars! That's right, just when you thought you'd heard it all, turns out there's hot competition among a few countries to stay on the cutting edge of optical astronomy, and to do that, you need a great big hunk of glass to gather light from distant galaxies and stellar systems. Enter the Carnegie Observatories and their partners on the Thirty Meter Telescope and the Giant Magellan Telescope. Both are currently under construction, and both are threatened by budget parsimony from the U.S. Congress. Dr. John Mulchaey, Director of the Carnegie Observatories, joins us to discuss what's happening, why it matters, and what you can do to help maintain U.S. leadership in astronomy, cosmology, and other STEM-related fields. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner launch to the ISS delayed again, this time due to a helium leak in the service module. The launch is now targeted for no earlier than May 21st. Blue Origin plans to conduct its first crewed suborbital flight since August 2022 on May 19th, carrying six passengers including the first Black astronaut candidate Ed Dwight. A massive sunspot caused spectacular auroras visible as far south as Alabama and turned skies purple and orange. More solar activity is expected as another large sunspot emerges. Main Topic: The Big Glass Wars with Dr. John Mulchaey Dr. Mulchaey provides an overview of the Carnegie Observatories, founded in 1904, and their historic telescopes at Mount Wilson that helped launch modern astronomy. He discusses the need for extremely large next-generation ground-based telescopes, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) and Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), to study earth-like exoplanets and the early universe. These ambitious segmented mirror telescopes will be 5-10 times larger than today's biggest telescopes and cost billions of dollars to construct. While substantial private funding has been raised, the projects need investment from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. government to be completed. However, the NSF has proposed only partial funding. Dr. Mulchaey emphasizes the importance of the U.S. having both telescope projects to provide full-sky coverage, double the observation time, and maintain the nation's leadership in astronomy research or risk losing top talent to competing projects in Europe and China. He notes that delaying a decision on full funding is causing the estimated costs to escalate as the projects are forced to wait. Dr. Mulchaey argues passionately that inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers by investing in these telescopes is critical for the country's future productivity and innovation. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Dr. John Mulchaey Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsor: wix.com/studio

Becoming more energy efficient not only cuts costs but also helps preserve our planet. Whether it's transitioning to electric, conducting energy audits, or enhancing energy systems, committing to energy efficiency today promises future savings and fosters a healthier environment for everyone. Discover ways to enhance energy efficiency, with a special focus on agricultural and rural enterprises, in this episode of the Rise Up Podcast. Hear from Jenny Brinker, project manager at GDS Associates, Inc., as she explores the available opportunities and resources for a greener tomorrow. Get Connected: RENEW Wisconsin: https://www.renewwisconsin.org The Energy Fair: https://www.theenergyfair.org The MREA: https://www.midwestrenew.org Email: Info@midwestrenew.org 00:00 Background and History 3:45 Jobs in Energy Efficiency 7:27 GDS Associates 9:37 Importance of building energy efficiency 10:57 Decarbonization 13:12 Lowest cost energy efficiency improvements 16:38 Demand charges 20:13 Air source heat pumps 26:56 Building energy efficiently 28:54 Focus on Energy 30:47 Farms and energy efficiency 34:43 Planning and resources 37:20 Challenges facing energy efficiency 41:06 Energy awareness 44:56 Energy professionals and incentives ABOUT OUR GUEST: JENNY BRINKER Jenny Brinker is a Project Manager at GDS Associates, Inc. in Madison, Wisconsin and brings over 18 years of expertise in energy efficiency consulting. Focusing on serving farming communities and rural businesses, Brinker's skills in Energy Management program implementation and technology have made her a key player in driving sustainable energy practices in the agricultural sector. A Wisconsin native, Brinker holds a Master's degree in Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Law from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is a Certified Energy Manager recognized by the Association of Energy Engineers. She has also demonstrated a passion for education. Her involvement in course creation for KEEP (Wisconsin's K-12 Energy Education Program) has strengthened the school program across the state, and, even after returning to GDS, continues to serve as an adjunct professor for the Energy Management Technology program at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College. In 2019, Brinker was one of nine instructors nationwide selected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Center for Renewable Energy Advanced Technological Education (CREATE) to study renewable energy storage in Germany and share that knowledge with college programs throughout the United States.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is on the march, establishing what it calls regional innovation engines. It is getting organized around artificial intelligence. It's getting and granting-out more money than ever. For an update, Federal Drive Host Tom Temin spoke with NSF director Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is on the march, establishing what it calls regional innovation engines. It is getting organized around artificial intelligence. It's getting and granting-out more money than ever. For an update, Federal Drive Host Tom Temin spoke with NSF director Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Quantum mechanics is a theory that even some scientists have trouble wrapping their heads around. But this industry is booming, and some physicists here in Connecticut are hoping to make our state the “Quantum Corridor” for research, workforce development and education. In May 2023, “the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded a $1 million federal planning grant to Yale University and the University of Connecticut toward developing quantum technology related businesses in Connecticut.” Today, we hear about this project and learn about the future of quantum. We'll attempt to answer the question: “what is quantum mechanics?” We only have an hour, but we will try our best. We'll hear how this field could eventually touch every area of science. GUESTS: Michael DiDonato: UConn Tech Park Business Development Manager, and QuantumCT UConn Project Manager Steven Girvin: Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Yale Dr. Brian Sullivan: High School STEM teacher teaching physics, calculus and statistics at the Wooster School, a private co-educational school in Danbury Connecticut Cat Pastor contributed to this episode which originally aired January 16, 2024.Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Azizi Seixas, Ph.D., is Inaugural Chair of the Department of Informatics and Health Data Science at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. He is also Founding Director of The Media and Innovation Lab (The MIL), Associate Director of the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences (TSCS) and Director of Population Health Informatics in the Institute for Data Science and Computing. He was recently awarded one of Miami's Most Influential and Powerful Black Business Leaders, an Education Champion Awardee by Amazon Web Services for his innovative work using cloud computing technology and his advocacy for improving education and has been recognized by Cell Press as one of the top 100 most inspiring Black scientists in America. His work has been widely supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF) and several industry and foundation partners.Dr. Seixas has over 175 high impact peer-reviewed publications, book chapters and conference presentations and his work appears in several media-outlets such as CBS, CNN, NBC, Associated Press, The Guardian, Huffington Post, and is the sleep expert for NBC Health News.

Catherine Gray, the host of Invest In Her, interviews Elisa Miller-Out, a business leader, investor, technologist, and mother. She is chair of the board for Singlebrook, a web software development firm she co-founded in 2006 for which she served as CEO until 2016, when she oversaw the acquisition of the firm's largest division. Not one to sit still, 2017 she co-founded Chloe Capital, an early-stage venture capital fund on a mission to bring more women into technology investing and leadership. To date, Chloe Capital has funded 10 companies with a combined portfolio value of $70 million and drawn more than 15,000 members to its #InvestInWomen movement. Beyond leading her own companies, Elisa's greatest passion is sharing her business knowledge with others. She actively mentors business leaders every day and has mentored several hundred in recent years through her various roles, such as managing partner for Chloe Capital, Entrepreneur in Residence at Cornell University and Launch NY, Instructor for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Innovation Advisor to the NY State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA). Elisa has served on the boards of numerous commercial enterprises, as well as the NY State Climate Action Council. Her commitment to diversity and her individual achievements have garnered numerous awards, as well as coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post and USA Today.   https://www.sheangelinvestors.com/ Elisamillerout.com https://chloecapital.com/   Follow Us On Social Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn  

Last month the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR) pilot to encourage AI cooperation and innovation as part of the White House's executive order to advance AI. The pilot comprises a partnership with 10 federal agencies and 19 industry organizations. Tess deBlanc-Knowles, NSF's special assistant to the director for AI, joins GovCast to discuss how partnerships strengthen the NAIRR pilot, how it is democratizing access to AI research and how shepherding AI leadership can open more doors for the federal government, industry and academic community more broadly.

Quantum mechanics is a theory that even some scientists have trouble wrapping their heads around. But this industry is booming, and some physicists here in Connecticut are hoping to make our state the “Quantum Corridor” for research, workforce development and education. In May 2023, “the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded a $1 million federal planning grant to Yale University and the University of Connecticut toward developing quantum technology related businesses in Connecticut.” Today, we hear about this project and learn about the future of quantum. We'll attempt to answer the question: “what is quantum mechanics?” We only have an hour, but we will try our best. We'll hear how this field could eventually touch every area of science. GUESTS: Michael DiDonato: UConn Tech Park Business Development Manager, and QuantumCT UConn Project Manager Steven Girvin: Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Yale Dr. Brian Sullivan: High School STEM teacher teaching physics, calculus and statistics at the Wooster School, a private co-educational school in Danbury Connecticut Support the show: http://wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the National Science Foundation (NSF), artificial intelligence has become a high priority agenda item. Recently, it appointed a new special assistant to the director to focus on AI. Federal Drive Host Tom Temin spoke with the new NSF AI Director, Tess deBlanc-Knowles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

At the National Science Foundation (NSF), artificial intelligence has become a high priority agenda item. Recently, it appointed a new special assistant to the director to focus on AI. Federal Drive Host Tom Temin spoke with the new NSF AI Director, Tess deBlanc-Knowles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to Investor Connect, and happy 2024! I'm Hall T. Martin, your host, and today we have two insightful segments lined up, exploring the practicalities and challenges startups encounter when seeking funds for their ventures. In the first part, we explore the dynamic startup scene in India. Our guest shares his mission to revolutionize the Indian retail landscape through a mobile server cloud solution. We discuss the funding challenges, online-offline shopping dynamics, and strategies to navigate India's diverse retail market. Shifting gears, our second segment focuses on climate tech. Keon, the founder of a climate tech startup, shares his experiences in raising funds, particularly from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and goals for additional private funding. The funding journey is intricate but worthwhile. Stay tuned for more insights on Investor Connect. Until next time, happy investing!   Thank you for joining us for the Startup Funding Espresso where we help startups and investors connect for funding. Let's go startup something today. For more episodes from Investor Connect, please visit the site at:   Check out our other podcasts here:   For Investors check out:   For Startups check out:   For eGuides check out:   For upcoming Events, check out    For Feedback please contact info@tencapital.group    Please , share, and leave a review. Music courtesy of .

Computing is a ubiquitous part of our everyday lives and rapid advances continue to shape the way we work and live. In the fourth episode of our “Science Helps Us…” series, Dr. Margaret Martonosi, acclaimed computer scientist and leader of the Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF), shares her insight into the future of computing with STPF alum Stephanie Gage. Their conversation explores Dr. Martonosi beginnings in computer science, her thoughts on leadership, and how the NSF is thinking about computing in areas such as education, climate, economic equality, personal use of computing, and artificial intelligence.   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.

In this episode I welcome digital advocate Alix Fraser of Issue One. We take a dive deep into the risks of social media and explore how (and why) social media has been created to be harmful by design. Alix and Nicki cover a ton of topics important to parents; social media, devices, cyberbullying, sharenting and much more! Alix introduces Nicki to two bills that would could steer us in the right direction with social media regulation and make the internet safer for children. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA, S.1409) directly addresses the harmful social media business model by placing the health and wellbeing of our children over advertising revenue. Learn more at passkosa.org. The Platform Accountability and Transparency Act (PATA) would create a program facilitated by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for researchers to request access to certain data from social media companies, and require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to develop privacy and security protocols for the program. Learn more about PATA here: https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-coons-colleagues-introduce-legislation-to-increase-transparency-around-social-media-platforms Alix Fraser serves as the Director of the Council for Responsible Social Media at Issue One. In this role, Alix leads the cross-partisan Council of political, civic, public health, business, and national security leaders working to address the threats that social media platforms pose to American society. Learn more about this work at issueone.org.

In this episode we are talking all about strengths based occupational therapy with Kavita Murthi. We discuss:  Kavitha Murthi is pursuing her doctoral studies at NYU Steinhardt in the Department of Occupational Therapy. She works with Counselor to the President, Dr. Kristie Patten, on a National Science Foundation (NSF) project titled “Developing Abilities and Knowledge … 110 – Strengths-Based Practice in Occupational Therapy ft Kavita Murthi Read More »

In this episode we are talking all about strengths based occupational therapy with Kavita Murthi. We discuss:  Kavitha Murthi is pursuing her doctoral studies at NYU Steinhardt in the Department of Occupational Therapy. She works with Counselor to the President, Dr. Kristie Patten, on a National Science Foundation (NSF) project titled “Developing Abilities and Knowledge … 110 – Strengths-Based Practice in Occupational Therapy ft Kavita Murthi Read More »

Research and development of quantum computers continues to grow at a rapid pace. The U.S. government alone spent more than $800 million on quantum information science research in 2022. Thomas Scanlon, who leads the data science group in the SEI CERT Division, was recently invited to be a participant in the Workshop on Cybersecurity of Quantum Computing, co-sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to examine the emerging field of cybersecurity for quantum computing. In this podcast from the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, Scanlon discusses how to create the discipline of cyber protection of quantum computing and outlines six areas of future research in quantum cybersecurity.

In this next episode of The Heidrick & Struggles Leadership Podcast, Heidrick & Struggles' Adam Howe speaks to Sophia Velastegui, chief product officer at Aptiv and member of the AI Advisory Committee for National Science Foundation NSF. Velastegui discusses the leadership capabilities most important to her success and the challenges of digital transformations, sharing what she has seen some of the world's most acclaimed technology organizations get right from organization, culture, talent, and leadership perspectives. She also offers her advice to executives looking to create a culture where people can lean in, regardless of their experience or level in the organization; how to start building new technologies into both current operations and new business models and propositions; and how to accelerate the organizational leadership's role in understanding and cultivating curiosity about emerging technologies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

AnnouncementsThe first 3 modules of my Online Doctoral Capstone Course Foundations of Occupational Science is available now for free for a limited time: https://engage.evolvedlivingnetwork.com/If you are in the Tacoma Area or are a fan of the Social Justice Sewing Academy and would like to be involved in supporting the adaptation of their workshops to focus on disability justice and to be accessible to people with disabilities in more heavily institutionalized spaces consider joining in our community event virtually or in person with AOTA President Alyson Stover on Monday, October 16 [6-8pm]Get details on how to register here:  https://www.facebook.com/events/706895548119940/?ref=newsfeedIn-person capacity: 60, Live virtual: 150, Recording: UnlimitedEpisode Show NotesIn part two twe explore the costs of mental health neglect in and under investment in mental health infastructure in the United States and systemic patterns that contributed to adverse occupational outcomes and how all occupational beings access to proactive investment in mental health care for all.  We also explore the benefits of building your own care village for lifespan occupational wellbeing. Jennifer Pearlstein, PhD, is a post-doctoral fellow in rehabilitation medicine at the University of Washington and completed her graduate work in clinical science at the University of California, Berkeley. Jen strives to improve the well-being of people with disabilities across her research, clinical work, and advocacy. She has received funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Science Foundation (NSF), published work related to disability and mental health and training, and has gained specialized clinical training in evidence-based practices for diverse psychological presentations, including how to support populations experiencing illness or disability.She also writes about her personal experiences navigating academia with a disability and strives to increase the representation, equity, and inclusion of people with disabilities in academia and in medicine.Connect with UW's Behavioral Health ECHO Project: (How Josie met Jennifer without expense of a fancy conference) https://bhinstitute.uw.edu/events/?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26eventid%3D163336444Accessible Mental Health Support Resources:https://openpathcollective.org/As long as there is a financial need, our lifetime membership will allow you to see anyone in our network for the rates listed above. This is our guarantee. A lifetime membership to our nonprofit only costs $65.Employee Assitance Programs:https://www.insperity.com/blog/employee-assistance-programs/Holistic Wellness for BIPOC OTs/Communitieshttps://otbayarea.com/resourcesSupport Group for Disabled OTPshttps://www.facebook.com/groups/DisabilOTSuicide Prevention and Crisis Line:https://Evolved Living Network Instragram @EvolvedLivingNetworkFree Occupational Science 101 Guidebookhttps://swiy.co/OS101GuidePodcastOS Empowered OT Facebook Grouphttps://www.facebook.com/groups/1569824073462362/Link to Full Podcast Disclaimer https://docs.google.com/document/d/13DI0RVawzWrsY-Gmj7qOLk5A6tH-V9150xETzAdd6MQ/edit

In today's episode, we delve in the often-overlooked factor that can significantly impact our sleep quality: light! Our guest, Robert Soler is a renowned expert in lighting and circadian health. Robert shares his journey from working at NASA as a Subject Matter Expert. He uncovered the science behind light and its profound impact on your sleep. Robert also provides actionable tips for seamlessly integrating light management into your daily routine. Tune in to this episode and shed light on how to optimize your relationship with light for better sleep and a brighter, more energized life!  BIO:Robert Soler is the co-founder of SKYVIEW, the leader in human wellness lighting technologies, which recently launched their flagship wellness lamp, the SKYVIEW 2™, which utilizes patented technology to improve human health and wellbeing. Prior to his work at SKYVIEW, his most prominent work was at Kennedy Space Center, where he was the Subject Matter Expert for NASA's circadian lighting system to synchronize astronauts to a 24-hour cycle onboard the International Space Station. He received a fellowship from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and currently serves on the light advisory committee for the International WELL Building Standard.SHOW NOTES: 

Invest In Her host Catherine Gray talks with Elisa Miller-Out, who is a business leader, investor, technologist and mother. She is chair of the board for Singlebrook, a web software development firm she co-founded in 2006 and for which she served as CEO until 2016, when she oversaw the acquisition of the firm's largest division. Not one to sit still, in 2017 she co-founded Chloe Capital, an early-stage venture capital fund on a mission to bring more women into technology investing and leadership. To date, Chloe Capital has funded 10 companies with a combined portfolio value of $70 million and drawn more than 15,000 members to its #InvestInWomen movement. Beyond leading her own companies, Elisa's greatest passion is sharing her business knowledge with others. She actively mentors business leaders every day and has mentored several hundred in recent years through her various roles, such as managing partner for Chloe Capital, Entrepreneur in Residence at Cornell University and Launch NY, Instructor for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Innovation Advisor to the NY State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA). Elisa has served on the boards of numerous commercial enterprises, as well as the NY State Climate Action Council. Her commitment to diversity and her individual achievements have garnered numerous awards, as well as coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post and USA Today.   www.sheangelinvestors.com  Elisamillerout.com https://chloecapital.com/   Follow Us On Social Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn  

My guest for today's interview is Shima Mohebbi, with the Department of Systems Engineering and Operations Research at George Mason University who recently completed a collaborative National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded study that explored how to improve community and infrastructure resiliency by better understanding and identifying the underlying dynamics and causal relationships to improve responses during disruptions, with a focus on mobility and public water resources.  We'll be taking a look not only at her work, but sharing some insight on the experience of receiving (NSF) funding to support your research. 

Today's guest is Dr. Evan Thomas, CEO and Founder of Virridy, and Director of the Mortensen  Center in Global Engineering & Resilience and the Climate Innovation Collaboratory at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Evan is also a tenured Associate Professor in the CU Boulder Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department. So, he's a busy guy.  Virridy' s water sensors monitor and measure groundwater pumping for more than 4 million people in the East African countries of Kenya and Ethiopia and the American West. The company's partners include the National Science Foundation (NSF), USAID, The World Bank, NASA, the Millennium Water Alliance, Swarm Technologies, The Freshwater Trust, Wexus Technologies and the Kenyan government.We've had a few conversations on the pod recently at the intersection of water and climate change. Jason spoke with Felicia Marcus of Stanford's Water in the West program, and Cody talked to David Wallace of CODA Farm Tech. It's worth noting some of the key learnings up to this point. For starters, conversations about water are nuanced. Droughts, floods, sea level rise, irrigation, stormwater systems, clean drinking water, etc… all have water as a common thread, but are each enormously separate topics on their own. And while most of the problems and challenges with water existed before climate change, they have accelerated faster than anyone anticipated. Evan is pursuing two different business models in East Africa and the U.S., albeit with the same tech stack. In the former, he primarily seeks to earn avoided emissions carbon credits by monitoring the activity of groundwater pumps and the cleanliness of the water they produce, and ensuring access to clean drinking water without the need to burn fuels to heat and purify it. In the American West, he is participating in the demand response economy, helping water utilities shut down their groundwater pumps and conserve electricity during times of peak grid demand.Evan and Cody have a fantastically nuanced conversation, tackling subjects as diverse as the outcomes of COP27 as it relates to climate justice, his background at NASA and how it informed his approach to earth science, how he runs a company while also being a university professor, how carbon credit financing works, and of course the differences in how climate change is accelerating droughts in East Africa and the American West, and what that means for the water systems in each geography. Get ready to dive in a learn a ton!  In this episode, we cover: [4:12] Evan's background in water systems in space and rural communities[8:28] Applying carbon credits to clean drinking water[10:50] Evan's partnership with Life Straw and academic and entrepreneurial experience[12:20] Similarities and differences between the American West and East Africa in terms of climate change and water[18:36] Groundwater in East Africa vs. California and purification requirements[24:10] Virridy's solution and technology[26:22] The company's carbon credit methodologies in Africa[28:31] Financial incentives and carbon offset endorsements from COP27 in Egypt[32:11] Virridy's different business model in the U.S.[37:48] How Evan manages Virridy's different markets[42:59] Applying Virridy's tech to soil carbon[46:23] The company's funding to date and an overview of pre-selling carbon creditsGet connected: Cody's TwitterDr. Evan Thomas / VirridyMCJ Podcast / Collective*You can also reach us via email at info@mcjcollective.com, where we encourage you to share your feedback on episodes and suggestions for future topics or guests.Episode recorded on November 28, 2022.

In this week's “22 Lessons on Ethics and Technology" special series, I sit down with Dr. Evelynn Hammonds to talk about how race and gender have shaped the histories of science, medicine, and technological development. We explore the divisions between investigations of gender within scientific and technological inquiry, and race within these same fields. How can an intersectional approach challenge our science and technologies to better serve, and include, a broader diversity of people? How have our concepts of science and technology, and our assumptions about what they can and should do, been shaped by exclusions? How can those trained and working in the Humanities can learn from those trained in and working in the Sciences and Technology fields, and vice-versa? How does an understanding of the history of ideas, and the people and forces that have shaped them, inform our ability to build, innovate, and create work cultures that are more ethical and equitable? Professor Hammonds is the Barbara Gutmann Rosenkrantz Professor of the History of Science and Professor of African and African American Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Professor of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University.  She was the first Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity at Harvard University (2005-2008). From 2008-2013 she served as Dean of Harvard College and Chair of the Department of History of Science (2017-2022). Professor Hammonds' areas of research include the histories of science, medicine and public health in the United States; race, gender and sexuality in science studies; feminist theory and African American history.  She has published articles on the history of disease, race and science, African American feminism, African-American women and the epidemic of HIV/AIDS; analyses of gender and race in science, medicine and public health and the history of health disparities in the U.S.. Professor Hammonds' current work focuses on the history of the intersection of scientific, medical and socio-political concepts of race in the United States.  She is currently director of the Project on Race & Gender in Science & Medicine at the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard. Prof. Hammonds holds a B.S. in physics from Spelman College, a B.E.E. in electrical engineering from Ga. Tech and an SM in Physics from MIT.  She earned the PhD in the history of science from Harvard University. She served as a Sigma Xi Distinguished Lecturer (2003-2005), a visiting scholar at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, a Post-doctoral Fellow in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and a Visiting Professor at UCLA and at Hampshire College. Professor Hammonds was named a Fellow of the Association of Women in Science (AWIS) in 2008.  She served on the Board of Trustees of Spelman and Bennett Colleges and currently on the Board of the Arcus Foundation, and the Board of Trustees of Bates College. In 2010, she was appointed to President Barack Obama's Board of Advisers on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and in 2014 to the President's Advisory Committee on Excellence in Higher Education for African Americans. She served two terms as a member of the Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering (CEOSE), the congressionally mandated oversight committee of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Advisory Committee of the EHR directorate of the NSF, and the Advisory Committee on the Merit Review Process of the NSF. Professor Hammonds is the current vice president/president-elect of the History of Science Society. At Harvard, she served on the President's Initiative on Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery; the Faculty Executive Committee of the Peabody Museum and she chaired the University-wide Steering Committee on Human Remains in the Harvard Museum Collections.  She also works on projects to increase the participation of men and women of color in STEM fields. Prof. Hammonds is the co-author of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently released report (December 9, 2021) Transforming Technologies: Women of Color in Tech. She is a member of the Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine (CWSEM) of the NAS and the NAS Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in Science, Engineering and Medicine. She is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She holds honorary degrees from Spelman College and Bates College. For the academic year 2022-2023, Prof. Hammonds is the inaugural Audre Lorde Visiting Professor of Queer Studies at Spelman College.

Today we welcome Tara Well, who is an associate professor of psychology at Barnard College of Columbia University where she has taught Personality Psychology, Health Psychology, and Psychology of Leadership for over 20 years. Her research on motivation, perception, and cognition has been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). She outlines the research and benefits of her meditation program in her latest book Mirror Meditation.In this episode, I talk to Tara Well about mirror meditation. What is the first thing you think of when you look in the mirror? For a lot of us, our initial instinct is to nitpick at our flaws. Using mirror meditation, Tara teaches people how to use one's reflection to promote self-acceptance and inner knowing. The mirror can help us become kinder not just to ourselves, but to the people around us as well. We also touch on the topics of narcissism, compassion, and attachment. Website: mirrormeditation.comTwitter: @tarawell88 Topics01:36 Tara's expertise in psychology 05:33 Mirror Meditation 12:22 Reflecting on identities14:39 Sit with yourself18:59 Unfreeze yourself21:28 Neuroscience of narcissists 26:08 Compassion for narcissists32:42 Anxious and avoidant self-attachment36:31 Be there for yourself39:20 Look at others in the eyes of love42:07 Reclaiming your projections43:28 How to see the best in others45:45 Self-talk in third person46:51 Meditation practice