Astronomers using the Gemini North telescope have captured the eroding remains of more than 100 dwarf galaxies as they transition into ultra-compact dwarf galaxies, objects with masses much greater than star clusters yet much smaller than dwarf galaxies. In this podcast, NOIRLab's Dr. Eric Peng discusses what these galaxies tell us about the formation of ultra compact dwarf galaxies. Bios: - Rob Sparks is in the Communications, Education and Engagement group at NSF's NOIRLab in Tucson, Arizona. - Eric Peng is an Astronomer at NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory (NOIRLab), where he studies the evolution of nearby galaxies, and is Project Scientist for NOIRLab's US Extremely Large Telescope Program (US-ELTP). As part of the US-ELTP, he is working to make the next generation of large, optical-infrared ground-based telescopes a reality, and accessible to all. Links: NOIRLab Press Release: https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2330/ 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.
Episode 121 Today we are joined by Dr. Chris Impey to talk about exoplanets, the search for life in space, and the search for meaning on Earth. Dr Impey is a University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona. He has over 220 refereed publications on observational cosmology, galaxies, and quasars, and his research has been supported by $20 million in NASA and NSF grants. He has won eleven teaching awards and has taught two online classes with over 300,000 enrolled and 4 million minutes of video lectures watched. He is a past Vice President of the American Astronomical Society, won its Education Prize, has been an NSF Distinguished Teaching Scholar, Carnegie Council's Arizona Professor of the Year, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor. He has written 70 popular articles on cosmology, astrobiology and education, two textbooks, a novel called Shadow World, and eight popular science books: The Living Cosmos, How It Ends, Talking About Life, How It Began, Dreams of Other Worlds, Humble Before the Void, Beyond: The Future of Space Travel, and Einstein's Monsters: The Life and Times of Black Holes. Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/ produced by Zack Jackson music by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis Transcript (AI Generated) ian (01:16.703) Our guest today is a university distinguished professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona. He has over 220 refereed publications on observational cosmology, galaxies, and quasars, and his research has been supported by $20 million in NASA and NSF grants. He's won 11 teaching awards and has taught two online classes with over 300,000 enrolled and 4 million minutes of video lectures watched. He's a past vice president of the American Astronomical Society, has been an NSF Distinguished Teaching Scholar, Carnegie Council's Arizona Professor of the Year, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute professor. He has written 70 popular articles on cosmology, astrobiology, and education, two textbooks, a novel called Shadow World and eight popular science books. I'm very excited to welcome Dr. Chris Impey to the podcast today. chris_impey (02:07.898) Yeah, delighted to be with you. zack_jackson (02:09.75) Welcome. That's quite an introduction. Ha ha ha. Thanks for watching. I hope you enjoyed this video. I'll see you in the next one. Bye. ian (02:12.983) Yeah. Obviously, I shortened down what you sent us, and it was tough for me to do that, Chris, because you've done a lot. You know, obviously, I was at fellow academic. I understand the need to do peer-reviewed research and those types of things in our field, but I was really impressed with how much writing you've done for the general public, both articles and also your books. You've written a novel. You've been on several podcasts. Can you kind of tell us a little bit about your background, what is you do, and then how you also got into that part of your profession of making sure you communicate with the general public as well? chris_impey (02:53.298) Sure, you won't hear it in my voice, my accent, but I was born into Edinburgh, I'm a Scott. I had a little transatlantic childhood that sort of wiped out the Scottish borough, but if you feed me single malt whiskey it would come back. And of course, I'm sure you noticed if you've gone to Britain that you look up and there are not many stars visible there. So once I decided to do astronomy I knew I was going to leave, so I did my undergrad work in London. zack_jackson (03:04.15) Thank you. Bye. Ha ha ha! chris_impey (03:22.938) and never look back and I'm a dual citizen now. So astronomy is big in Arizona. I've not looked elsewhere. The grass is never greener anywhere else. We're building the biggest telescopes in the world and we have five observatories within an hour's drive. So this is the perfect place to do observational astronomy. So I'm very happy. But then as people's careers evolve, you know, the writing research papers is important. It's the sort of stocking trade of the academic. But it's also, you know, the texture of the average research article is that of a three-day old bologna sandwich. It's almost designed to be indigestible writing. The constraints of an academic discourse make that happen. So I was always interested in more popular writing, so I segued into textbooks. And then I realized the problem with them is that you've written a textbook and that's a nice challenge. But then the publisher just wants you to update it every year or so. It's like, okay, that's not so exciting. I think I'm not going to do this anymore. And then I think more broadly, apart from just liking education and being very committed to teaching and mentoring students, you know, I've just seen the, well, even before the sort of large waves of misinformation and the assault on facts in our culture, it's, I viewed it as an obligation of a professional scientist to communicate to a larger audience because, well, to be blunt, we're paid by the taxpayer. zack_jackson (04:26.05) Thank you. Bye. zack_jackson (04:44.15) Hmm. chris_impey (04:54.118) And also, there's a lot of misinformation out there, and science is often misperceived or characterized in wrong and inappropriate ways. And so I think all scientists should not just stay in their little lane doing research, but they should, if they can, some better than others. And not everyone can be Neil deGrasse Tyson. That's fine. But I think there's an obligation to communicate to larger audiences. And once I got into it and got practiced and better at it, then I now understand that I mean, it's like I couldn't imagine not doing it. chris_impey (05:32.018) And the books just, okay. And so books just flow out of that because writing popular articles is just a sort of lighter version of writing a technical article. And then, you know, you want a meaty subject. You do a book-length version. So I've been writing about cosmology and astrobiology. And I've started about 10 years ago I say, I think this is my ninth book, Exoplanets. So books are fun. They're more challenging. ian (05:32.543) I almost had to sneeze. Sorry, go ahead. Ha ha ha. chris_impey (06:01.958) to take on a big subject and distill it down and make it, you gotta make it, have a resonance for a person with no, maybe with no background in astronomy or maybe just a little background and you're taking them through what could be a very esoteric subject. So that, I like the challenge of that. Although the books are exhausting. Once I've done a book, I don't wanna, I almost don't wanna look at a book or read a book or write a book for a while. zack_jackson (06:28.65) do people ask you like when's the next one coming out? Like right after you finish. It's like having a baby. I'm not sure if you can tell, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. chris_impey (06:31.898) Of course. Yeah, they are. Yeah, it's like I'm not going to go there about the having a baby because my wife would my wife would give me a hard time. There's nothing like having a baby. You can't even imagine, you know, and and and she and yeah, and she's right. But like having a baby, you know, women may feel that and then they do it again, you know, so I write the book, have have a slight, you know, trauma afterwards or just let down. It's a little bit of a let down sometimes. zack_jackson (06:43.89) That is a good man. Good job. ian (06:45.766) Yes. chris_impey (07:01.918) you finished any big-ish thing. But I do like writing, so I'm committed to it. zack_jackson (07:02.094) Hmm. ian (07:09.303) Yeah. zack_jackson (07:10.05) So you're writing and thinking and studying a lot about exoplanets these days. So you're writing and thinking and studying a lot about exoplanets these days. So you're writing and thinking and studying a lot about exoplanets these days. So you're writing and thinking and studying a lot about exoplanets these days. So you're writing and thinking and studying a lot about exoplanets these days. So you're writing and thinking and studying a lot about exoplanets these days. So you're writing and thinking and studying a lot about exoplanets these days. So you're writing and thinking and studying a lot chris_impey (07:15.718) Yeah, it's a super hot field with the number has up to 5,300 last time I checked on NASA's website. And remember, you know, 1995, the number was zero. So this is all, this is all the last few decades and it's just growing gangbusters. And now it's a slightly unfortunate because I have, we have students here who are working on exoplanets or astrobiology. And, you know, there was a time when if you discovered one cool Earth-like planet or water world, ian (07:27.244) I remember that. chris_impey (07:45.818) about it. Well now you know you'd have to find a hundred interesting things to write a paper. So the bar has been raised just by the success of the field. But the interesting thing is that it's moving to a new phase. So the most of what's known about those 5300 exoplanets is not much at all. They're basically is either a mass or a size or maybe both and you get a density and know it's a gas planet or a rocky planet. And that's it. We can't characterize zack_jackson (07:46.792) Hmm. zack_jackson (07:54.15) Yeah. zack_jackson (08:04.316) Hmm. chris_impey (08:15.698) thousands of exoplanets. So the next stage of the game, everyone's taking a deep breath in the research field is to try and characterize the atmospheres and the geology and of course find life. And that's just a very hard experiment. It's just much harder than detecting an exoplanet in the first place. So there's sort of excitement in the air because if I were betting, I would say that within five to seven years, we will have done the experiment of looking for life or Earth planets that are nearest to us and will either know the answer. Either there will be microbes on those planets that have altered their atmospheres or there won't be and that will be an amazing experiment to have done. So it's really on the horizon. But it's daunting because it's a very difficult experiment. Earth-like planets are a billion times fainter than the stars they orbit. So you have to, and they're far away so they appear very close to their star. So you have to isolate the planet from the star, blot out the billion times brighter and then smear the feeble reflected light from the exoplanet into a spectrum and look for molecules that indicate life like oxygen, ozone, methane, water vapor and so on. ian (09:26.503) But the molecules you're looking for are always in the atmosphere itself, right? Like you wouldn't, and I understand that, and I think we all do, but, you know, some people listening may not realize that that's, that's what you're looking at. When you're talking about with the spectrum is that makeup of the atmosphere, nothing about like if there's, if it's a rocky planet, what's on the ground, I guess. zack_jackson (09:26.614) Now. chris_impey (09:30.458) there. chris_impey (09:45.358) Right, right. And it's important for people to realize that the characterizing the exoplanets is done in that indirect way. For instance, of those 5,300, only 150 have ever had an image made of them. You know, seeing is believing. It's nice to have images of exoplanets. That's a hard thing. And those images are, you know, they're pathetic, a few pixels. They're just pale blue dots in a far away. So there's no, and if you ask this, ian (10:02.488) Right. zack_jackson (10:03.35) Thank you. Thank you. chris_impey (10:15.678) The question of when will we be able to make an image of an exoplanet to be able to see continents and oceans? The answer is maybe never. The answer is decades or a very long time because it's just too hard to make images that sharp of things that far away, even with space telescopes. So astronomers have to be a little more indirect and the clever method that's on the table now and will be done, James Webb is doing some of this but was never built to do this experiment, it will actually be better done with the huge... set of ground-based telescopes under construction. So the experiment is you use the star to backlight the exoplanet when it crosses in front of it, and the backlit, the light from the star filters through the atmosphere of the exoplanet and imprints absorption from these relevant molecules called biosignatures. So that's the experiment you're doing. And it's still hard. And it's also not clear you'll get an unambiguous answer. You know, obviously, and its cousin ozone are the prime biomarkers because on Earth, the oxygen we breathe, one part and five of our air, was put there by microbes billions of years ago. So the reverse logic is if you see oxygen on an exoplanet or in the atmosphere of an exoplanet, it must have been put there by life because oxygen is so reactive, so volatile that it disappears. If there's not life to sustain it, say the biosphere of the Earth shut down overnight, the entire biosphere just shut down. ian (11:41.803) Thank you. Thank you. chris_impey (11:45.458) just imagine the thought experiment. Within five to seven billion, a million years, so very short time in geological terms, the oxygen, that one part in five we breathe, would be gone. It would rust things, it would dissolve in seawater, it would oxidize with rocks, and it would be gone. So if it were not put there originally by life and then sustained by photosynthesis and other life processes, it would disappear. So the logic, therefore, is if you see it elsewhere, bang, it's got to be microbes putting it there and causing it to be there. ian (12:16.845) Yeah. zack_jackson (12:16.95) Hmm, unless there's some hitherto unknown non-living process by which these things happen. chris_impey (12:24.058) Right. So that's a good point. And there is a debate there because the data that's going to come in, well, first of all, it'll be noisy. It won't be beautiful, perfect spectra. So they'll be ambiguous to interpret. And then when you see it, what is the, where's, does the bar set for being enough? And the geologists have weighed in on this. And so whereas the sort of simplistic view as well, if you see any significant level of oxygen, certainly 18% like on the earth, what's got to be biology. zack_jackson (12:41.694) Yeah. chris_impey (12:54.218) That's pretty much true, but geologists have figured out ways where without biology, just with geochemical reactions, if you conjure up a geochemistry, you can get 6%, 5%, 7% oxygen. That's quite a lot, more than most people would have expected. So the geologists are saying, well, hold on. Yes, a lot of oxygen is probably a biomarker, but you would have to know more about the planet to be sure that it didn't have some weird chemistry and geology going on. for any of the other biomarkers. Methane is a biomarker too because it's produced on earth, you know, mostly by life, a good fraction of that, cow farts I think. But so it's the same argument. So these wonderful and difficult to obtain spectra are going to be, everyone's going to jump all over them and hope they give an unambiguous answer, but they might not. Science is not always as cut and dried as that at the frontier, which is where we are. But it's the zack_jackson (13:34.511) Hmm. Sure. chris_impey (13:53.958) exciting experiment and it will be done fairly soon. ian (13:58.804) Okay. chris_impey (14:01.358) And then a sort of related issue is that it's not just microbes. I mean, that's just looking for life as we know it on the earth. You could also look with the same technique, and this is an interesting possibility, for what are called techno signatures. So biosignatures is just evidence of life, typically microbes, because we think most life in the universe is going to be microbial, even if it's not exactly like our form of biology. But you could also look for things technology like chlorofluorocarbons, which you know, were responsible for almost killing the ozone layer for a few decades until we sort of ruled them out of refrigeration units. And there are other chemicals that are produced by industrial activity in a civilization, which would normally be very trace ingredients in an atmosphere, barely, you know, not present at all really. And if you could detect them in an atmosphere, it would be indirect evidence of a technological or industrial civilization. Realization on that planet and that will be very exciting. So that's the same method being used to ask a very different question But it's a more challenging experiment because these are trace ingredients. I'll give you an example I mean, we're all aware of climate change global warming and we've seen the carbon dioxide content of our atmosphere Increased by 30% roughly in the last few decades. That's quite a lot. It's obviously concerning and we know the implications But if you step back and look at the earth from afar and say, well, shouldn't that just be obvious? Shouldn't some other alien civilization look at the Earth and say, oh, those people are really screwing up. They're killing their atmosphere with climate change and fossil fuel burning? The answer is probably not because carbon dioxide is a trace ingredient of our atmosphere, and 30% increase on a trace ingredient would actually be very hard to detect from a distance. So even that dramatic thing that we are all anxious about on our planet industrial activity and fossil fuels is not dramatically obvious from a distance. So these are quite difficult experiments. The techno-signature experiment is much harder than the biosignature experiment. zack_jackson (16:13.592) Hmm. ian (16:14.165) Interesting. rachael (16:17.101) One of the things that you had said when looking at these exoplanets was, you know, we look at them and we want to see them and what's going on with them. And then you added the line, and of course, detect life. And that's where our conversation has gone for the last couple of minutes. But I'm wondering, you added that phrase that seems to think that finding life is part, entire reason for studying exoplanets. And I'm wondering, A, why you think that? And B, what that says about, you know, making it very narcissistic and Earth-centered, what that says about us. chris_impey (16:54.799) Mm-hmm. chris_impey (17:02.778) Right. Okay. So good question. I can unpack that in parts. I mean, yes, if I were a geologist or a planetary scientist, I'd be just pleased as punch and happy as a pig in a poke to just study exoplanets. That's all that I'm happy. I've got 5300 new, new geological worlds to study. Whereas the solar system only has a handful. Oh, yeah. So depending on your discipline, you might be totally zack_jackson (17:16.049) Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe rachael (17:19.507) Right! chris_impey (17:32.718) properties. But astrobiology, I mean astrobiology writ large is the study of life in the universe, and the context for that search for life in the universe is the fact that we only know of one example of life, and that's on this planet. And everything in astronomy and the history of astronomy, and the Copernicus onwards, has told us we're not special, has told us there's nothing singular zack_jackson (17:59.891) Thank you. Bye. chris_impey (18:02.718) about our solar system, about our galaxy, or our position in the galaxy, and so on. In space and time, we are not special. And so, you know, for biology to be unique to this planet, when the ingredients are widespread, we've detected carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, the biogenic elements out to distances of 12, 13 billion light years, almost to the birth of the universe. Water is one of the, you might think it's special. Earth is a water world. Well, actually, some of the exoplanets have 10 to 30 times more water. water than the Earth. So it's not, the Earth isn't really a water world even, pale blue dot, it's not that special. And water is one of the most abundant molecules in the universe too. So all the ingredients, the table is set for life in the universe. And as the universe is evolved and is quite old, more and more of those biogenic elements are made by stars and spat out into space to become part of new star systems and planets. And so in an old mature universe with a lot of heavy elements, and with many habitable locations now, we the best guess is 20 billion Earth-like habitable worlds just in our galaxy, then it just, whether or not it's central to astrobiology, it absolutely begs the question, is biology unique to this planet? Because it really shouldn't be statistically. However, logically, you know, to be correct and scientific, it's possible that there were a unique set of accidents and flukes that led to life on Earth, and it is unique. It would still chris_impey (19:33.038) It's historical science to wonder how life on earth developed and nobody's ever built a cell from scratch in the lab people have done various parts of that experiment and They can't connect all the dots, but they've done some very interesting experiments that certainly suggest It's not a fluke that the whole thing happened. You need time. You need the possibilities of Chemicals bumping into each other and getting more complex, but that tends to happen It happens if you do it in a computer it in a lab as well as you can. And so the context of the ingredients for life being so widespread and there not seeming to be any sort of bizarre, flukish occurrence in the development of at least replicating molecules that could store information, if not a full cell, would certainly lead you to anticipate life elsewhere. And then game on, because the big question then is, so there are two almost binary questions you're trying to answer, which is why the field is so exciting. Is there life beyond Earth, yes or no? And then if yes, is it like our life? Is it biology? Because everything on Earth, from a fungal spore to a butterfly to a blue whale, is the same biological experiment. They seem like very diverse things, but that's one genetic code. experiment that led to that diversity after a long time, after four billion years of evolution. And there's no reason to expect, even if the ingredients for life and the basis for biology exist far beyond Earth and in many locations, there's no real reason to expect that it would play out the same way elsewhere. And so that second question, is it like Earth life, is a very big question. rachael (21:27.201) Just as a curiosity, when did, if you know, when did microbes appear on Earth? chris_impey (21:39.158) So the earliest, the indications of life on Earth, the history of that is really tricky, because as you know, the Earth is a restless planet, and we weren't there, it's historical science, and it's possible you may never answer the question, but the big problem is the restless Earth. It's very hard, there's only a handful of places on Earth, Western Australia, Greenland, somewhere in South Africa, where you can find four billion year old rocks. They just don't exist. I mean, everything's been churned by geology and eroded rachael (21:46.661) We weren't there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. rachael (21:56.104) Right. chris_impey (22:09.338) Weathered and so on so just even and that's about when we think life started So you're dealing with you know a crime scene where the evidence has been trampled many times and the crowds have just Obliterated the evidence so that's a hard thing and then the second hard thing is that the incipient Traces of life as you get to cells are very indirect They're sort of just you they're biochemical tracers or sorry there. They're chemical imbalances isotopic imbalances of versus normal carbon and so on. Because you're not looking for fully fossilized cells. So if you're just looking at what would be called chemical tracers of life, they're pretty good, but argumentative, this field is not resolved, traces that go back about 3.8 billion years. If you're asking when do you have the first fossil life forms, fossilized microbes, single cells, rachael (23:00.421) Okay. chris_impey (23:09.238) to 3.4, 3.5 billion years, and that's people then stop arguing about it. I think they believe that evidence. And then there's this enormous long time between that and multi-celled organisms. That step in the evolution of life seems to have taken a long time. You could infer that that means it's difficult or doesn't happen very often, but that's a dangerous inference from data of one. All the inferences, hazardous. So astrobiologists have to keep pinching themselves and saying, it's a sample of one. It's a sample of one. rachael (23:30.921) Thank you. Thank you. zack_jackson (23:32.75) Thank you. Bye. rachael (23:39.721) One does not make a line. One day to... That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right. chris_impey (23:41.139) Don't draw too many conclusions. So, yeah, the cell formation, the evolution of the first cells and microbes seem to have taken 300 or 400 million years from the first chemical traces of life. But those chemical traces, we don't know. There's that Zircon that was found in Western Australia, 4.404 billion years accurately measured by radioactive dating. chris_impey (24:09.378) environment and so there's evidence really soon after the earth formed when it was just a hellhole of a place you know impacts and craters and geological activity that the earth surface was almost tacky like magma and yet there were there were any ingredients for life there so nobody would rule out life going back very close to the formation of the earth but then but tracing all these evolutionary paths is really hard I mean we have stromatolites which are modern descendants of the first microbial colonies. You can go to Western Australia, Shark's Bay, I've been there and it's great, they're stromatolites. These were just the same as they were now three billion years ago, it's really cool. One of the things you can't see behind me is my stromatolite collection. rachael (24:53.985) Yeah. rachael (24:59.962) One of the reasons, yeah, that's fascinating. It makes a collector about that. It makes a collector. Um. Yeah. zack_jackson (25:00.071) kind of a few collections chris_impey (25:01.578) Yeah. Oh, well, three. Does that make a collection? ian (25:05.749) It's good enough. chris_impey (25:07.958) Well, yes. It's like primitive counting systems, one, two, many. So I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. I have many. rachael (25:13.941) That's right. zack_jackson (25:15.016) Ha! rachael (25:19.021) One of the reasons I was asking that question about Earth, because you were talking about these very far away planets and looking for microbial, likely microbial life, then showing up in the atmosphere by its various products. And so my question was stemming from how far back are these planets that we're looking at? a really long time to create its microbes, then perhaps, since we're looking so far back in time, that maybe those microbes exist now, but when we're looking at them, they didn't exist. Right, that lovely time, space question. chris_impey (25:51.579) Mm-hmm. chris_impey (26:02.098) Right. So in that context, it's important to say that the exoplanets we're finding are in our backyard. So Kepler, NASA's Kepler mission is really responsible for almost half the exoplanets, even though it stopped operating a few years ago. And so the most exoplanets we know of are within 100 to 1,000 light years. And that's our backyard. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across. rachael (26:12.785) Okay. rachael (26:28.064) Oh, close. Yeah. chris_impey (26:32.398) And of course, logically, therefore, we're only seeing them as they were a century or millennium ago, which is no time geologically. So we can't see that far back. So we're not really looking at ancient history. However, the more important point, having mentioned that carbon nitrogen, oxygen, and water have been around in the universe for a long time, is that we now can very confidently say, even if we can't locate such objects, that an earth clone, rachael (26:32.606) Okay. rachael (26:38.901) Yeah, it's no time at all. Yeah. chris_impey (27:02.098) something as close to Earth as you could imagine, could have been created within a billion years of the Big Bang. And that's seven billion years before the Earth formed. So there are potential biological experiments out there that have a seven billion year head start on us and then add the four billion four and a half billion years of evolution. And that's boggling because you know, we can't imagine what evolution and biology might come up with given 10 or 12 billion years to evolve rather zack_jackson (27:11.75) Hmm. chris_impey (27:31.958) Maybe it makes no difference at all. Maybe these things are slow and they're hard and the Earth was actually one of the fastest kids on the block rather than one of the slowest kids on the block. We don't know. Sample of one again. We'll just put that as a big asterisk over almost everything I say so I don't have to keep saying sample of one. Okay. zack_jackson (27:32.014) Hmm. rachael (27:41.861) Simple of one. zack_jackson (27:42.808) Yeah. zack_jackson (27:48.834) No. rachael (27:49.221) That'll just be today's episode title, right? Today's sample of one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. chris_impey (27:51.14) Yeah, right. zack_jackson (27:52.65) That's Apple F1. chris_impey (27:55.038) Yeah, induction is a bitch when you can't do it. zack_jackson (27:55.492) So. zack_jackson (28:02.51) So we've talked a lot about the how it's possible, how we might detect it, but what do you think it might do to our sense of self and our sense of spirituality, our sense of humanity, our sense of earth? Should we start discovering life outside of, or at least biological markers in other places? chris_impey (28:28.898) Right. I mean, I think it sort of bifurcates if we find microbial life elsewhere and improve it, you know, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. And even if we don't know if it's our biology or not, it's just a biomarker that's irrefutable or set of biomarkers. That will be a transformative, epochal event in the history of science. It'll be dramatic. But it will make front page headlines and then fade, I would say, fairly rapidly, because it's microbes. zack_jackson (28:44.618) Mm-hmm. chris_impey (28:58.858) Like, that's Ponskum or stuff on your shower curtain, like, okay, who cares? So, I mean being facetious, but not too facetious, because I think the public will just be interested and science interested people will be very interested, and books will be written, and documentaries will be made, and so on. But in the public consciousness, I don't think it will permeate very far or persist very long. Of course, the counterpoint of if we decide we found intelligent life in the universe through those techno markers. zack_jackson (29:03.391) Ha ha ha. chris_impey (29:28.978) you know, the search for artificial radio or optical signals from some civilization. So they're obviously artificial and they couldn't have been produced by nature. That will be more profound, of course, because that's companionship in the universe. And that will raise all sorts of questions. So I think it really divides that way. And since the universe logically, if life exists in the universe elsewhere, there'll be many more microbes than intelligent civilizations. You know. ian (29:29.523) Mm-hmm. chris_impey (29:58.858) seed in that first mode. Although SETI is a side bet. I mean SETI for 65 years has been placing this little side bet. Okay, yeah, we can look for microbes and those are hard experiments and now we can almost do it. But let's always place this side bet of jumping over the evolutionary path from microbes to men or humans and look for those intelligent technological civilizations directly. And so it's worth doing. I'm not science scientists are divided on SETI, even astronomers are divided on it, whether it's a worthwhile pursuit or not, whether it's even scientific or not. That's the strongest critique of SETI is that unlike, you know, if I wanted to go to the National Science Foundation and get a million dollar grant to study some issue of, you know, solid state physics or high energy physics, I'd have to propose an experiment and define my parameters and how I was going to control variables and say how I would interpret the data. could refute or confirm. SETI doesn't have that kind of situation. They don't know how to define success or failure even. Well, they can define success more or less, but they can't define failure and they can't say what the probability of success is. So it's not a normal scientific pursuit. So that's the critique of SETI from scientists, but I still think it's worth doing. ian (31:04.946) Right. ian (31:23.628) Yeah. rachael (31:24.842) You talked about, and I think you're probably right in terms of how much people will care in the long run or in their day-to-day life or, right? Okay, so we found some microbes from, you know, a thousand light years away. I don't, that didn't reduce my student loan at all. But like, didn't, thank you. It's nice, saw the headlines. It's now three years later. chris_impey (31:45.018) Right. rachael (31:54.441) But I've noticed that you did a lot of work with the Vatican and with monks, and I think that that's a different population that might respond to and other religious figures, but specifically those I'm asking you because those are the groups that you've worked with. They might respond a little bit differently to this existence. Could you speak a little bit ian (32:01.35) Yeah chris_impey (32:16.803) Right. rachael (32:23.726) in this idea of how it would change. chris_impey (32:25.658) Sure. And maybe preface it with just the cultural comment, with independent religion, that the other issue that will arise with, I mean, if microbial life is found elsewhere and astrobiology is a real field with the subject matter, finally, yeah, it's foundational for science. And of course, it terraforms biology because, you know, if you want to poke, if physicists want to poke at biologists who say, well, you just spent your whole life studying one form of biology, What about all the other forms? You don't have a general theory of biology like we have a standard model of particle physics because you've just been studying one thing like staring at your navel. Well, what about all that stuff out there? Okay, so so it'll be a big deal for biology for all of science but on the intelligent life or advanced life, the problem with what happens outside the scientific community is it's not a tabula rasa. It's not a blank slate. The popular culture, especially in the US ian (32:59.524) Hmm. ian (33:08.503) Thank you. Bye. chris_impey (33:25.718) but almost everywhere now, is so primed for the fact that, A, it's already there and sure, and B, it's visited, and three, it's abducted some of our people, and four, it can make a list of all the conspiracy theories and wild ideas about alien life. And they're just so embedded in the popular culture that it's like that the fact of the existence of intelligent aliens has been amortized. It's sort of been, it's just already been built in. zack_jackson (33:39.8) Thank you. chris_impey (33:55.698) in to the culture. And so, you know, that would lead to a collective shrug. Well, sure, we knew that, you know, the government's been hiding this stuff from us for 70 years, since Roswell. So, you know, and now your astronomers are coming along and telling us, oh, it exists and you're all excited, really? Oh, come on, you know. So I think that's the larger cultural issue or problem or whatever, it's not a problem, it's just amusing to me. But as far as a religious reaction to this, and I'll say, zack_jackson (34:02.271) Hmm. rachael (34:04.421) Thank you. Bye. zack_jackson (34:05.05) Thank you. Bye. zack_jackson (34:12.722) Ha! chris_impey (34:25.698) the gate that I'm an agnostic, which my wife's a pretty hardcore atheist. And so she gives me a hard time about being agnostic. She thinks that's a kind of, it's a kind of wussy position to take. But I, and I argue with her, we argue vigorously about that one. I argue with her and I use the phrase that was attributed to Feynman. And I think he did say this in the biography of Richard Feynman, famous physicist. His biographer said, zack_jackson (34:43.45) Fantastic. chris_impey (34:55.738) Feynman believed in the primacy of doubt and that he held as a high scientific mark and doubt skepticism and doubt is a is a very high mark of a scientist. So I'm proud to wear that mantle of skepticism doubt of not being sure and being okay with not being sure. So I'm an agnostic but I do keep bad company and some of that bad company is Jesuits. Don't you know, don't don't go drinking with Jesuits. You'll you'll you'll end up in a rachael (34:59.461) Thank you. Bye. ian (35:13.024) Right. zack_jackson (35:14.092) Yeah. chris_impey (35:25.798) and a Rome gutter somewhere and they'll be they'll have got back home safely. With the Buddhists, the other group I hang out with, you don't have to worry about being drunk in a gutter because they really don't drink. They do bend the rules a bit, you know, I've seen them eat a lot of meat for people who are supposed to be vegans and vegetarians. But anyway, those are the two tribes that I've sort of affiliated myself with. And their reactions or perspectives on life in the universe is are quite different. They're interesting. Each the Buddhists that I've been with and I've read behind this of course and read some of their More you know the scholarly articles written about this It is completely unexceptional in their tradition to contemplate a universe filled with life That could be more advanced It could be human like or it could be more advanced or different from humans in also a vast universe with cycles of time and birth and and death of the universe and rebirth of other universes. So the Byzantine possibilities of life in the universe are pretty standard stuff for them and would not surprise them at all. They do get into more tricky issues when they come to define life itself, which biologists of course have trouble with, or sentience, which is also a tricky issue. But on the larger issue of the existence of life in the universe far beyond Earth, that's just non-controversial. zack_jackson (36:48.35) Hmm. chris_impey (36:55.898) to them and when I say that's what we anticipate and that's what scientists expect it's like okay sure and the Jesuits are in a different slightly different space they're of course in an unusual space as we know within the Catholic Church because they're you know they're the scholarly branch you know they're they're devoted to scholarship they from Gregory and the calendar reform they were liberated to measure ian (37:17.944) Mm-hmm. chris_impey (37:25.678) the heavens and then eventually that just segwayed smoothly into doing astronomy research. The Jesuits have been doing pretty straight up astronomical research since certainly the early 19th century, so quite a long time. And they have that sort of intellectual independence of being able to pursue those ideas. All the Jesuit astronomers I know, there are I think 11 or 12 in the Vatican Observatory and they all live the double life. They're all PhD astronomers. rachael (37:37.221) Thank you. chris_impey (37:55.798) with parishes. So it's not a problem. Whoever else, whoever elsewhere might think there's a conflict between science and religion, they don't see it. They don't feel it. And if you ask... Yeah. Yeah. ian (38:05.145) Mm-hmm. zack_jackson (38:06.03) No. And if anyone out there wants to hear more about that, they can listen to episode episode 113 with brother guy, the, uh, the director. Yeah. ian (38:10.246) We have an episode. chris_impey (38:13.821) Right. ian (38:15.343) Director of the Vatican Observatory. chris_impey (38:16.418) Sure, sure. So I've known guys since, well, since he was a grad student actually, and a long time. And yes, and so they, they're pursuing it from a scholarly direction. And for them, it's also uncontroversial that there would be life elsewhere. Now, what is the, you know, what does that do to God's creation when you imagine that Earth and humans are no longer the centerpiece of it? That's a more interesting question. zack_jackson (38:22.034) Wow. chris_impey (38:46.298) I've had debates about that. And I heard Jose Funes, who was the previous director of the Vatican Observatory and Argentinian astronomer, in a press conference actually in the Vatican City State when we had a conference on astrobiology. In response to a question about astrobiology, because that was what the conference was about, he gave a very interesting answer. He said he gave a parable of Christ in the flock of sheep and how there was the sheep that was lost. you know, you had to gather back to the rest of the flock. And he didn't complete the story, he just left it hanging there. And so you were left wondering, are we the lost sheep, you know, and the other, and all the intelligent aliens out there are the rest of the flock? And what's the message, you know? So he sort of almost muddied the waters with his little parable. But in the manner of how they view the universe, zack_jackson (39:27.914) Hmm. rachael (39:28.621) Thank you. Bye. zack_jackson (39:33.792) Hmm. chris_impey (39:46.398) the rules of physics. I used to teach a team graduate cosmology with Bill Staker, who is one of their tribe. Sadly, he died a few years ago. We teach cosmology and he's a relativist. He works on general relativity and the Big Bang and all that. And if I was just wanting to pull his leg at breakfast, we had breakfast before we taught us to organize ourselves. I could do one of two things. I could say, oh, Bill, physics, we got you with physics. is squeezed back to the first 10 to the minus 43 seconds. Got to the gaps, there it is, that's a little gap. And then physics owns the rest, you know. And then if I was really feeling frisky, I'd sort of, since he was a Catholic, I'd tease him about the three impossible things he has to believe every morning before breakfast. Virgin birth, resurrection, et cetera, you know. So I don't know how all those circles are squared truly because we've had, you know, I've had conversations. zack_jackson (40:22.572) Hmm. zack_jackson (40:26.32) Hehehehehe zack_jackson (40:35.05) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. chris_impey (40:46.798) But I know that it's not a conflict or a tension or even a problem to imagine life in the universe and even intelligent life. So for neither of those two very different religious tribes, does it seem to be an issue? ian (41:06.443) So can you talk more about, especially how you got involved? Cause I think that science for the monks and nuns program was really interesting. And, you know, one, how you got involved, but you know, reading your book Humble Before the Void was just very interesting to kind of see about your experience from there. And you told us before we started recording that you wrote that after your first time going and that you've been there eight or nine times now. What has all of this been like for you? How has it had an impact on your work and also your personal life? if yes and what ways. chris_impey (41:38.798) Yeah, it was a sort of profound, it's been a profound experience since 2008, I guess, so it's almost 15 years and eight trips. So the first time was one of those great things of you come across the transom professionally. Sometimes I got a call from a colleague that I didn't know that well, who he knew I had an education, a good reputation as an educator. And he just called me, he's a postdoc at Berkeley actually, an environmental science postdoc. He said, how'd you like to go and teach the Dalai Lama's monks cosmology? And it's not a question you ruminate over or look at your skit, look at, oh, I'll check my calendar. Let me get back to you. No, you just say yes, and then you make it happen. So I said yes, and then it happened. And I was savvy enough in hindsight to take my 17-year-old Paul with me on that trip. And he'd never been anywhere out, he'd been to Europe a couple of times, but he'd never been to Asia or anywhere exotic. zack_jackson (42:14.65) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha rachael (42:17.821) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha zack_jackson (42:23.05) Thank you. Bye. chris_impey (42:38.738) if you like. And so that was a profound trip in that sense. It was a bonding with your 17-year-old and you know, we were a little more adventurous together than either of us might have been on our own. And so the context was that invitation. And then I learned that his holiness the Dalai Lama, who famously has said in his autobiography that if he hadn't been selected at age four to be the of compassion would have been an engineer. Fine, that's an interesting statement to make. But, and it meant that when he was a child in Eastern Tibet, in a pretty primitive village, you know, he would just infuriate his parents by taking apart their clocks and mechanical devices and never quite putting them together again. So he had this analytic and mechanical and engineering and scientific mindset even as a child. And then of course his future was cast into the role he had zack_jackson (43:11.134) Hmm. zack_jackson (43:25.992) Hmm. chris_impey (43:38.798) he took. But he's always had that strong interest in science. So he looked around 20 or so years ago and realized that the monastic tradition, his, the Gelug tradition, of course, or other traditions in Buddhism, was sort of outdated. You know, the monastic training was extremely rigorous. They take years and years of rhetoric and philosophy and theology and comparative religion and all sorts of things. But there's very little science, very little math. And in the schools, there's zack_jackson (43:39.972) Bye. chris_impey (44:08.718) very little science and very little math. And he just thought that was unacceptable. He said, my monks and nuns, the nun part actually did come later. And that was a good part of his work to make the level of playing field for monastic training to include nuns. But he just said, these my monastics cannot be prepared for life in the 21st century if they don't have science and math. And so in the manner that he does these things, he just looked around and waved his arm and said, make this happen, you know, and I've now zack_jackson (44:19.05) Thank you. Thank you. zack_jackson (44:30.035) Yeah. zack_jackson (44:37.45) Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe chris_impey (44:38.798) heard from proximity to people in his orbit that his holiness, the Dalai Lama says a lot of things. He has great ideas. He's very activist. He's very visionary. And he says all sorts of things. And people scurry around and sometimes they just ignore him. Sometimes nothing happens. But this one, they decided to make it happen. And what happened was they looked around Dharamsala chris_impey (45:08.658) the blue, who was an educator and a scientist, a young scientist. And they just glommed on to him and they said, Hey, can you help us with this? Can you set something up? And so he set up the science for monks program, then science for monks and nuns. When the nuns came on board and I was one of the early people he called. And so the model was to bring three to four Western teachers in different subjects. The Dalai Lama's core interest. it doesn't mirror a bit his interests, which are evolutionary biology, neuroscience, physics, math, and then environmental sciences come on board too. So it's not every field of science. So these, we would come out as Western teachers and there'd be cohorts of monks and then monks and nuns, about 24 in a group. And we do three week intensive workshops and they're very intense, you know, we're in the classroom six, seven hours a day and then our evening sessions or observing zack_jackson (45:50.671) Hmm. chris_impey (46:08.658) telescopes. So it's kind of grueling actually, but it's inspiring as well. And eventually, the idea is that enough of the monks and nuns will be trained to be educators themselves, and you won't need to depend on Westerners to come out and do this. And they're not really there yet, but they could get there. I don't want them to get there, because then I won't get invited out. So it was a singular experience. And the book I wrote, of course, was fresh, zack_jackson (46:24.494) Hmm. chris_impey (46:38.738) I was really, I wrote it not long after the first trip. And to your question of did it affect me or change me? Well, yes, in many ways, some of which I probably haven't fully appreciated. I mean, first of all, it was a deep embedding in a culture, in a way that I'd never done. I was pretty experienced world traveler, but in that sort of slightly superficial way of someone who goes to Asia and tries to hang out and go to a bar in a local restaurant and see the sights, but you don't really get to know the people ian (47:05.228) Mm-hmm chris_impey (47:08.838) you're moving around. So being three weeks, sometimes four weeks, and then traveling with them afterwards or during, you know, really you get to learn the culture. You also see in these northern Indian towns, most of the workshops are in northern India, there's now in southern India, Bidtabhatta, Nepal for this too. They're mixing very well. India has a, you know, kind of black mark on it right now with its current government of sort of sectarian strife and Most recently with the Sikhs, but also obviously with Muslims But in those little northern Indian villages where there are sometimes 50 percent Buddhist 50 percent Hindus They really get on pretty well. I mean that they're just they're sort of under the radar the geopolitics or the What the Modi government is doing at the time so? It works pretty well, and it's nice to see that So I learned that I saw the culture up close. I would be part of their rituals and go, you know and ian (47:50.666) Mm-hmm. chris_impey (48:08.758) see everything they saw and listen to their prayers and talk to their scholars. And so it was a pretty deep embedding. And then as far as my own life, when I come back, rather than just view it as, you know, amazing experience, I got some beautiful photos. I had these great memories. Um, it did sort of make me reflect a little, uh, because of their, the ethos they had. And their ethos is, is of course very, um, very different from most of a Western ethos. It's a Buddhist are all about compassion and suffering, suffering and compassion. They do go together. They're almost bedfellows. So I got the message, I think very early on, when I was walking towards the lecture hall and it was at one of these Tibetan children villages and they're very poignant places. They're about 11 or maybe now 14 Tibetan children villages in the northern part of India. And that's where the refugees go. ian (48:46.008) Mm-hmm. chris_impey (49:09.158) that escaped. So almost all the monks in my early workshops left Tibet when they were teenagers even younger, brought across the ice fields by family members at great risk. Some didn't make it, others lost toes and fingers from frostbite. They had to go in the winter because the Chinese troops would intercept them and even even then did in the winter. So they were orphans, And they grow up and go to these Tibetan children villages, sort of orphanages, really. And so I was walking towards the lecture hall, which is situated in one of these villages. And there was a hard, scrabble, packed dirt soccer pitch. You know, it looked really uncomfortable for falling. I am enough of a Brit to have experienced playing football soccer on really nice grass, because England does have good grass, you know. And I was thinking, the first thing I thought, damn, I don't want to play football. rachael (50:04.321) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ian (50:04.525) Right. zack_jackson (50:05.412) Hmm chris_impey (50:08.918) on that field. That would be brutal. So there was this football field and there was a 10-foot wall behind it running the length of the football field, painted white, and on top of it in 10-foot high letters was a slogan of the school, others before self. And I was just thinking, I wonder how many American high schools would have that as their slogan. How would that go down with the, you know, social media, me generation, whatever. rachael (50:10.621) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ian (50:31.167) Right. rachael (50:31.321) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha zack_jackson (50:32.25) Hmm ian (50:34.845) Yeah. chris_impey (50:38.918) So that was one thing. And then a series of those little messages sort of sink in about how they do operate differently from us or me. And so one thing it made me reflect on when I went back home was I immediately embedded back in my academic life and hustling the next grant and writing the next paper and talking to my collaborators. And I just realized how really how intensely pressured. rachael (50:40.763) Wow. chris_impey (51:08.658) Darwinian that science, Western science system is, it's kind of, you know, it kind of grinds you down. I mean, I've been hustling for grants from funding agencies for 40 years and I kind of burned out on it, you know, it's hard. It doesn't get any easier because there's younger whippersnappers that are very smart and, you know, they're going to get your grant. So it definitely made me reflect on the sort of hyper competitive nature of some parts of zack_jackson (51:21.042) Hmm. ian (51:21.047) Mm-hmm. rachael (51:28.721) Thank you. Bye. chris_impey (51:39.719) and just reflect on what is important. Is it important to know something, or to teach something, or to give something, or to what is important? And how does that work when you're a scientist and educator? And that's it. Thank you for watching. I hope you enjoyed this video. I'll see you in the next one. Bye. ian (51:56.043) Yeah. Well, it's just interesting reading the book and I told you before we're recording. I've not been on to finish it yet, but I look forward to finish it just because, you know, one, you know, as I've already said, you're a fantastic writer for the lay audience, the general public, which is not something, you know, I've, I've worked with many scientists as a science educator and many of the ones I've worked with have said they struggle with that. Right. So I always applaud that. Um, but then just the, the personal experiences you shared and. chris_impey (51:59.833) I'm ian (52:26.163) humble before the void was just very interesting to me, especially someone who I have embraced meditation and mindfulness over the past three or four years and gotten really into it. And so, you know, first when I, when you shared that book with us and saw that the Dalai Lama wrote, you know, the preface for it and everything, I just was immediately fascinated because I find him to be absolutely fascinating in his perspective on things. So chris_impey (52:47.298) Yeah, I mean, I was, I mean, I've been privileged to meet him a couple of times. And, uh, and it's always, uh, a singular experience. Uh, the first time was that first trip out actually. And, and it was in that same Tibetan children village. And that was, this was in the winter. I was a January is a very, um, very difficult time to be there. It's in the foothills of the Himalayas. Quite high up. Dharamsala has trivial factoid that a Brit will appreciate like me. Um, It has the world's highest cricket stadium. And so drum solo, there you go. Now you know, when you get asked that, now you know. So we were in this auditorium, this cold auditorium, very cold, and they'd given the Westerners blankets, put over their legs, and even a few little heaters around. But it was brutal. And he was going to give an opening address. And everyone was full of excitement and anticipation. It was probably 2,000 people. But it was a cold, it was an unadorned Spartan auditorium ian (53:20.331) Oh. zack_jackson (53:20.594) Hmm. Ha ha ha. ian (53:25.403) Exactly. zack_jackson (53:34.892) Hmm. chris_impey (53:47.498) on a below freezing day in the Himalayas. And along that football field outside, which is the way his little, he has the equivalent of a pokemobile, he has the DL mobile or whatever that he comes into a place with, that he was gonna come along the edge of the field. And I'd seen walking in that the school children were starting to assemble in a long row along the side of the football field along the place his vehicle would come. And we were waiting zack_jackson (54:01.775) Thank you. Bye. chris_impey (54:17.258) He was late and it was so cold and it was quiet. People were murmuring, nothing was happening. And then suddenly we heard this sound, this wave of singing. So they were singing him in as his vehicle arrived. And I was like, wow, that was so cool. Just the sound of that. And then he came and he just radiates when he's in a room. And he's a little frail. He had trouble getting up the three steps onto the stage. But his grin is just... Oh, it's just... anyone who remelt the hardest heart. He's just so... and his comments are always, you know, they're always kind of offhand and insightful and, you know, he has a very interesting and sensibility. So that's been a remarkable thing. But the monks all had their own insights and I learned a lot from them. I mean, I was teaching them but I was learning a lot from them. And they gave me, you know, when you teach, well, the other thing I didn't say about the ian (55:12.667) Mm-hmm. chris_impey (55:17.418) experience there, which was also restorative for me, is, you know, I depend on my high tech gadgets and my PowerPoints and my whatever. And I was pretty much warned. I said, you're going to be pretty much off the grid. And it was almost like that. And there were a couple of workshops where, you know, if the cold water, if the water was hot, you were lucky. If the power stayed on all day in the classroom, you were lucky. There was hardly any equipment. We make these, these runs rachael (55:25.325) Hmm. chris_impey (55:47.278) These equipment runs down to the local bazaar, and we buy matchsticks and cloth and cardboard and foil and just super primitive ingredients to make experiments back in the classroom, rather than bring stuff out from the West. So you had to improvise, and it was good to do that. It was good to have to lecture and talk and use simple analogies and simple equipment. And so they informed me about that, too, because I wondered how they understood zack_jackson (56:02.75) Thank you. Bye. chris_impey (56:17.278) these very abstract things of physics and cosmology. And I think the first striking little insight I had, because I was always reaching for a good analogy. And then, so I sort of turned the tab
The ALL ME® Podcast DHEA – John Travis One of the ingredients that has grown in popularity in the Dietary Supplement industry is DHEA, short for Dehydroepiandrosterone. To learn more about this ingredient, we talk with John Travis from NSF. John is the Technical Manager at NSF and has more than 25 years of experience in analyzing dietary supplements. His expertise in the analysis of dietary supplements for ingredients prohibited by anti-doping organizations was instrumental in developing screening methods for NSF's Certified for Sport® program, a program that analyzes and detects potentially harmful substances, contaminants and emerging drugs in dietary supplements. We talk to John about what DHEA is, how it functions in the body, its use in supplements and why the product is banned by anti-doping agencies. We talk about the reasons people take DHEA products including anti-aging, muscle development, sexual function and other medical conditions. This episode will look at potential side effects and the need for more research in this area, while discussing the future of DHEA and the supplement industry as a whole. Thanks to John for his time and for NSF Certified for Sport for their support. Topics like this is why it is so important to only purchase and take products that have been third party tested! Resource Definitions and Links: -NSF Certified for Sport: -DSHEA Act: -NSF Certified for Sport ALL ME Podcast: Follow Us: Twitter: @theTHF Instagram: @theTHF Facebook: Taylor Hooton Foundation #ALLMEPEDFREE Contact Us: Email: Phone: 214-449-1990 ALL ME Assembly Programs:
A conversation with Tim Hwang about historical simulations, the interaction of policy and science, analogies between research ecosystems and the economy, and so much more. Topics Historical Simulations Macroscience Macro-metrics for science Long science The interaction between science and policy Creative destruction in research “Regulation” for scientific markets Indicators for the health of a field or science as a whole “Metabolism of Science” Science rotation programs Clock speeds of Regulation vs Clock Speeds of Technology References Macroscience Substack Ada Palmer's Papal Simulation Think Tank Tycoon Universal Paperclips (Paperclip maximizer html game) Pitt Rivers Museum Transcript [00:02:02] Ben: Wait, so tell me more about the historical LARP that you're doing. Oh, [00:02:07] Tim: yeah. So this comes from like something I've been thinking about for a really long time, which is You know in high school, I did model UN and model Congress, and you know, I really I actually, this is still on my to do list is to like look into the back history of like what it was in American history, where we're like, this is going to become an extracurricular, we're going to model the UN, like it has all the vibe of like, after World War II, the UN is a new thing, we got to teach kids about international institutions. Anyways, like, it started as a joke where I was telling my [00:02:35] friend, like, we should have, like, model administrative agency. You know, you should, like, kids should do, like, model EPA. Like, we're gonna do a rulemaking. Kids need to submit. And, like, you know, there'll be Chevron deference and you can challenge the rule. And, like, to do that whole thing. Anyways, it kind of led me down this idea that, like, our, our notion of simulation, particularly for institutions, is, like, Interestingly narrow, right? And particularly when it comes to historical simulation, where like, well we have civil war reenactors, they're kind of like a weird dying breed, but they're there, right? But we don't have like other types of historical reenactments, but like, it might be really valuable and interesting to create communities around that. And so like I was saying before we started recording, is I really want to do one that's a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But like a serious, like you would like a historical reenactment, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's like everybody would really know their characters. You know, if you're McNamara, you really know what your motivations are and your background. And literally a dream would be a weekend simulation where you have three teams. One would be the Kennedy administration. The other would be, you know, Khrushchev [00:03:35] and the Presidium. And the final one would be the, the Cuban government. Yeah. And to really just blow by blow, simulate that entire thing. You know, the players would attempt to not blow up the world, would be the idea. [00:03:46] Ben: I guess that's actually the thing to poke, in contrast to Civil War reenactment. Sure, like you know how [00:03:51] Tim: that's gonna end. Right, [00:03:52] Ben: and it, I think it, that's the difference maybe between, in my head, a simulation and a reenactment, where I could imagine a simulation going [00:04:01] Tim: differently. Sure, right. [00:04:03] Ben: Right, and, and maybe like, is the goal to make sure the same thing happened that did happen, or is the goal to like, act? faithfully to [00:04:14] Tim: the character as possible. Yeah, I think that's right, and I think both are interesting and valuable, right? But I think one of the things I'm really interested in is, you know, I want to simulate all the characters, but like, I think one of the most interesting things reading, like, the historical record is just, like, operating under deep uncertainty about what's even going on, right? Like, for a period of time, the American [00:04:35] government is not even sure what's going on in Cuba, and, like, you know, this whole question of, like, well, do we preemptively bomb Cuba? Do we, we don't even know if the, like, the warheads on the island are active. And I think I would want to create, like, similar uncertainty, because I think that's where, like, that's where the strategic vision comes in, right? That, like, you have the full pressure of, like, Maybe there's bombs on the island. Maybe there's not even bombs on the island, right? And kind of like creating that dynamic. And so I think simulation is where there's a lot, but I think Even reenactment for some of these things is sort of interesting. Like, that we talk a lot about, like, oh, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or like, the other joke I had was like, we should do the Manhattan Project, but the Manhattan Project as, like, historical reenactment, right? And it's kind of like, you know, we have these, like, very, like off the cuff or kind of, like, stereotype visions of how these historical events occur. And they're very stylized. Yeah, exactly, right. And so the benefit of a reenactment that is really in detail Yeah. is like, oh yeah, there's this one weird moment. You know, like that, that ends up being really revealing historical examples. And so even if [00:05:35] you can't change the outcome, I think there's also a lot of value in just doing the exercise. Yeah. Yeah. The, the thought of [00:05:40] Ben: in order to drive towards this outcome that I know. Actually happened I wouldn't as the character have needed to do X. That's right That's like weird nuanced unintuitive thing, [00:05:50] Tim: right? Right and there's something I think about even building into the game Right, which is at the very beginning the Russians team can make the decision on whether or not they've even actually deployed weapons into the cube at all, yeah, right and so like I love that kind of outcome right which is basically like And I think that's great because like, a lot of this happens on the background of like, we know the history. Yeah. Right? And so I think like, having the team, the US team put under some pressure of uncertainty. Yeah. About like, oh yeah, they could have made the decision at the very beginning of this game that this is all a bluff. Doesn't mean anything. Like it's potentially really interesting and powerful, so. [00:06:22] Ben: One precedent I know for this completely different historical era, but there's a historian, Ada Palmer, who runs [00:06:30] Tim: a simulation of a people election in her class every year. That's so good. [00:06:35] And [00:06:36] Ben: it's, there, you know, like, it is not a simulation. [00:06:40] Tim: Or, [00:06:41] Ben: sorry, excuse me, it is not a reenactment. In the sense that the outcome is indeterminate. [00:06:47] Tim: Like, the students [00:06:48] Ben: can determine the outcome. But... What tends to happen is like structural factors emerge in the sense that there's always a war. Huh. The question is who's on which sides of the war? Right, right. And what do the outcomes of the war actually entail? That's right. Who [00:07:05] Tim: dies? Yeah, yeah. And I [00:07:07] Ben: find that that's it's sort of Gets at the heart of the, the great [00:07:12] Tim: man theory versus the structural forces theory. That's right. Yeah. Like how much can these like structural forces actually be changed? Yeah. And I think that's one of the most interesting parts of the design that I'm thinking about right now is kind of like, what are the things that you want to randomize to impose different types of like structural factors that could have been in that event? Right? Yeah. So like one of the really big parts of the debate at XCOM in the [00:07:35] early phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is You know, McNamara, who's like, right, he runs the Department of Defense at the time. His point is basically like, look, whether or not you have bombs in Cuba or you have bombs like in Russia, the situation has not changed from a military standpoint. Like you can fire an ICBM. It has exactly the same implications for the U. S. And so his, his basically his argument in the opening phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is. Yeah. Which is actually pretty interesting, right? Because that's true. But like, Kennedy can't just go to the American people and say, well, we've already had missiles pointed at us. Some more missiles off, you know, the coast of Florida is not going to make a difference. Yeah. And so like that deep politics, and particularly the politics of the Kennedy administration being seen as like weak on communism. Yeah. Is like a huge pressure on all the activity that's going on. And so it's almost kind of interesting thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not as like You know us about to blow up the world because of a truly strategic situation but more because of like the local politics make it so difficult to create like You know situations where both sides can back down [00:08:35] successfully. Basically. Yeah [00:08:36] Ben: The the one other thing that my mind goes to actually to your point about it model UN in schools. Huh, right is Okay, what if? You use this as a pilot, and then you get people to do these [00:08:49] Tim: simulations at [00:08:50] Ben: scale. Huh. And that's actually how we start doing historical counterfactuals. Huh. Where you look at, okay, you know, a thousand schools all did a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In those, you know, 700 of them blew [00:09:05] Tim: up the world. Right, right. [00:09:07] Ben: And it's, it actually, I think it's, That's the closest [00:09:10] Tim: thing you can get to like running the tape again. Yeah. I think that's right. And yeah, so I think it's, I think it's a really underused medium in a lot of ways. And I think particularly as like you know, we just talk, talk like pedagogically, like it's interesting that like, it seems to me that there was a moment in American pedagogical history where like, this is a good way of teaching kids. Like, different types of institutions. And like, but it [00:09:35] hasn't really matured since that point, right? Of course, we live in all sorts of interesting institutions now. And, and under all sorts of different systems that we might really want to simulate. Yeah. And so, yeah, this kind of, at least a whole idea that there's lots of things you could teach if you, we like kind of opened up this way of kind of like, Thinking about kind of like educating for about institutions. Right? So [00:09:54] Ben: that is so cool. Yeah, I'm going to completely, [00:09:59] Tim: Change. Sure. Of course. [00:10:01] Ben: So I guess. And the answer could be no, but is, is there connections between this and your sort of newly launched macroscience [00:10:10] Tim: project? There is and there isn't. Yeah, you know, I think like the whole bid of macroscience which is this project that I'm doing as part of my IFP fellowship. Yeah. Is really the notion that like, okay, we have all these sort of like interesting results that have come out of metascience. That kind of give us like, kind of like the beginnings of a shape of like, okay, this is how science might work and how we might like get progress to happen. And you know, we've got [00:10:35] like a bunch of really compelling hypotheses. Yeah. And I guess my bit has been like, I kind of look at that and I squint and I'm like, we're, we're actually like kind of in the early days of like macro econ, but for science, right? Which is like, okay, well now we have some sense of like the dynamics of how the science thing works. What are the levers that we can start, like, pushing and pulling, and like, what are the dials we could be turning up and turning down? And, and, you know, I think there is this kind of transition that happens in macro econ, which is like, we have these interesting results and hypotheses, but there's almost another... Generation of work that needs to happen into being like, oh, you know, we're gonna have this thing called the interest rate Yeah, and then we have all these ways of manipulating the money supply and like this is a good way of managing like this economy Yeah, right and and I think that's what I'm chasing after with this kind of like sub stack but hopefully the idea is to build it up into like a more coherent kind of framework of ideas about like How do we make science policy work in a way that's better than just like more science now quicker, please? Yeah, right, which is I think we're like [00:11:35] we're very much at at the moment. Yeah, and in particular I'm really interested in the idea of chasing after science almost as like a Dynamic system, right? Which is that like the policy levers that you have You would want to, you know, tune up and tune down, strategically, at certain times, right? And just like the way we think about managing the economy, right? Where you're like, you don't want the economy to overheat. You don't want it to be moving too slow either, right? Like, I am interested in kind of like, those types of dynamics that need to be managed in science writ large. And so that's, that's kind of the intuition of the project. [00:12:04] Ben: Cool. I guess, like, looking at macro, how did we even decide, macro econ, [00:12:14] Tim: how did we even decide that the things that we're measuring are the right things to measure? Right? Like, [00:12:21] Ben: isn't it, it's like kind of a historical contingency that, you know, it's like we care about GDP [00:12:27] Tim: and the interest rate. Yeah. I think that's right. I mean in, in some ways there's a triumph of like. It's a normative triumph, [00:12:35] right, I think is the argument. And you know, I think a lot of people, you hear this argument, and it'll be like, And all econ is made up. But like, I don't actually think that like, that's the direction I'm moving in. It's like, it's true. Like, a lot of the things that we selected are arguably arbitrary. Yeah. Right, like we said, okay, we really value GDP because it's like a very imperfect but rough measure of like the economy, right? Yeah. Or like, oh, we focus on, you know, the money supply, right? And I think there's kind of two interesting things that come out of that. One of them is like, There's this normative question of like, okay, what are the building blocks that we think can really shift the financial economy writ large, right, of which money supply makes sense, right? But then the other one I think which is so interesting is like, there's a need to actually build all these institutions. that actually give you the lever to pull in the first place, right? Like, without a federal reserve, it becomes really hard to do monetary policy. Right. Right? Like, without a notion of, like, fiscal policy, it's really hard to do, like, Keynesian as, like, demand side stuff. Right. Right? And so, like, I think there's another project, which is a [00:13:35] political project, to say... Okay, can we do better than just grants? Like, can we think about this in a more, like, holistic way than simply we give money to the researchers to work on certain types of problems. And so this kind of leads to some of the stuff that I think we've talked about in the past, which is like, you know, so I'm obsessed right now with like, can we influence the time horizon of scientific institutions? Like, imagine for a moment we had a dial where we're like, On average, scientists are going to be thinking about a research agenda which is 10 years from now versus next quarter. Right. Like, and I think like there's, there's benefits and deficits to both of those settings. Yeah. But man, if I don't hope that we have a, a, a government system that allows us to kind of dial that up and dial that down as we need it. Right. Yeah. The, the, [00:14:16] Ben: perhaps, quite like, I guess a question of like where the analogy like holds and breaks down. That I, that I wonder about is, When you're talking about the interest rate for the economy, it kind of makes sense to say [00:14:35] what is the time horizon that we want financial institutions to be thinking on. That's like roughly what the interest rate is for, but it, and maybe this is, this is like, I'm too, [00:14:49] Tim: my note, like I'm too close to the macro, [00:14:51] Ben: but thinking about. The fact that you really want people doing science on like a whole spectrum of timescales. And, and like, this is a ill phrased question, [00:15:06] Tim: but like, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. Are you saying basically like, do uniform metrics make sense? Yeah, exactly. For [00:15:12] Ben: like timescale, I guess maybe it's just. is an aggregate thing. [00:15:16] Tim: Is that? That's right. Yeah, I think that's, that's, that's a good critique. And I think, like, again, I think there's definitely ways of taking the metaphor too far. Yeah. But I think one of the things I would say back to that is It's fine to imagine that we might not necessarily have an interest rate for all of science, right? So, like, you could imagine saying, [00:15:35] okay, for grants above a certain size, like, we want to incentivize certain types of activity. For grants below a certain size, we want different types of activity. Right, another way of slicing it is for this class of institutions, we want them to be thinking on these timescales versus those timescales. Yeah. The final one I've been thinking about is another way of slicing it is, let's abstract away institutions and just think about what is the flow of all the experiments that are occurring in a society? Yeah. And are there ways of manipulating, like, the relative timescales there, right? And that's almost like, kind of like a supply based way of looking at it, which is... All science is doing is producing experiments, which is like true macro, right? Like, I'm just like, it's almost offensively simplistic. And then I'm just saying like, okay, well then like, yeah, what are the tools that we have to actually influence that? Yeah, and I think there's lots of things you could think of. Yeah, in my mind. Yeah, absolutely. What are some, what are some that are your thinking of? Yeah, so I think like the two that I've been playing around with right now, one of them is like the idea of like, changing the flow of grants into the system. So, one of the things I wrote about in Microscience just the past week was to think [00:16:35] about, like sort of what I call long science, right? And so the notion here is that, like, if you look across the scientific economy, there's kind of this rough, like, correlation between size of grant and length of grant. Right, where so basically what it means is that like long science is synonymous with big science, right? You're gonna do a big ambitious project. Cool. You need lots and lots and lots of money Yeah and so my kind of like piece just briefly kind of argues like but we have these sort of interesting examples like the You know Like framing a heart study which are basically like low expense taking place over a long period of time and you're like We don't really have a whole lot of grants that have that Yeah. Right? And so the idea is like, could we encourage that? Like imagine if we could just increase the flow of those types of grants, that means we could incentivize more experiments that take place like at low cost over long term. Yeah. Right? Like, you know, and this kind of gets this sort of interesting question is like, okay, so what's the GDP here? Right? Like, or is that a good way of cracking some of the critical problems that we need to crack right now? Right? Yeah. And it's kind of where the normative part gets into [00:17:35] it is like, okay. So. You know, one way of looking at this is the national interest, right? We say, okay, well, we really want to win on AI. We really want to win on, like, bioengineering, right? Are there problems in that space where, like, really long term, really low cost is actually the kind of activity we want to be encouraging? The answer might be no, but I think, like, it's useful for us to have, like, that. Color in our palette of things that we could be doing Yeah. In like shaping the, the dynamics of science. Yeah. Yeah. [00:18:01] Ben: I, I mean, one of the things that I feel like is missing from the the meta science discussion Mm-Hmm. is, is even just, what are those colors? Mm-Hmm. like what, what are the, the different and almost parameters of [00:18:16] Tim: of research. Yeah. Right, right, right. And I think, I don't know, one of the things I've been thinking about, which I'm thinking about writing about at some point, right, is like this, this view is, this view is gonna piss people off in some ways, because where it ultimately goes is this idea that, like, like, the scientist or [00:18:35] science Is like a system that's subject to the government, or subject to a policy maker, or a strategist. Which like, it obviously is, right? But like, I think we have worked very hard to believe that like, The scientific market is its own independent thing, And like, that touching or messing with it is like, a not, not a thing you should do, right? But we already are. True, that's kind of my point of view, yeah exactly. I think we're in some ways like, yeah I know I've been reading a lot about Keynes, I mean it is sort of interesting that it does mirror... Like this kind of like Great Depression era economic thinking, where you're basically like the market takes care of itself, like don't intervene. In fact, intervening is like the worst possible thing you could do because you're only going to make this worse. And look, I think there's like definitely examples of like kind of like command economy science that like don't work. Yes. But like, you know, like I think most mature people who work in economics would say there's some room for like at least like Guiding the system. Right. And like keeping it like in balance is like [00:19:35] a thing that should be attempted and I think it's kind of like the, the, the argument that I'm making here. Yeah. Yeah. I [00:19:41] Ben: mean, I think that's, [00:19:42] Tim: that's like the meta meta thing. Right. Right. Is even [00:19:46] Ben: what, what level of intervention, like, like what are the ways in which you can like usefully intervene and which, and what are the things that are, that are foolish and kind of. crEate the, the, [00:20:01] Tim: Command economy. That's right. Yeah, exactly. Right. Right. And I think like, I think the way through is, is maybe in the way that I'm talking about, right? Which is like, you can imagine lots of bad things happen when you attempt to pick winners, right? Like maybe the policymaker whoever we want to think of that as like, is it the NSF or NIH or whatever? Like, you know, sitting, sitting in their government bureaucracy, right? Like, are they well positioned to make a choice about who's going to be the right solution to a problem? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think we can have a debate about that, right? But I think there's a totally reasonable position, which is they're not in it, so they're not well positioned to make that call. Yeah. [00:20:35] Right? But, are they well positioned to maybe say, like, if we gave them a dial that was like, we want researchers to be thinking about this time horizon versus that time horizon? Like, that's a control that they actually may be well positioned to inform on. Yeah. As an outsider, right? Yeah. Yeah. And some of this I think, like, I don't know, like, the piece I'm working on right now, which will be coming out probably Tuesday or Wednesday, is you know, some of this is also like encouraging creative destruction, right? Which is like, I'm really intrigued by the idea that like academic fields can get so big that they become they impede progress. Yes. Right? And so this is actually a form of like, I like, it's effectively an intellectual antitrust. Yeah. Where you're basically like, Basically, like the, the role of the scientific regulator is to basically say these fields have gotten so big that they are actively reducing our ability to have good dynamism in the marketplace of ideas. And in this case, we will, we will announce new grant policies that attempt to break this up. And I actually think that like, that is pretty spicy for a funder to do. But like actually maybe part of their role and maybe we should normalize that [00:21:35] being part of their role. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. [00:21:37] Ben: I I'm imagining a world where There are, where this, like, sort of the macro science is as divisive as [00:21:47] Tim: macroeconomics. [00:21:48] Ben: Right? Because you have, you have your like, your, your like, hardcore free market people. Yeah. Zero government intervention. Yeah, that's right. No antitrust. No like, you know, like abolish the Fed. Right, right. All of that. Yeah, yeah. And I look forward to the day. When there's there's people who are doing the same thing for research. [00:22:06] Tim: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah when I think that's actually I mean I thought part of a lot of meta science stuff I think is this kind of like interesting tension, which is that like look politically a lot of those people in the space are Pro free market, you know, like they're they're they're liberals in the little L sense. Yeah, like at the same time Like it is true that kind of like laissez faire science Has failed because we have all these examples of like progress slowing down Right? Like, I don't know. Like, I think [00:22:35] that there is actually this interesting tension, which is like, to what degree are we okay with intervening in science to get better outcomes? Yeah. Right? Yeah. Well, as, [00:22:43] Ben: as I, I might put on my hat and say, Yeah, yeah. Maybe, maybe this is, this is me saying true as a fair science has never been tried. Huh, right. Right? Like, that, that, that may be kind of my position. Huh. But anyways, I... And I would argue that, you know, since 1945, we have been, we haven't had laissez faire [00:23:03] Tim: science. Oh, interesting. [00:23:04] Ben: Huh. Right. And so I'm, yeah, I mean, it's like, this is in [00:23:09] Tim: the same way that I think [00:23:11] Ben: a very hard job for macroeconomics is to say, well, like, do we need [00:23:15] Tim: more or less intervention? Yeah. Yeah. [00:23:17] Ben: What is the case there? I think it's the same thing where. You know, a large amount of science funding does come from the government, and the government is opinionated about what sorts of things [00:23:30] Tim: it funds. Yeah, right. Right. And you [00:23:33] Ben: can go really deep into that. [00:23:35] So, so I [00:23:35] Tim: would. Yeah, that's actually interesting. That flips it. It's basically like the current state of science. is right now over regulated, is what you'd say, right? Or, or [00:23:44] Ben: badly regulated. Huh, sure. That is the argument I would say, very concretely, is that it's badly regulated. And, you know, I might almost argue that it is... It's both over and underregulated in the sense that, well, this is, this is my, my whole theory, but like, I think that there, we need like some pockets where it's like much less regulated. Yeah. Right. Where you're, and then some pockets where you're really sort of going to be like, no. You don't get to sort of tune this to whatever your, your project, your program is. Yeah, right, right. You're gonna be working with like [00:24:19] Tim: these people to do this thing. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and I think there actually is interesting analogies in like the, the kind of like economic regulation, economic governance world. Yeah. Where like the notion is markets generally work well, like it's a great tool. Yeah. Like let it run. [00:24:35] Right. But basically that there are certain failure states that actually require outside intervention. And I think what's kind of interesting in thinking about in like a macro scientific, if you will, context is like, what are those failure states for science? Like, and you could imagine a policy rule, which is the policymaker says, we don't intervene until we see the following signals emerging in a field or in a region. Right. And like, okay, that's, that's the trigger, right? Like we're now in recession mode, you know, like there's enough quarters of this problem of like more papers, but less results. You know, now we have to take action, right? Oh, that's cool. Yeah, yeah. That would be, that would be very interesting. And I think that's like, that's good, because I think like, we end up having to think about like, you know, and again, this is I think why this is a really exciting time, is like MetaScience has produced these really interesting results. Now we're in the mode of like, okay, well, you know, on that policymaker dashboard, Yeah. Right, like what's the meter that we're checking out to basically be like, Are we doing well? Are we doing poorly? Is this going well? Or is this going poorly? Right, like, I think that becomes the next question to like, make this something practicable Yeah. For, for [00:25:35] actual like, Right. Yeah. Yeah. One of my frustrations [00:25:38] Ben: with meta science [00:25:39] Tim: is that it, I [00:25:41] Ben: think is under theorized in the sense that people generally are doing these studies where they look at whatever data they can get. Huh. Right. As opposed to what data should we be looking at? What, what should we be looking for? Yeah. Right. Right. And so, so I would really like to have it sort of be flipped and say, okay, like this At least ideally what we would want to measure maybe there's like imperfect maybe then we find proxies for that Yeah, as opposed to just saying well, like here's what we can measure. It's a proxy for [00:26:17] Tim: okay. That's right, right Yeah, exactly. And I think a part of this is also like I mean, I think it is like Widening the Overton window, which I think like the meta science community has done a good job of is like trying to widen The Overton window of what funders are willing to do. Yeah. Or like what various existing incumbent actors are willing to [00:26:35] do. Because I think one way of getting that data is to run like interesting experiments in this space. Right? Like I think one of the things I'm really obsessed with right now is like, okay, imagine if you could change the overhead rate that universities charge on a national basis. Yeah. Right? Like, what's that do to the flow of money through science? And is that like one dial that's actually like On the shelf, right? Like, we actually have the ability to influence that if we wanted to. Like, is that something we should be running experiments against and seeing what the results are? Yeah, yeah. [00:27:00] Ben: Another would be earmarking. Like, how much money is actually earmarked [00:27:05] Tim: for different things. That's right, yeah, yeah. Like, how easy it is to move money around. That's right, yeah. I heard actually a wild story yesterday about, do you know this whole thing, what's his name? It's apparently a very wealthy donor. That has convinced the state of Washington's legislature to the UW CS department. it's like, it's written into law that there's a flow of money that goes directly to the CS department. I don't think CS departments need more money. I [00:27:35] know, I know, but it's like, this is a really, really kind of interesting, like, outcome. Yeah. Which is like a very clear case of basically just like... Direct subsidy to like, not, not just like a particular topic, but like a particular department, which I think is like interesting experiment. I don't like, I don't know what's been happening there, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Natural, natural experiment. [00:27:50] Ben: Totally. Has anybody written down, I assume the answer is no, but it would be very interesting if someone actually wrote down a list of sort of just all the things you [00:28:00] Tim: could possibly [00:28:00] Ben: want to pay attention to, right? Like, I mean, like. Speaking of CS, it'd be very interesting to see, like, okay, like, what fraction of the people who, like, get PhDs in an area, stay in this area, right? Like, going back to the, the [00:28:15] Tim: health of a field or something, right? Yeah, yeah. I think that's right. I, yeah. And I think that those, those types of indicators are interesting. And then I think also, I mean, in the spirit of like it being a dynamic system. Like, so a few years back I read this great bio by Sebastian Malaby called The Man Who Knew, which is, it's a bio of Alan Greenspan. So if you want to ever read, like, 800 pages about [00:28:35] Alan Greenspan, book for you. It's very good. But one of the most interesting parts about it is that, like, there's a battle when Alan Greenspan becomes head of the Fed, where basically he's, like, extremely old school. Like, what he wants to do is he literally wants to look at, like, Reams of data from like the steel industry. Yeah, because that's kind of got his start And he basically is at war with a bunch of kind of like career People at the Fed who much more rely on like statistical models for predicting the economy And I think what's really interesting is that like for a period of time actually Alan Greenspan has the edge Because he's able to realize really early on that like there's It's just changes actually in like the metabolism of the economy that mean that what it means to raise the interest rate or lower the interest rate has like very different effects than it did like 20 years ago before it got started. Yeah. And I think that's actually something that I'm also really quite interested in science is basically like When we say science, people often imagine, like, this kind of, like, amorphous blob. But, like, I think the metabolism is changing all the [00:29:35] time. And so, like, what we mean by science now means very different from, like, what we mean by science, like, even, like, 10 to 20 years ago. Yes. And, like, it also means that all of our tactics need to keep up with that change, right? And so, one of the things I'm interested in to your question about, like, has anyone compiled this list of, like, science health? Or the health of science, right? It's maybe the right way of thinking about it. is that, like, those indicators may mean very different things at different points in time, right? And so part of it is trying to understand, like, yeah, what is the state of the, what is the state of this economy of science that we're talking about? Yeah. You're kind of preaching [00:30:07] Ben: to the, to the choir. In the sense that I'm, I'm always, I'm frustrated with the level of nuance that I feel like many people who are discussing, like, science, quote, making air quotes, science and research, are, are talking about in the sense that. They very often have not actually like gone in and been part of the system. Huh, right. And I'm, I'm open to the fact that [00:30:35] you [00:30:35] Tim: don't need to have got like [00:30:36] Ben: done, been like a professional researcher to have an opinion [00:30:41] Tim: or, or come up with ideas about it. [00:30:43] Ben: Yeah. But at the same time, I feel like [00:30:46] Tim: there's, yeah, like, like, do you, do you think about that tension at all? Yeah. I think it's actually incredibly valuable. Like, I think So I think of like Death and Life of Great American Cities, right? Which is like, the, the, the really, one of the really, there's a lot of interesting things about that book. But like, one of the most interesting things is sort of the notion that like, you had a whole cabal of urban planners that had this like very specific vision about how to get cities to work right and it just turns out that like if you like are living in soho at a particular time and you like walk along the street and you like take a look at what's going on like there's always really actually super valuable things to know about yeah that like are only available because you're like at that like ultra ultra ultra ultra micro level and i do think that there's actually some potential value in there like one of the things i would love to be able to set up, like, in the community of MetaScience or whatever you want to call it, right, [00:31:35] is the idea that, like, yeah, you, you could afford to do, like, very short tours of duty, where it's, like, literally, you're just, like, spending a day in a lab, right, and, like, to have a bunch of people go through that, I think, is, like, really, really helpful and so I think, like, thinking about, like, what the rotation program for that looks like, I think would be cool, like, you, you should, you should do, like, a six month stint at the NSF just to see what it looks like. Cause I think that kind of stuff is just like, you know, well, A, I'm selfish, like I would want that, but I also think that like, it would also allow the community to like, I think be, be thinking about this in a much more applied way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [00:32:08] Ben: I think it's the, the meta question there for, for everything, right? Is how much in the weeds, like, like what am I trying to say? The. It is possible both to be like two in the weeds. Yeah, right and then also like too high level Yeah, that's right. And in almost like what what is the the right amount or like? Who, who should [00:32:31] Tim: be talking to whom in that? That's right. Yeah, I mean, it's like what you were saying earlier that like the [00:32:35] success of macro science will be whether or not it's as controversial as macroeconomics. It's like, I actually hope that that's the case. It's like people being like, this is all wrong. You're approaching it like from a too high level, too abstract of a level. Yeah. I mean, I think the other benefit of doing this outside of like the level of insight is I think one of the projects that I think I have is like We need to, we need to be like defeating meta science, like a love of meta science aesthetics versus like actual like meta science, right? Like then I think like a lot of people in meta science love science. That's why they're excited to not talk about the specific science, but like science in general. But like, I think that intuition also leads us to like have very romantic ideas of like what science is and how science should look and what kinds of science that we want. Yeah. Right. The mission is progress. The mission isn't science. And so I think, like, we have to be a lot more functional. And again, I think, like, the benefit of these types of, like, rotations, like, Oh, you just are in a lab for a month. Yeah. It's like, I mean, you get a lot more of a sense of, like, Oh, okay, this is, this is what it [00:33:35] looks like. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to do the same thing for manufacturing. Huh. Right. [00:33:39] Ben: Right. It's like, like, and I want, I want everybody to be rotating, right? Huh. Like, in the sense of, like, okay, like, have the scientists go and be, like, in a manufacturing lab. That's right. [00:33:47] Tim: Yeah. [00:33:48] Ben: And be like, okay, like, look. Like, you need to be thinking about getting this thing to work in, like, this giant, like, flow pipe instead of a [00:33:54] Tim: test tube. That's right, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, [00:33:57] Ben: unfortunately, the problem is that we can't all spend our time, like, if everybody was rotating through all the [00:34:03] Tim: things they need to rotate, we'd never get anything done. Yeah, exactly. [00:34:06] Ben: ANd that's, that's, that's kind of [00:34:08] Tim: the problem. Well, and to bring it all the way back, I mean, I think you started this question on macroscience in the context of transitioning away from all of this like weird Cuban Missile Crisis simulation stuff. Like, I do think one way of thinking about this is like, okay, well, if we can't literally send you into a lab, right? Like the question is like, what are good simulations to give people good intuitions about the dynamics in the space? Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially quite interesting. Yeah. Normalized weekend long simulation. That's right. Like I love the idea of basically [00:34:35] like like you, you get to reenact the publication of a prominent scientific paper. It's like kind of a funny idea. It's just like, you know, yeah. Or, or, or even trying to [00:34:44] Ben: get research funded, right? Like, it's like, okay, like you have this idea, you want yeah. [00:34:55] Tim: I mean, yeah, this is actually a project, I mean, I've been talking to Zach Graves about this, it's like, I really want to do one which is a game that we're calling Think Tank Tycoon, which is basically like, it's a, it's a, the idea would be for it to be a strategy board game that simulates what it's like to run a research center. But I think like to broaden that idea somewhat like it's kind of interesting to think about the idea of like model NSF Yeah, where you're like you you're in you're in the hot seat you get to decide how to do granting Yeah, you know give a grant [00:35:22] Ben: a stupid thing. Yeah, some some some congressperson's gonna come banging [00:35:26] Tim: on your door Yeah, like simulating those dynamics actually might be really really helpful Yeah I mean in the very least even if it's not like a one for one simulation of the real world just to get like some [00:35:35] common intuitions about like The pressures that are operating here. I [00:35:38] Ben: think you're, the bigger point is that simulations are maybe underrated [00:35:42] Tim: as a teaching tool. I think so, yeah. Do you remember the the paperclip maximizer? Huh. The HTML game? Yeah, yeah. [00:35:48] Ben: I'm, I'm kind of obsessed with it. Huh. Because, it, you've, like, somehow the human brain, like, really quickly, with just, like, you know, some numbers on the screen. Huh. Like, just like numbers that you can change. Right, right. And some, like, back end. Dynamic system, where it's like, okay, like based on these numbers, like here are the dynamics of the [00:36:07] Tim: system, and it'll give you an update. [00:36:09] Ben: Like, you start to really get an intuition for, for system dynamics. Yeah. And so, I, I, I want to see more just like plain HTML, like basically like spreadsheet [00:36:20] Tim: backend games. Right, right, like the most lo fi possible. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's helpful. I mean, I think, again, particularly in a world where you're thinking about, like, let's simulate these types of, like, weird new grant structures that we might try out, right? Like, you know, we've got a bunch [00:36:35] of hypotheses. It's kind of really expensive and difficult to try to get experiments done, right? Like, does a simulation with a couple people who are well informed give us some, at least, inclinations of, like, where it might go or, like, what are the unintentional consequences thereof? Yeah. [00:36:51] Ben: Disciplines besides the military that uses simulations [00:36:56] Tim: successfully. Not really. And I think what's kind of interesting is that like, I think it had a vogue that like has kind of dissipated. Yeah, I think like the notion of like a a game being the way you kind of do like understanding of a strategic situation, I think like. Has kind of disappeared, right? But like, I think a lot of it was driven, like, RAND actually had a huge influence, not just on the military. But like, there's a bunch of corporate games, right? That were like, kind of invented in the same period. Yeah. That are like, you determine how much your steel production is, right? And was like, used to teach MBAs. But yeah, I think it's, it's been like, relatively limited. Hm. [00:37:35] Yeah. It, yeah. Hm. [00:37:38] Ben: So. Other things. Huh. Like, just to, [00:37:41] Tim: to shift together. Sure, sure, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess another [00:37:44] Ben: thing that we haven't really talked about, but actually sort of plays into all of this, is thinking about better [00:37:50] Tim: ways of regulating technology. [00:37:52] Ben: I know that you've done a lot of thinking about that, and maybe this is another thing to simulate. [00:38:00] Tim: Yeah, it's a model OSTP. But [00:38:04] Ben: it's maybe a thing where, this is actually like a prime example where the particulars really matter, right? Where you can't just regulate. quote unquote technology. Yeah. Right. And it's like, there's, there's some technologies that you want to regulate very, very closely and very tightly and others that you want to regulate very [00:38:21] Tim: loosely. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that's actually, you know, I think it is tied to the kind of like macro scientific project, if you will. Right. Which is that I think we have often a notion of like science regulation being like. [00:38:35] literally the government comes in and is like, here are the kind of constraints that we want to put on the system. Right. And there's obviously like lots of different ways of doing that. And I think there's lots of contexts in which that's like appropriate. But I think for a lot of technologies that we confront right now, the change is so rapid that the obvious question always becomes, no matter what emerging technology talking about is like, how does your clock speed of regulation actually keep up with like the clock speed of technology? And the answer is frequently like. It doesn't, right? And like you run into these kind of like absurd situations where you're like, well, we have this thing, it's already out of date by the time it goes into force, everybody kind of creates some like notional compliance with that rule. Yeah. And like, in terms of improving, I don't know, safety outcomes, for instance, it like has not actually improved safety outcomes. And I think in that case, right, and I think I could actually make an argument that like, the problem is becoming more difficult with time. Right? Like, if you really believe that the pace of technological change is faster than it used to be, then it is possible that, like, there was a point at which, like, government was operating, and it could actually keep [00:39:35] pace effectively, or, like, a body like Congress could actually keep pace with society, or with technology successfully, to, like, make sure that it was conformant with, sort of, like, societal interests. Do you think that was [00:39:46] Ben: actually ever the case, or was it that we didn't, we just didn't [00:39:50] Tim: have as many regulations? I would say it was sort of twofold, right? Like, I think one of them was you had, at least, let's just talk about Congress, right? It's really hard to talk about, like, government as a whole, right? Like, I think, like, Congress was both better advised and was a more efficient institution, right? Which means it moved faster than it does today. Simultaneously, I also feel like for a couple reasons we can speculate on, right? Like, science, or in the very least, technology. Right, like move slower than it does today. Right, right. And so like actually what has happened is that both both dynamics have caused problems, right? Which is that like the organs of government are moving slower at the same time as science is moving faster And like I think we've passed some inflection [00:40:35] point now where like it seems really hard to craft You know, let's take the AI case like a sensible framework that would apply You know, in, in LLMs where like, I don't know, like I was doing a little recap of like recent interoperability research and I like took a step back and I was like, Oh, all these papers are from May, 2023. And I was like, these are all big results. This is all a big deal. Right. It's like very, very fast. Yeah. So that's kind of what I would say to that. Yeah. I don't know. Do you feel differently? You feel like Congress has never been able to keep up? Yeah. [00:41:04] Ben: Well, I. I wonder, I guess I'm almost, I'm, I'm perhaps an outlier in that I am skeptical of the claim that technology overall has sped up significantly, or the pace of technological change, the pace of software change, certainly. Sure. Right. And it's like maybe software as a, as a fraction of technology has spread up, sped up. And maybe like, this is, this is a thing where like to the point of, of regulations needing to, to. Go into particulars, [00:41:35] right? Mm-Hmm. . Right, right. Like tuning the regulation to the characteristic timescale of whatever talk [00:41:40] Tim: technology we're talking about. Mm-Hmm. , right? [00:41:42] Ben: But I don't know, but like, I feel like outside of software, if anything, technology, the pace of technological change [00:41:52] Tim: has slowed down. Mm hmm. Right. Right. Yeah. [00:41:55] Ben: This is me putting on my [00:41:57] Tim: stagnationist bias. And would, given the argument that I just made, would you say that that means that it should actually be easier than ever to regulate technology? Yeah, I get targets moving slower, right? Like, yeah, [00:42:12] Ben: yeah. Or it's the technology moving slowly because of the forms of [00:42:14] Tim: the regulator. I guess, yeah, there's like compounding variables. [00:42:16] Ben: Yeah, the easiest base case of regulating technology is saying, like, no, you can't have [00:42:20] Tim: any. Huh, right, right, right. Like, it can't change. Right, that's easy to regulate. Yeah, right, right. That's very easy to regulate. I buy that, I buy that. It's very easy to regulate well. Huh, right, right. I think that's [00:42:27] Ben: That's the question. It's like, what do we want to lock in and what don't we [00:42:31] Tim: want to lock in? Yeah, I think that's right and I think, you [00:42:35] know I guess what that moves me towards is like, I think some people, you know, will conclude the argument I'm making by saying, and so regulations are obsolete, right? Or like, oh, so we shouldn't regulate or like, let the companies take care of it. And I'm like, I think so, like, I think that that's, that's not the conclusion that I go to, right? Like part of it is like. Well, no, that just means we need, we need better ways of like regulating these systems, right? And I think they, they basically require government to kind of think about sort of like moving to different parts of the chain that they might've touched in the past. Yeah. So like, I don't know, we, Caleb and I over at IFP, we just submitted this RFI to DARPA. In part they, they were thinking about like how does DARPA play a role in dealing with like ethical considerations around emerging technologies. Yep. But the deeper point that we were making in our submission. was simply that like maybe actually science has changed in a way where like DARPA can't be the or it's harder for DARPA to be the originator of all these technologies. Yeah. So they're, they're almost, they're, they're placing the, the, the ecosystem, the [00:43:35] metabolism of technology has changed, which requires them to rethink like how they want to influence the system. Yeah. Right. And it may be more influence at the point of like. Things getting out to market, then it is things like, you know, basic research in the lab or something like that. Right. At least for some classes of technology where like a lot of it's happening in private industry, like AI. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. [00:43:55] Ben: No, I, I, I think the, the concept of, of like the metabolism of, of science and technology is like really powerful. I think in some sense it is, I'm not sure if you would, how would you map that to the idea of there being a [00:44:11] Tim: research ecosystem, right? Right. Is it, is it that there's like [00:44:17] Ben: the metabolic, this is, this is incredibly abstract. Okay. Like, is it like, I guess if you're looking at the metabolism, does, does the metabolism sort of say, we're going to ignore institutions for now and the metabolism is literally just the flow [00:44:34] Tim: of [00:44:35] like ideas and, and, and outcomes and then maybe like the ecosystem is [00:44:41] Ben: like, okay, then we like. Sort of add another layer and say there are institutions [00:44:46] Tim: that are sure interacting with this sort of like, yeah, I think like the metabolism view or, you know, you might even think about it as like a supply chain view, right? To move it away from, like, just kind of gesturing at bio for no reason, right? Is I think what's powerful about it is that, you know, particularly in foundation land, which I'm most familiar with. There's a notion of like we're going to field build and what that means is we're going to name a field and then researchers Are going to be under this tent that we call this field and then the field will exist Yeah, and then the proper critique of a lot of that stuff is like researchers are smart They just like go where the money is and they're like you want to call up like I can pretend to be nanotech for a Few years to get your money Like, that's no problem. I can do that. And so there's kind of a notion that, like, if you take the economy of science as, like, institutions at the very beginning, you actually miss the bigger [00:45:35] picture. Yes. Right? And so the metabolism view is more powerful because you literally think about, like, the movement of, like, an idea to an experiment to a practical technology to, like, something that's out in the world. Yeah. And then we basically say, how do we influence those incentives before we start talking about, like, oh, we announced some new policy that people just, like... Cosmetically align their agendas to yeah, and like if you really want to shape science It's actually maybe arguably less about like the institution and more about like Yeah, the individual. Yeah, exactly. Like I run a lab. What are my motivations? Right? And I think this is like, again, it's like micro macro, right? It's basically if we can understand that, then are there things that we could do to influence at that micro level? Yeah, right. Which is I think actually where a lot of Macro econ has moved. Right. Which is like, how do we influence like the individual firm's decisions Yeah. To get the overall aggregate change that we want in the economy. Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially a better way of approaching it. Right. A thing that I desperately [00:46:30] Ben: want now is Uhhuh a. I'm not sure what they're, they're [00:46:35] actually called. Like the, you know, like the metal, like, like, like the [00:46:37] Tim: prep cycle. Yeah, exactly. Like, like, like the giant diagram of, of like metabolism, [00:46:43] Ben: right. I want that for, for research. Yeah, that would be incredible. Yeah. If, if only, I mean, one, I want to have it on [00:46:50] Tim: my wall and to, to just get across the idea that. [00:46:56] Ben: It is like, it's not you know, basic research, applied [00:47:01] Tim: research. Yeah, totally. Right, right, right. When it goes to like, and what I like about kind of metabolism as a way of thinking about it is that we can start thinking about like, okay, what's, what's the uptake for certain types of inputs, right? We're like, okay, you know like one, one example is like, okay, well, we want results in a field to become more searchable. Well what's really, if you want to frame that in metabolism terms, is like, what, you know, what are the carbs that go into the system that, like, the enzymes or the yeast can take up, and it's like, access to the proper results, right, and like, I think that there's, there's a nice way of flipping in it [00:47:35] that, like, starts to think about these things as, like, inputs, versus things that we do, again, because, like, we like the aesthetics of it, like, we like the aesthetics of being able to find research results instantaneously, but, like, the focus should be on, Like, okay, well, because it helps to drive, like, the next big idea that we think will be beneficial to me later on. Or like, even being [00:47:53] Ben: the question, like, is the actual blocker to the thing that you want to see, the thing that you think it is? Right. I've run into far more people than I can count who say, like, you know, we want more awesome technology in the world, therefore we are going to be working on Insert tool here that actually isn't addressing, at least my, [00:48:18] Tim: my view of why those things aren't happening. Yeah, right, right. And I think, I mean, again, like, part of the idea is we think about these as, like, frameworks for thinking about different situations in science. Yeah. Like, I actually do believe that there are certain fields because of, like, ideologically how they're set up, institutionally how [00:48:35] they're set up, funding wise how they're set up. that do resemble the block diagram you were talking about earlier, which is like, yeah, there actually is the, the basic research, like we can put, that's where the basic research happens. You could like point at a building, right? And you're like, that's where the, you know, commercialization happens. We pointed at another building, right? But I just happen to think that most science doesn't look like that. Right. And we might ask the question then, like, do we want it to resemble more of like the metabolism state than the block diagram state? Right. Like both are good. Yeah, I mean, I would [00:49:07] Ben: argue that putting them in different buildings is exactly what's causing [00:49:10] Tim: all the problems. Sure, right, exactly, yeah, yeah. Yeah. But then, again, like, then, then I think, again, this is why I think, like, the, the macro view is so powerful, at least to me, personally, is, like, we can ask the question, for what problems? Yeah. Right? Like, are there, are there situations where, like, that, that, like, very blocky way of doing it serves certain needs and certain demands? Yeah. And it's like, it's possible, like, one more argument I can make for you is, like, Progress might be [00:49:35] slower, but it's a lot more controllable. So if you are in the, you know, if you think national security is one of the most important things, you're willing to make those trade offs. But I think we just should be making those trade offs, like, much more consciously than we do. And [00:49:49] Ben: that's where politics, in the term, in the sense of, A compromise between people who have different priorities on something can actually come in where we can say, okay, like we're going to trade off, we're going to say like, okay, we're going to increase like national security a little bit, like in, in like this area to, in compromise with being able to like unblock this. [00:50:11] Tim: That's right. Yeah. And I think this is the benefit of like, you know, when I say lever, I literally mean lever, right. Which is basically like, we're in a period of time where we need this. Yeah. Right? We're willing to trade progress for security. Yeah. Okay, we're not in a period where we need this. Like, take the, take, ramp it down. Right? Like, we want science to have less of this, this kind of structure. Yeah. That's something we need to, like, have fine tuned controls over. Right? Yeah. And to be thinking about in, like, a, a comparative sense, [00:50:35] so. And, [00:50:36] Ben: to, to go [00:50:36] Tim: back to the metabolism example. Yeah, yeah. I'm really thinking about it. Yeah, yeah. [00:50:39] Ben: Is there an equivalent of macro for metabolism in the sense that like I'm thinking about like, like, is it someone's like blood, like, you know, they're like blood glucose level, [00:50:52] Tim: like obesity, right? Yeah, right. Kind of like our macro indicators for metabolism. Yeah, that's right. Right? Or like how you feel in the morning. That's right. Yeah, exactly. I'm less well versed in kind of like bio and medical, but I'm sure there is, right? Like, I mean, there is the same kind of like. Well, I study the cell. Well, I study, you know, like organisms, right? Like at different scales, which we're studying this stuff. Yeah. What's kind of interesting in the medical cases, like You know, it's like, do we have a Hippocratic, like oath for like our treatment of the science person, right? It's just like, first do no harm to the science person, you know? [00:51:32] Ben: Yeah, I mean, I wonder about that with like, [00:51:35] with research. Mm hmm. Is there, should we have more heuristics about how we're [00:51:42] Tim: Yeah, I mean, especially because I think, like, norms are so strong, right? Like, I do think that, like, one of the interesting things, this is one of the arguments I was making in the long science piece. It's like, well, in addition to funding certain types of experiments, if you proliferate the number of opportunities for these low scale projects to operate over a long period of time, there's actually a bunch of like norms that might be really good that they might foster in the scientific community. Right. Which is like you learn, like scientists learn the art of how to plan a project for 30 years. That's super important. Right. Regardless of the research results. That may be something that we want to put out into the open so there's more like your median scientist has more of those skills Yeah, right, like that's another reason that you might want to kind of like percolate this kind of behavior in the system Yeah, and so there's kind of like these emanating effects from like even one offs that I think are important to keep in mind [00:52:33] Ben: That's actually another [00:52:35] I think used for simulations. Yeah I'm just thinking like, well, it's very hard to get a tight feedback loop, right, about like whether you manage, you planned a project for 30 years [00:52:47] Tim: well, right, [00:52:48] Ben: right. But perhaps there's a better way of sort of simulating [00:52:51] Tim: that planning process. Yeah. Well, and I would love to, I mean, again, to the question that you had earlier about like what are the metrics here, right? Like I think for a lot of science metrics that we may end up on, they may have these interesting and really curious properties like we have for inflation rate. Right. We're like, the strange thing about inflation is that we, we kind of don't like, we have hypotheses for how it happens, but like, part of it is just like the psychology of the market. Yeah. Right. Like you anticipate prices will be higher next quarter. Inflation happens if enough people believe that. And part of what the Fed is doing is like, they're obviously making money harder to get to, but they're also like play acting, right? They're like. You know, trust me guys, we will continue to put pressure on the economy until you feel differently about this. And I think there's going to be some things in science that are worth [00:53:35] measuring that are like that, which is like researcher perceptions of the future state of the science economy are like things that we want to be able to influence in the space. And so one of the things that we do when we try to influence like the long termism or the short termism of science It's like, there's lots of kind of like material things we do, but ultimately the idea is like, what does that researcher in the lab think is going to happen, right? Do they think that, you know, grant funding is going to become a lot less available in the next six months or a lot more available in the next six months? Like influencing those might have huge repercussions on what happens in science. And like, yeah, like that's a tool that policymakers should have access to. Yeah. Yeah. [00:54:11] Ben: And the parallels between the. The how beliefs affect the economy, [00:54:18] Tim: and how beliefs [00:54:19] Ben: affect science, I think may also be a [00:54:21] Tim: little bit underrated. Yeah. In the sense that, [00:54:24] Ben: I, I feel like some people think that It's a fairly deterministic system where it's like, ah, yes, this idea's time has come. And like once, once all the things that are in place, like [00:54:35] once, once all, then, then it will happen. And like, [00:54:38] Tim: that is, that's like how it works. [00:54:40] Ben: Which I, I mean, I have, I wish there was more evidence to my point or to disagree with me. But like, I, I think that's, that's really not how it works. And I'm like very often. a field or, or like an idea will, like a technology will happen because people think that it's time for that technology to happen. Right. Right. Yeah. Obviously, obviously that isn't always the case. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There's, there's, there's hype [00:55:06] Tim: cycles. And I think you want, like, eventually, like. You know, if I have my druthers, right, like macro science should have like it's Chicago school, right? Which is basically like the idea arrives exactly when it should arrive. Scientists will discover it on exactly their time. And like your only role as a regulator is to ensure the stability of scientific institutions. I think actually that that is a, that's not a position I agree with, but you can craft a totally, Reasonable, coherent, coherent governance framework that's based around that concept, right? Yes. Yeah. I think [00:55:35] like [00:55:35] Ben: you'll, yes. I, I, I think like that's actually the criteria for success of meta science as a field uhhuh, because like once there's schools , then, then, then it will have made it, [00:55:46] Tim: because [00:55:47] Ben: there aren't schools right now. Mm-Hmm. , like, I, I feel , I almost feel I, I, I now want there to b
This episode of the NSCA Coaching Podcast presents drug testing and anti-doping initiatives in elite sport. Team USA 2008 Olympian, Carissa Gump, discusses how her journey as an international level weightlifter led to her becoming an ambassador for fair competition. Gump shares lessons from overcoming a career-threatening injury prior to the 2008 Olympics, with NSCA Coaching and Sport Science Program Manager, Eric McMahon, and how a passion for supporting athletes has fueled her career as a sport business executive. Learn about opportunities that the NSCA Foundation has for aspiring strength and conditioning professionals, and how the NSCA Foundation serves to promote the philanthropy of the coaching profession. Learn more about clean sport and anti-doping by taking the USADA Coach’s Advantage Course for 0.2 NSCA CEUs. Check out NSCA Foundation resources to discover grants and scholarships available for strength and conditioning professionals. More episode links: USADA – U.S. Anti-Doping Agency TrueSport – Education for Coaches, Athletes, and Parents NSF for Sport – NSF Certified Nutritional Products Listing Global DRO – Drug Reference Online Drug Free Sport – Anti-Doping Services and Education Email Carissa at email@example.com| Connect with Eric on Instagram: @ericmcmahoncscs or Twitter: @ericmcmahoncscsShow Notes“I am a very big advocate for anti-doping in sport. Clean sport is really, really important to me, just for a fair playing field but also integrity of the sport and integrity of the athlete and personally.” 10:05 “I was lifting, but if it weren't for having those folks in my life and helping me get there, I would never have made it. So me being an Olympian is, yes, it's me, but it is also my family, my coaches, my teammates. Everybody was really a huge part of that.” 30:16 “The Foundation is really to me the philanthropic heart of the NSCA. We support students all the way, high school students all the way on up through senior-level investigators. And it's just really special for me to be part of the NSCA and the Foundation because everything comes full circle. What we do comes back to the athletes. And so I'm not coaching. I'm not directly involved with athletes, but I know what I am doing is still-- it's helping athletes in many, many sports.” 33:55 “When I started with the Foundation, we were very heavily research-focused. Over the last seven years, we have continued to add grants and scholarships that are focused on those other areas of membership that we have.” 36:00
How do we find black holes? And how can we tell whether it's a small black hole “eating” really fast or a large black hole that's eating very slowly? To find out, Dr. Charles Liu and co-host Allen Liu welcome astrophysicist Dr. Vivienne Baldassare, a professor of astronomy and physics at Washington State University. As always, though, we start off with the day's joyfully cool cosmic thing, the recently published composite photo of the X-ray Binary System in nearby starburst galaxy NGC_4214. Vivienne explains how X-ray Binaries, which are relatively rare, are created by a stellar mass black hole or a neutron star being fed by a star. Chuck and Vivienne discuss the differences between using the new James Webb Space Telescope and “old tech” like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and how she uses Chandra to find black holes. Professor Baldassare explains how she uses x-ray observations, optical spectroscopy, and variability data to find intermediate-mass black holes, which she is one of the first astronomers to find. You'll hear about the differences between stellar mass black holes, supermassive black holes, and the intermediate-mass back holes that fit somewhere between. Then it's time for our first student question, from Lorenzo, who asks, “Are stars only found in galaxies, and if not, where else?” Vivienne explains that most stars are found in galaxies, but they can also be found in globular clusters. There are also hyper-velocity stars, which can be found in the halo of our galaxy on their way to escape our galaxy entirely. A discussion of the Chandra X-ray Observatory, which spends about 80% of its time outside the Van Allen belts, turns into a discussion about all the manmade objects orbiting the Earth, including Chandra, Hubble, satellites... and lots of space junk, too. We've currently got about 8,000 satellites orbiting Earth – a surprising amount of which are SpaceX Starlink satellites, with more “satellite constellations” planned by SpaceX and others. You'll find out about the risk of chain-reaction debris collisions due to solar storms and other disruptive events, Kessler Syndrome, the environmental consequences of mostly-aluminum satellites burning up in our atmosphere, and the first fine every levied for space junk, against Dish Network. For our next student question, Adrian wants to know how tiny black holes can swallow super giant stars? Vivienne explains how tidal disruption, when the gravity on one side of an object is greater than on the other side, can pull a star apart in months or even weeks! Finally, Vivienne talks about being an ultra-marathon runner and a trail runner, hiking with her dog, and the importance of being able to go out to wild spaces in nature. Chuck gets here to share a favorite hiking memory – a 7-day, long distance solo hike around Mt. Blanc after presenting her work at a conference in France. If you'd like to know more about Dr. Baldassare, you can follow her on Twitter @vbaldassare, Instagram @vbaldassare, or her website which includes her email for you to reach out to her and ask her more questions. We hope you enjoy this episode of The LIUniverse, and, if you do, please support us on Patreon. Credits for Images Used in this Episode: – NGC_4214 (X-ray binary circled) –NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration, Public Doman – Artist's impression of an X-ray Binary – Dana Berry/NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Public domain – Launch of Hubble on shuttle flight STS-31 – NASA, Public Domain – Illustration of the Chandra X-ray Observatory – NASA/CXC/NGST, Public Domain – Our Milky Way's central black hole – EHT Collaboration, CC BY 4.0 – Globular cluster NGC 1466 – ESA/NASA (Hubble), Public Domain – Orbit of the Chandra X-ray Observatory – NASA, Public Domain – Starlink trails on a CTIO telescope image – NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory/CTIO/AURA/DELVE, CC BY 4.0 – Diagram of tides in Earth's oceans – Orion 8 on Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain #TheLIUniverse #CharlesLiu #AllenLiu #SciencePodcast #AstronomyPodcast #blackhole #globularclusters #hypervelocitystars #XrayBinary #starburstgalaxy #NGC4214 #stellarmassblackhole #neutronstar #MilkyWayGalaxy #HubbleSpaceTelescope #ChandraXrayObservatory #supermassiveblackholes #intermediatemassbackholes #VanAllenbelts #SpaceX #Starlink #satelliteconstellations #spacejunk #satellites #KesslerSyndrome #tidaldisruption
Welcome to 'The PFAS Playbook: Essential Knowledge for Water Pros,' where we embark on an illuminating journey into the world of PFAS with our knowledgeable guest, Tonya Chandler, who serves as the Director of Commercialization, Strategic Marketing, and Business Development at BioLargo, Inc. Tonya's passion for PFAS has fueled her career, and she's here to share her expertise with water professionals looking to scale up their PFAS knowledge, know what regulations to be aware of, and debunk common PFAS myths. In this episode, Tonya takes us through the multifaceted landscape of PFAS, from its definition and historical presence to its growing importance in water and wastewater treatment. We'll discuss concerns related to PFAS exposure, including regulatory limits and practical suggestions for minimizing risks. Get ready to explore PFAS in drinking water and strategies for what to do when the water you are treating tests positive for PFAS. For those involved in industrial wastewater treatment, Tonya offers valuable insights into effective strategies and the importance of understanding the treatment process. We'll also dive into the world of point-of-use filters, considering the effectiveness of carbon filters and ion exchange systems, and the limitations of NSF's filter rating 53. Join us for a closer look at upcoming regulatory changes, including CERCLA and RCRA updates, and their potential impact on municipalities and businesses. Uncover the significance of certification and product labeling, as well as ongoing PFAS-related lawsuits and their implications for the industry. Learn about the importance of knowing your products and processes, including labeling for manufacturers 'free of intentionally added PFAS.' We'll share valuable resources, from books to documentaries and websites, to further your PFAS knowledge. And that's not all! Dive into the latest PFAS treatment technologies, including the groundbreaking aqueous electrostatic concentrators developed by Tonya herself, along with supercritical water oxidation and bioremediation. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just starting your career in the water industry, this episode is your ultimate guide to mastering PFAS challenges and safeguarding our most precious resource—water. Tune in now and scale up your PFAS knowledge so you can communicate with your customers and teams with confidence! Timestamps 1:00 - Trace Blackmore reminds you to connect with others because our entire industry benefits when we learn from each other 6:25 - Upcoming Events for Water Treatment Professionals 9:15 - What water professionals need to know about PFAS with Tonya Chandler 40:05 - Periodic Water Table With James McDonald Quotes “PFAS is per- or polylorinated Alkaline substances which sounds like a lot of big words, but it really boils down to the compounds that make plastic moldable or bendable. They are what makes components or what makes products grease-proof, what makes them waterproof. They are what help us in the manufacturing process to help things slide evenly through manufacturing or not clog. They're emulsifiers. They're surfactants so they're in a lot of our cleaners. They're in products you may not even know they're in but the reality is they're everywhere.” - Tonya Chandler “Municipally, we're going to have to treat the drinking water (for PFAS). It's coming. We all know this.” - Tonya Chandler “It's in the rainwater. It's in the grass. It's in the food we eat. It's in the air we breathe, so you can minimize your exposure but you're not going to eliminate it. They've found PFAS three feet deep in the Arctic. They found it on the top of Mount Everest, and they found it in the rainforest. It follows the water cycle and it travels. You're not going to escape it completely.” - Tonya Chandler “A misconception is that we can solve all our problems with GAC and ionic exchange. There isn't enough granulated carbon in the world to remove all the PFAS.” - Tonya Chandler “Ask for an ingredients list. Ask the manufacturers of the chemicals you use in the manufacturing process: “Do you have PFAS compounds in your products?”. Arm yourself. Do your testing. Be proactive and work with the municipality to get it (PFAS) out rather than point a finger.” - Tonya Chandler Connect with Tonya Chandler Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Email: email@example.com Website: www.bestpfastreatment.com LinkedIn: in/tonya-chandler-a4b20ba Read or Download Tonya Chandler's Press Release HERE Links Mentioned BioLargo PFAS Brochures and Studies www.bestpfastreatment.com AWWA website PFAS and Water Contamination Lawsuit Multidistrict litigation lawsuit for AFFF Foam, firefighters World Health Organization 100 parts per trillion PFAS levels EPA Resources Action To Address PFAS Drinking Water Requirements for States and Public Water Systems PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Proposal Hazard Index National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Plan 15 ( landfill side POTW systems/municipal systems) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Federal Facilities PFAS Strategic Roadmap Books Mentioned Plastic: An Autobiography by Allison Cobb Exposure: Poisoned Water, Corporate Greed, and One Lawyer's Twenty-Year Battle Against DuPont The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes Films Mentioned Oppenheimer - docu-drama about the man who developed the atomic bomb Dark Waters - docu-drama about Robert Bilott's case against DuPont The Devil We Know - about the Parkersburg, West Virginia lawsuit documentary Periodic Water Table With James McDonald Its molecular formula is C6H15NO. What is DEAE used for in water treatment? What is its neutralizing capacity? What is a “distribution ratio” and what is DEAE's distribution ratio? How does this compare to morpholine and cyclohexylamine? What does distance from the feedpoint have to do with selecting DEAE as a best fit? Are feed limitations placed upon DEAE when used in food production and humidification? If so, what are they? Is DEAE blended with anything else? Why? 2023 Events for Water Professionals Check out our Scaling UP! H2O Events Calendar where we've listed every event Water Treaters should be aware of by clicking HERE or using the dropdown menu.
Vi diskuterer det fantastiske ATP-molekylet og dekker alt du trenger til Nasjonal Eksamen på dette tema! Vi avslutter med en liten geekout på hvordan ATP produseres i det som kalles energiomsetning. Visste du at alle NSF medlemmer har 50 % rabatt på vårt billigste abonnement "Faglig påfyll" på MedEasy.no? Se fem videoer i måneden så mange ganger du vil for kun 74,-/mnd!
Aveen talks with Dr. Emily SkopEmily Skop, PhD is a professor with nearly two decades of experience in higher education. Both her research and her teaching are action-oriented and deeply committed to BAJEDI (Belonging Access Justice Equity Diversity Inclusion) principles. In her many leadership roles and collaborations, she brings an “ethos of care” that involves imagining and reimagining what a transformed academy could be if we really started paying attention to the multiple social markers that create both opportunities and barriers. Together, through this commitment, she believes we can improve the faculty landscape of today and for the next generation of scholars. My UCCS profile page, which includes contact information: https://ges.uccs.edu/directory/faculty/emily-skop The link to our funded NSF project: https://www.aag.org/program/convening-of-care/. A link to the short article in Inside Higher Ed that inspired the project ("An Ethos of Care" Inside Higher Ed. Link: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/10/15/pledge-foster-more-equitable-research-collaborations-opinion)
Astronomers have long sought to map the night skies, not only to fill in our picture of the cosmos we inhabit, but also to support further research. Comprehensive compilations of astronomical objects serve many purposes: they can help scientists spot broad patterns across a population of objects, put new discoveries such as transient events in the context of their surroundings, and identify the best candidates for focused observations. Justin Lang of the Perimeter Institute discusses the creation of a new project called the Siena Galaxy Atlas. Bios: Rob Sparks is in the Communications, Education and Engagement group at NSF's NOIRLab in Tucson, Arizona. Justin Lang is a researcher at the Perimeter Institute. Links: NOIRLab Press Release: https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2328/ Legacy Survey Viewer: https://www.legacysurvey.org/viewer#NGC%201536 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.
Five years after our first interview, we catch up with Dr. Jason White about chemistry at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and how nanoscience can benefit agriculture and global food security. Graduate student Beza Tuga interviews Jason about his new role as Director of CAES and exciting research collaborations between CAES and the NSF Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology.image shows Beza Tuga (left) and the CSN team in Jason's office (L-R Jason White, Cheng-Hsin Huang, Wilanyi Alvarez Reyes, Beza Tuga, & Chaoyi Deng)Want more podcast episodes? You can find them all on our podcast page, or you can subscribe through Apple Podcasts or Stitcher, or listen on NSF's Science Zone Radio.ABOUT THIS EPISODERelated links:Jason White: websiteBeza Tuga: website, TwitterInterview from 2017: Ep 17. Putting Science to Work for Society: A Visit to the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment StationPodcast episode with Dr. Wade Elmer: Ep 25. Finding the Next Fix for the World's Problems: More from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment StationSustainable Nano blog post by CAES postdoc Dr. Yu Shen: Nanotechnology and Modern AgricultureThe Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station podcast: Coast & CountryThe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Report: The State of Food and Agriculture 2022Undark magazine: In Connecticut, a Nanoscale Agricultural Experiment With Global Potential by Jan Ellen SpiegelThe Center for Sustainable NanotechnologyInterviewee: Jason WhiteInterviewer: Beza TugaProducer/Host: Miriam KrauseMusic: PC III and Dexter BritainThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under the Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology, grant number CHE-2001611. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed on this podcast are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the participating institutions.
SPECIAL EPISODE! Introducing the NHERI Science Plan, Third EditionWays to leverage NSF-funded facilities in natural hazards research Just released: the NHERI Science Plan, 3rd Edition! This comprehensive, 130-page research guide outlines ways researchers can use NSF-funded facilities to study natural hazards damage and prevention. With lead author Ian Robertson, research engineer with the University of Hawaii. NEW in the third edition:· NHERI SimCenter simulation software for estimating damage and simulating mitigation measures.· NHERI CONVERGE social science resources, for incorporating social science methodologies.· PLUS extreme events teams who conduct post-event reconnaissance missions.Download the NHERI Science Plan: https://www.designsafe-ci.org/data/browser/public/designsafe.storage.published/PRJ-4240 Learn more about the Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure, NHERI: https://www.designsafe-ci.org/ #NSFfunded #Scienceplan #naturalhazardsEngineering #naturalHazards #extremeEvents #disasterScience #NHERISimCenter #simulationSoftware #hazardModeling #hazardsEngineering #engineeringResearch
Dans cette émission, nous explorons les nutraceutiques avec le Dr. Simar, et leur rôle dans la préparation sportive. Les nutraceutiques, tels que les antioxydants, les acides aminés et les probiotiques, sont cruciaux pour la santé et le bien-être. Ils évoluent pour devenir des éléments essentiels dans la performance athlétique. Nous abordons l'impact des acides aminés branchés (BCAA) et de la créatine sur la performance musculaire et la réduction de la fatigue chez les athlètes, en illustrant par des études et des cas pratiques l'efficacité de nutraceutiques comme la bêta-alanine ou les oméga-3. Nous discutons également des controverses autour de certains ingrédients, et de l'importance des régulations et des certifications, comme le label NSF ou Informed-Choice, pour assurer l'efficacité et la sécurité des nutraceutiques. Enfin, nous explorons les perspectives d'avenir concernant l'utilisation de peptides bioactifs ou d'autres nutraceutiques innovants. Le Dr. Simard partage des conseils pour intégrer efficacement et en toute sécurité des nutraceutiques dans les programmes de préparation sportive. Bonne écoute :-)
這張仙女座星系 ê 相片，毋若看會著恆星 tī 佗位，嘛看會著欲出世 ê 恆星會出現 tī 佗位。仙女座星系 M31 是一个 捲螺仔星系。伊遮爾大閣遮爾媠，離咱干焦 250 萬 光年 爾爾。這張足心適 ê 仙女座星系相片，是 kā 太空觀測 kah 地面觀測 tī 可見光波段以內 kah 以外 ê 影像，疊做這張--ê。可見光 看著--ê，是 M31 內底 ê 恆星。白色 kah 藍色是 Hubble 太空望遠鏡、Subaru 地面望遠鏡、kah Mayall 地面望遠鏡 ê 影像資料。紅外線 看著--ê，是 M31 內底，連鞭欲出世 ê 新恆星。In 是柑仔色--ê，是 NASA Spitzer 太空望遠鏡 ê 影像資料。紅外線會當追蹤大型 塗粉帶。塗粉帶會去予恆星加溫，伊綴 仙女座星系 ê 捲螺仔手骨咧行。這寡 塗粉 是星系內底 大量星際氣體 ê 追蹤劑。這寡星際氣體，就是未來欲 做新恆星 ê 原始材料。仙女座星系 會 tī 未來 50 億年 ê 時間內，kah 咱 銀河系 合併 做一个星系。Tī 彼進前，這寡新恆星應該會 先做出來，差不多 tī 紲落來幾若億年 ê 時間內。 ——— 這是 NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day ê 台語文 podcast 原文版：https://apod.nasa.gov/ 台文版：https://apod.tw/ 今仔日 ê 文章： https://apod.tw/daily/20231007/ 影像來源：NASA, NSF, NOAJ, Hubble, Subaru, Mayall, DSS, Spitzer 影像處理 kah 版權：Robert Gendler & Russell Croman 音樂：P!SCO - 鼎鼎 聲優：阿錕 翻譯：An-Li Tsai (NSYSU) 原文：https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap231007.html Powered by Firstory Hosting
Thanks for joining us, today we welcome Dr. Jack Schultz, Research Professor in the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Houston. His research has focused on the chemical and molecular interactions between plants and insect herbivores. And those relationships are what Monte and Dr. Schultz explore as they discuss the amazing communications being discovered between plants and insects. It's a fascinating conversation so let's jump right in. Dr. Schultz's research has focused on the chemical and molecular bases of interactions between plants and insect herbivores, integrating insect physiology and behavior with plant chemistry, molecular biology and ecology. He (with undergraduate Ian Baldwin) was the first to demonstrate volatile signaling by and among plants. He also studied the role of plant tannins induced by insect attack in defending plants against pests and found that some interfere with biocontrol. Gene expression underlies defense induction by plants. The Schultz lab demonstrated the relationship between gene expression, resource allocation, defense compound production and plant defense using the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. They also found that salivary signals allow some insects to block plant defense responses. Some insects induce the development of unique organs on plants called ‘galls.' Galls house the insect and provide concentrated food resources. A team led by Schultz demonstrated that development of the gall formed on grape leaves by grape phylloxera involves plant genetic pathways unrelated to leaf development and requires relatively undifferentiated leaf cells and manipulation of plant hormones. In 2007, Schultz became Director of the Christopher Bond Life Science Center at the University of Missouri, where he led interdisciplinary research by faculty from 8 departments in 6 colleges. Funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and NSF, he developed and taught in a training program in science communication for graduate students. Schultz has also taught tropical ecology and studied plant defenses in Costa Rica, primarily at the La Selva Biological Station. https://uh.edu/nsm/biology-biochemistry/people/profiles/jack-schultz/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15923339/ Got questions you want answered? Send them our way and we'll do our best to research and find answers. Know someone you think would be great on the AgEmerge stage or podcast? Send your questions or suggestions to firstname.lastname@example.org we'd love to hear from you.
In this episode James hosts Lynn Dohm, Executive Director of WiCyS (Women in Cybersecurity). Lynn shares the origin story of WiCyS, from humble beginnings as an NSF-funded conference to today's thriving global community empowering women at all stages of their cybersecurity careers. Join us as they discuss systemic issues like the “leaky pipeline,” how to create inclusive spaces in security, and overcoming barriers that cause women to leave the field. Lynn talks data, gives advice for cybersecurity leaders looking to recruit, retain and advance women, and much more! Tune-in to be inspired by the superheroes at WiCyS who are making a global impact for women in cybersecurity.
Episode 3 Understanding major storms: key to coastal resilience Understanding the behavior of coastal systems requires specialized researchers, including engineers, to instrument shorelines before a major storm — and to collect and analyze the resulting data. Woods Hole scientist Britt Raubenheimer reiterates the vital importance of federal funding, including NSF funding, which allows for multidisciplinary teams like NEER to perform nested, coordinated reconnaissance missions with NHERI engineers and agencies like USGS and NOAA. NEER website: https://neerassociation.org/ NHERI extreme events organizations: https://www.designsafe-ci.org/facilities/converge/Follow Britt Raubenheimer on Twitter: @BrittRaubenhei1Twitter: @NHERI_EER Questions about NHERI or NHERI extreme events research? Contact us: email@example.com. Entender las grandes tormentas: clave de la resistencia costera Comprender el comportamiento de los sistemas costeros exige que investigadores especializados, entre ellos ingenieros, instrumenten las costas antes de una gran tormenta y recojan y analicen los datos resultantes. Britt Raubenheimer, científico de Woods Hole, reitera la importancia vital de la financiación federal, incluida la de la NSF, que permite a equipos multidisciplinares como el NEER llevar a cabo misiones de reconocimiento anidadas y coordinadas con ingenieros del NHERI y organismos como el USGS y la NOAA.
In 2018 astronomers witnessed an intense explosion far more powerful than the average supernova. 10 to 100 times brighter! This event was the first of a new class of objects called Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients (LFBOTs). In this podcast, Dr. Ashley Chrimes discusses LFBOTs and a recently discovered event that is quite different than previously seen LFBOTs. Bios: - Rob Sparks is in the Communications, Education and Engagement group at NSF's NOIRLab in Tucson, Arizona. - Dr. Ashley Chrimes is currently a European Space Agency research fellow, based at the European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC). His research interests are in astrophysical transients, such as gamma-ray bursts, fast blue optical transients and fast radio bursts. His work aims to unravel the progenitors of these transients through their host galaxies and mutli-wavelength emission. Links: NOIRLab Press Release: https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2326/ Hubble Press Release: https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2023/news-2023-024 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.
In this episode, Bob and Shelly take a look at the sky just days before the next solar eclipse. Join us as Dr. Misty enthusiastically shares her wealth of knowledge about the sun, moon, and stars - and why we seem to be having more solar events! Finally, join us as we speak about the upcoming Balloon Fiesta and the excitement surrounding this event. Let's blast off with this next out of this world STEM Southwest podcast! Show Notes Watch episode here Dr. Misty Carty has over two decades of experience as an informal science educator, inspiring young students to develop a love for science. Her journey in science began with a spark of curiosity when she learned that Pluto had moved inside the orbit of Neptune and was not currently the last planet in the solar system - at a time when scientists still defined it as a planet. This ignited her passion for learning and sharing knowledge. Misty holds a Bachelor's in Physics from McDaniel College, located just outside Baltimore, MD. She further pursued her academic goals by earning her Master's and Doctorate in Astronomy from the University of Maryland, College Park. Misty has donned various hats as a science educator and communicator throughout her career, including professor, author, and museum science educator. Through her involvement with the Balloon Museum Foundation and R4 Creating, she actively supports and raises funds for STEAM education. In addition, she is dedicated to empowering young women and girls in science and technology. She takes pride in advocating for girls in STEAM and inspiring them to pursue careers in these fields through the Girls into Tech program of Be Greater than Average. Pluto Planet Day (New Mexico) Clyde Tombaugh NASA Eclipses Annular Solar Eclipse Annular Solar Eclipse Path Total Solar Eclipse Total Solar Eclipse Path NOAA, NASA, NSF events at Anderson Abruzzo Albuquerque International Balloon Museum Solar viewing glasses and filters must be ISO 12312-2 certified! Eclipse Eye Safety Eclipse Eye Safety (Pinhole Viewers) Pinhole Box Viewer Solar Viewers/Eclipse Glasses Where Did The Sun Go, by Dr. Misty Carty A Little Science: Inquisitive Science Books for ALL Ages (Dr. Misty Carty) I.S.S. Tracker Be Greater Than Average Gift of Learning Be Greater Than Average Courses Be Greater Than Average A Semester of STEM Activities E-Book Contact: Dr. Misty Carty firstname.lastname@example.org
David Diamond received his Ph.D. in Biology in 1985 from the University of California, Irvine, with a specialization in neuroscience. He recently retired as a career scientist at the Department of Veterans Affairs after 30 years of service and is currently a Professor in the Department of Psychology, Cognitive, Neural and Social Science Division, at the University of South Florida. Dr. Diamond has been funded by the VA, NIH, DoD, NSF and pharmaceutical companies in his neuroscience research, with over 150 publications, reviews and book chapters. In the past decade, Dr. Diamond has expanded his research program with publications addressing controversial issues in cardiovascular disease and nutrition. Dr. Diamond has delivered lectures on-line with over a million views addressing how the public and healthcare workers have been misinformed about the risk of elevated levels of serum cholesterol and the purported benefits of statins, which lower cholesterol. Timestamps: 00:00:00 Trailer and introduction. 00:03:21 Personal heart disease risk. 00:06:05 Learning about health benefits changed life. 00:11:05 Relative vs. absolute risk in drug benefits. 00:17:22 High cholesterol linked to a longer lifespan, less cancer. 00:23:05 High cholesterol doesn't always cause heart disease. 00:30:18 High LDL in the elderly does not decrease lifespan. 00:35:21 LDL focus ignores other aspects of health. 00:37:58 High cholesterol alone does not cause disease. 00:44:31 Genetic anomaly increases heart attack risk, not LDL. 00:49:30 Increased blood sugar and hypertension, atherosclerosis. 00:58:00 High small dense LDL associated with heart disease. 01:04:24 Metabolic syndrome causes strokes, hypertension, and damage. 01:08:02 Overall, significant reduction in heart events. 01:14:38 Statins cause dementia, especially in older adults. 01:21:07 Statin adverse effects are not real. 01:26:40 Statin benefits, but diet change preferred. 01:32:20 Insufficient vitamin K2 leads to artery damage. 01:38:27 High LDL not linked to heart disease. 01:41:22 Challenge conventional approach to medicine; educate physicians. See open positions at Revero: https://jobs.lever.co/Revero/ Join Carnivore Diet for a free 30 day trial: https://carnivore.diet/join/ Carnivore Shirts: https://merch.carnivore.diet Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://carnivore.diet/subscribe/ . #revero #shawnbaker #Carnivorediet #MeatHeals #HealthCreation #humanfood #AnimalBased #ZeroCarb #DietCoach #FatAdapted #Carnivore #sugarfree