Podcasts about nullius

Das ist ein Gespräch, das mir sehr viel Spaß gemacht. Axel Bojanowski und ich haben gleich zu Beginn der virtuellen Session losgelegt und diskutiert, bis ich dann den Notstopp ziehen musste — schließlich sollte das eine Podcast-Folge werden und nicht nur eine höchst interessante Diskussion unter vier Augen. Der Titel dieser Folge ist vielleicht kurios, aber mir ist das Zitat von Karl Popper aus den 1980er Jahren eingefallen: »Wissenschaft ist, wenn man schwarz gekleidet in einem dunklen Kohlenkeller nach einer schwarzen Katze sucht, von der man gar nicht weiß, ob sie existiert.« Davon leiten sich alle möglichen Folgen ab, unter anderem, dass Wissenschaft immer von Annahmen geprägt ist. Sie ist auch mit zum Teil großer Unsicherheit verbunden. Viel Bescheidenheit und Selbstkritik wären in der Interpretation und Darstellung notwendig. Davon ist in der heutigen Welt nicht viel zu finden. Besonders nicht Bescheidenheit und kritische, kluge Reflexion als Fundament unserer politischen und gesellschaftlichen Entscheidungen, eher aktivistische Grabenkämpfe, die mehr mit dem Circus Maximus als mit Expertenwesen zu tun haben.  Wir behandeln folglich in dieser Episode Qualitätsprobleme in der Wissenschaft, Aktivismus, die Rolle von Journalisten und Medien, Anreizsysteme, welche Themen in der Wissenschaft überhaupt diskutiert werden und von wem. Außerdem, welchen Schaden wir anrichten, wenn wir nicht mehr in der Lage sind, in kritischen Zeiten Ideen klug zu reflektieren und was wir mit unseren Kindern und Jugendlichen machen, wenn wir sie ständig mit apokalyptischen Visionen konfrontieren. Wo sind wir also falsch abgebogen? Was können wir alle tun, damit wir ein positives Bild der Zukunft entwickeln können und wir wieder darüber sprechen, wie wir Fortschritt erzielen können und nicht nur ständig im defätistisch/apokalyptischen Denken stecken bleiben. Ich sollte an dieser Stelle nicht vergessen, meinen Gast vorzustellen, auch wenn ihn die meisten sicher schon kennen: Axel Bojanowski diplomierte an der Universität Kiel über Klimaforschung. Seit 1997 arbeitet er als Wissenschaftsjournalist, u. a. für "Die Zeit", "Nature Geoscience", "Geo", "Stern" und der "Süddeutschen Zeitung". Er war Redakteur beim "Spiegel" , dann Chefredakteur bei "Bild der Wissenschaft" und "Natur". Seit August 2020 ist er Chefreporter für Wissenschaft bei "WELT". Bojanowski hat fünf Sachbücher verfasst. Der Berufsverband Deutscher Geowissenschaftler hat ihn 2024 für seine publizistischen Leistungen ausgezeichnet. Aus meiner persönlichen Sicht ist Axel Bojanowski einer der besten Wissenschaftsjournalisten, die ich kenne. Gerade im deutschsprachigen Raum würden wir viel mehr Journalisten seiner Güte dringend benötigen. Er hat auch zwei wichtige und sehr zugängliche Bücher geschrieben, deren Themen natürlich in diesem Gespräch auch thematisiert werden. Wir beginnen mit der Frage, wie die Qualität wissenschaftlicher Aussagen zu beurteilen ist. Wird es immer schwieriger zu erkennen, was ernsthafte Wissenschaft und was irrelevant, falsch oder Ideologie oder Aktivismus ist? »Science und Nature sind mittlerweile journalistische Produkte. Letztlich gelten sie als die wichtigsten Impact-Magazine für die Wissenschaft, aber eigentlich funktionieren sie nach den Gesetzen von Massenmedien.«  Es wird so getan, als ob es vollkommen klar wäre, wie man den Klimawandel begrenzt. Es wird nicht verstanden oder aufgegriffen, dass es sich um komplexe Zielkonflikte handelt. »The time for debate has ended.« Marcia Nutt Funktionieren journalistische Medien heute immer stärker so, dass es um persönliche Absicherung geht, indem man Nachrichten publiziert, von denen man annimmt, dass sie dem aktuellen Zeitgeist entsprechen und somit sozial erwünscht sind?  »Wenn man Artikel dieser Art bringt, hat man nichts zu befürchten.« Welche Geschichten erzählen wir uns als Gesellschaft und unseren Kindern und Jugendlichen? »Es handelt von weitgehend ignorierten Sensationen der jüngeren Menschheitsgeschichte der letzten 200 Jahre, also von der Industrialisierung und ihren Folgen, die die Welt besser gemacht haben, als die meisten Leute ahnen. Diese Geschichten werden kaum erzählt.« Erleben wir aktuell ein Multiorganversagen der wesentlichen Strukturen und Institutionen, die unsere moderne Zivilisation bisher ermöglicht haben? »Covid war sozusagen Klimadebatte im Schnelldurchlauf.« Sollten in einer Krise nicht verschiedene kluge Ideen unterschiedlicher Art diskutiert und abgewogen werden? »Es wurde ganz schnell verlangt, sich einem Lager zuzuordnen. Wenn man das nicht eindeutig selbst tut, dann wird man in ein Lager eingeordnet.« Was ist der Zusammenhang von Risiko, Unsicherheit und welche Entscheidungen folgen aus wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis? »Man hat bei Covid wie beim Klima hohe Risiken mit mit großen Unsicherheiten verbunden.[…]  Dann wird aber so getan als ob es eindeutig wäre und man im Grunde ganz klare Fakten aus der Wissenschaft bekäme und Handlungsanweisungen — was nie der Fall ist. Aus wissenschaftlichen Fakten folgen keine Handlungensanweisngen. Nie.« Gibt es tatsächlich immer nur die eine richtige Antwort auf ein Problem, follow the science — alternativlos? »Es gibt wahnsinnig viele Möglichkeiten, auf dieses Problem zu reagieren [Klima, Covid|. Es ist letztlich eine Wertefrage.« Finden wir immer wieder dieselbe Lagerbildung vor, die aber aus anderen »Quellen« gespeist ist, etwa Technologieoptimisten vs. -pessimisten, Liberale vs. Etatisten, und dergleichen? Das ist sehr ungünstig, denn:  »Wissenschaft ist nun mal der beste Erkenntnisprozess, den wir haben. […] Um Wissenschaft richtig zu verstehen, müsste man aber Unsicherheiten immer klar mitkommunizieren.« Ist es besser, eine falsche Karte oder gar keine Karte zu haben, wenn man eine Wanderung unternimmt? »Es geht auf diesen Ebenen [wissenschaftliche Prozesse] immer auch um Macht, das darf man nicht vergessen. Wenn man es versäumt, sich auf die Seite zu schlagen, die den Ton angibt, dann verliert man an Einfluss.« Im Journalismus wurde jede Form der Differenzierung sofort bekämpft. Wie kann man aber als Gesellschaft unter solchen Bedingungen bei komplexen Herausforderungen klug entscheiden? Wissenschaft und Journalismus sollten aber beide Prozesse der Wahrheitsfindung sein. Betonung liegt dabei auf »Prozess« — was bedeutet dies für die praktische Umsetzung? Werden Opportunismus und Feigheit, seine eigene Meinung zum Ausdruck zu bringen, zur größten Bedrohung unserer Gesellschaft? »Journalisten sind vor allem feige.« Wie sollten wir mit Unsicherheiten umgehen? »Die Unsicherheiten aber, und das ist ein wichtiger Punkt, können gerade nicht beruhigen. Es sind die Unsicherheiten, ein Problem an sich.« Gibt es nur umstrittene und irrelevante Wissenschafter?  Falsche Prognosen und Aussagen in der Öffentlichkeit haben für opportunistische Wissenschafter auch fast nur positive Seiten und werden in der Praxis kaum bestraft. Sie können dieselben falschen Ideen über Jahrzehnte breit publik machen und werden auch noch belohnt — weil sie ja vermeintlich auf der »richtigen« Seite stehen. Die grundlegende Frage dahinter scheint zu sein: Welche Geschichten erzählt sich eine Gesellschaft, von welchen wird sie geleitet, welche sind konstitutiv für ihre Kultur und wie können wir diese ändern, um damit wieder einen positiven Blick auf die Zukunft zu bekommen? Nadelöhre der Wissenschaft Die Universitäten haben sich, wie auch die Medien, immer weiter homogenisiert — von Vielfalt leider keine Spur.  »Das Milieu verstärkt sich selbst.« Was bedeutet das, etwa am Beispiel der Attributionsforschung? Was bedeutet dies für große politische Projekte, wie die deutsche Energiewende, die nicht nur im großen Maßstab gescheitert ist, sondern auch Deutschland schwer beschädigt hat. Wer trägt dafür nun die Verantwortung? Und die Medien stimmen alle das gleiche Lied an, ohne kritisch zu hinterfragen — warum eigentlich? »Man guckt gar nicht mehr, was stimmt, sondern: Was schreiben die anderen?« Warum ist es so schwer bei Klimafragen, die Fakten korrekt darzustellen? Aktuell wird von Politik und Aktivisten ständig betont, dass es viele Hitzetote gäbe. Es wird nicht erwähnt, dass es zehnmal so viele Kältetote gibt: »Across the 854 urban areas in Europe, we estimated an annual excess of 203 620 deaths attributed to cold and 20 173 attributed to heat.«, Pierre Masselot et al Diese einseitige Propaganda wird überall in der Gesellschaft verbreitet, auch an den Schulen: »Papa, wenn der Meeresspiegel steigt, sterben wir?!« Was richten wir mit unseren Kindern an? »Der Erfolg der menschlichen Zivilisation beruht darauf, dass man sich von der Natur unabhängig gemacht hat und dass man die Natur auch für sich genutzt hat. […] Diese Geschichten des Fortschritts sind wichtig zu verstehen; gerade für Kinder!« Wir leben nicht, wir sterben in Harmonie mit der Natur: »Have you heard people say that humans used to live in balance with nature? […] There was a balance. It wasn't because humans lived in balance with nature. Humans died in balance with nature. It was utterly brutal and tragic.«, Hans Rosling Erst seit rund 100 Jahren können wir davon sprechen, dass Menschen ansatzweise in modernem Lebensstandard leben. »Wir zogen in die Stadt zu einem alten Ehepaar in eine kleine Kammer, wo in einem Bett das Ehepaar, im andern meine Mutter und ich schliefen. Ich wurde in einer Werkstätte aufgenommen, wo ich Tücher häkeln lernte; bei zwölfstündiger fleißiger Arbeit verdiente ich 20 bis 25 Kreuzer im Tage. Wenn ich noch Arbeit für die Nacht nach Hause mitnahm, so wurden es einige Kreuzer mehr. Wenn ich frühmorgens um 6 Uhr in die Arbeit laufen mußte, dann schliefen andere Kinder meines Alters [ca. 11 Jahre] noch.« »Es war ein kalter strenger Winter und in unsre Kammer konnten Wind und Schnee ungehindert hinein. Wenn wir morgens die Tür öffneten, so mußten wir erst das angefrorene Eis zerhacken, um hinaus zu können, denn der Eintritt in die Kammer war direkt vom Hof und wir hatten nur eine einfache Glastür. Heizen konnten wir daheim nicht, das wäre Verschwendung gewesen, so trieb ich mich auf der Straße, in den Kirchen und auf dem Friedhof herum.«, Adelheid Popp ca. 1890 Ist der Mensch das Krebsgeschwür des Planeten? Was passiert, wenn wir über Jahrzehnte solche Narrative in Schulen, Universitäten und Medien verbreiten? Wird der Fortschritt paradoxerweise von denen bekämpft, die fortgeschritten sind? Welches eigenartige und ethisch fragwürdige Signal senden wir da an den Rest der Welt? »Elend bedarf keiner Erklärung. Das ist der Normalfall. Wohlstand bedarf der Erklärung.« Wir scheinen aber in einer Zeit zu leben, wo Wohlstand, zumindest für einige, so normal geworden ist, dass man jedes Gefühl für die realen Prozesse der Welt verlernt hat und ignoriert. Wo man selbst die vermeintlich wichtigsten eigenen Ziele obskuren Ideologien opfert: »Zu Zeiten, wo der Klimawandel angeblich das größte Problem ist, schaltet man klimafreundliche Kernkraftwerke ab.« Warum findet die Diskussion komplexer Phänomene so gespalten und so feindselig und gleichzeitig so pseudo-elitär statt? Wie das gut gemeinte Definieren von simplistischen Indikatoren das Gegenteil des gewünschten Ziels erreichen kann. Aus einem Indikator wird ein Götz, dem bedingungslos in den Untergang gefolgt wird. Klimaschutz nur mit Wind und Sonne ist eine Irreführung deutscher Aktivisten und gedankenloser Politik. Oder ist es vielmehr eine bait and switch Strategie? Man lockt mit dem einen, tauscht es dann aber durch eine andere Sache aus? Man lockt mit Klimawandel, möchte aber tatsächlich eine radikale politische Wende erzielen? Der Gipfel der Ideologie: ein Giga-Projekt wie die »Energiewende« ganz bewusst ohne Kostenkontrolle? Ein Bürger stellt eine Anfrage: »Zunächst dürfen wir anmerken, dass die Bundesregierung keine Gesamtkostenrechnung zur Energiewende unternimmt.«, Frage den Staat (2023) Damit bleibt noch eine grundlegende Frage: Wer soll, oder genauer, wer kann eigentlich die Verantwortung für die komplexen Entscheidungen der heutigen Zeit tragen? Soll eine Expertokratie die Welt retten, oder sind es letztens nur die Menschen selbst, die diese Verantwortung tragen müssen? Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episode 120: All In: Energie, Wohlstand und die Zukunft der Welt: Ein Gespräch mit Prof. Franz Josef Radermacher Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 116: Science and Politics, A Conversation with Prof. Jessica Weinkle Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 96: Ist der heutigen Welt nur mehr mit Komödie beizukommen? Ein Gespräch mit Vince Ebert Episode 94: Systemisches Denken und gesellschaftliche Verwundbarkeit, ein Gespräch mit Herbert Saurugg Episode 93: Covid. Die unerklärliche Stille nach dem Sturm. Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 86: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, a conversation with Dr. Judith Curry Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 76: Existentielle Risiken Episode 74: Apocalype Always Axel Bojanowski Axel Bojanowski, Was Sie schon immer übers Klima wissen wollten, aber bisher nicht zu fragen wagten: Der Klimawandel zwischen Lobbygruppen und Wissenschaft, Westend (2024) Axel Bojanowski, 33 erstaunliche Lichtblicke, die zeigen, warum die Welt viel besser ist, als wir denken, Westend (2025) Homepage Axel Bojanowski Substack Die Welt Twitter/X LinkedIn Fachliche Referenzen Marcia McNutt, The beyond-two-degree inferno, Science Editorial (2015) Patrick Brown, Do Climate Attribution Studies Tell the Full Story? (2025) Roger Pielke Jr., What the media won't tell you about ... hurricanes (2022) Roger Pielke Jr., Making Sense of Trends in Disaster Losses (2022) Roger Pielke Jr., What the media won't tell you about . . . Drought in Western and Central Europe (2022) Rob Henderson, 'Luxury beliefs' are latest status symbol for rich Americans (2019) Bernd Stegemann, Die Klima-Gouvernanten und ihre unartigen Zöglinge (2025) Steven Koonin, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, BenBella Books (2021) Hart aber Fair (Sonja Flaßpöhler) (2021) Pierre Masselot et al, Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold; 854 cities in Europe, Lancet Planet Health (2023) Hans Rosling, Factfulness, Sceptre (2018) Adelheid Popp, Jugendgeschichte einer Arbeiterin (1909) Axel Bojanowski, Scheuklappen der Klimaforschung (2024) Frag den Staat: Kosten der Energiewende von 2000 bis 2022 (2023)

HEADLINES // 7:15AM // Scheherezade is a researcher and campaigner with Elbit Out of Victoria, a member of the Free Palestine Naarm Coalition, and is a fellow presenter here on 3CR. Last week on the show we played Scheherezade's speech from outside Hanwha headquarters as part of the Free Palestine rally in Naarm on Sunday 19th May. Sche joined to speak further about weapons manufacturing in this country as well as the emergency protest happening today outside the Elbit Systems office in Port Melbourne. The action is happening today at 12pm outside the Elbit Systems office, 3/290 Salmon St Port Melbourne. Head to @freepalestinecoalition.naarm  7:30AM // Juliet Lamont, a frontline activist for climate, forests and Palestine. Her work is grounded in intersectionality and aims to always be First Nations led when working on stolen land. She is also an award-winning filmmaker. Juliet was one of two women arrested on the roof of the Forestry Corporation building in Coffs Harbour on April 22, as part of a group of women who occupied the roof of Forestry Corporation NSW. Juliet joined us to talk about her efforts in trying to save the forests in NSW.7:45AM // Claudia Craig from 3CR's Earth Matters spoke to Wiradjuri woman and indigenous water expert Kate Harriden. Kate spoke to us about First Nations caretaking of the continent's waterscapes prior to western management systems, and the concept and legacy of Aqua Nullius. This was the first part of their discussion.  8:00AM // Ellycia Harould-Kollieb, expert on Ocean Governance at the University of Melbourne spoke to Tessa Campisi on Out of the Blue a few weeks ago. In this part of their discussion, Ellycia discussed the Governance of the High Seas and Developments Deep Sea Mining. Listen to Out of the Blue at 11.30AM every Sunday on 3CR - or head to 3cr.org.au/radioblue to listen back to the full episode, where Ellycia also talks about her background in conservation biology, dynamics of ocean acidification and climate change, and traces of human history to be found in the sea. 8:15AM // Andrea Lamont-Mills is Branch President at the National Tertiary Education Union at the University of Southern Queensland. With recent job cuts announced, the NTEU at USQ is fighting for the university to abandon these job cuts. Andrea joined us on Tuesday breakfast to chat about the context leading up to these proposed cuts, the lack of transparency from the university, and how this will impact the broader university community. Songs: Emily Wurramara - Lady BlueSampa the Great - FreedomBarkaa - Ngamaka (Ft. Leroy Johnson) 

Western hubris about water leads to really bad water policy - kate harriden  Australia's First Peoples looked after the country's waterscapes for millennia before colonisation brought Western ways that exclude their contribution. This week on Earth Matters Wiradyuri woman and indigenous water expert kate harriden from the Monash Sustainable Development Institute explains how educating settler societies about indigenous ways of knowing is crucial to decolonising water management in Australia. Produced by Claudia Craig at the studios of 3CR on unceded Wurundjeri land. Sound recordings of Lake Burley Griffin, Canberra, created and supplied by kate harriden.  MSDI Water camp, May 20-22  MSDI Water camp, May 20-22, Australian National University, Ngunnawal Country - registrations open! First Nations Bookings, Non-indigenous EOI References Overturning Aqua nullius, Virginia Marshall Indigenous design: Water Country by kate harriden ‘Hear Their Voices: Australia's First Nations Women and the Legal Recognition of Their Rights to Water' Katie O'Bryan & kate harriden  Victorian Government Water is Life Policy document 

Auch heute freue ich mich wieder darüber, einen äußerst kompetenten und prominenten Gast vorstellen zu dürfen: Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer. Das Thema ist eines, das uns seit einiger Zeit begleitet, und auch noch weiter begleiten wird, denn es gehört zu den wesentlichsten Fragen der heutigen Zeit. Werden wir von der stetig steigenden Komplexität in unserer Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft überrollt, oder gelingt es, Mechanismen zu entwickeln, trotzdem kluge und resiliente Entscheidungen zu treffen? Entscheidungen, die uns auch helfen, mit komplexen Risiken umzugehen? Gerd Gigerenzer war unter anderem langjähriger Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, ist Direktor des Harding Center for Risk Literacy an der Universität Potsdam, Partner von Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions und Vizepräsident des European Research Council (ERC). Er ist ehemaliger Professor für Psychologie an der Universität von Chicago und John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law an der Universität von Virginia. Darüber hinaus ist er Mitglied der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der British Academy sowie Ehrenmitglied der American Academy of Arts and Sciences und der American Philosophical Society. Er hat unzählige Preise gewonnen sowie zahlreiche Bücher geschrieben, die nicht nur inhaltlich höchst relevant sondern zudem auch noch sehr zugänglich für eine breite Leserschicht sind.  Zu seinen Forschungsschwerpunkten zählen: Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit und Zeitbeschränkung Risikokompetenz und Risikokommunikation Entscheidungsstrategien von Managern, Richtern und Ärzten Und genau über diese Themen werden wir uns in der Episode unterhalten. Wie geht man in Situationen großer Unsicherheit mit Daten und Informationen um? »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, desto mehr Informationen muss man ignorieren.« Was ist eine Heuristik, und welche Heuristiken wenden wir erfolgreich in welchen Situationen an? »In Situationen von Unsicherheit, verlassen sich Menschen nicht auf die ganze Vergangenheit, sondern auf die jüngste Vergangenheit — das nennt man recency Heuristik.« Warum führen mehr Daten nicht immer zu besseren Entscheidungen? »Ein Datenpunkt, gut gewählt, erlaubt [in vielen Fällen] bessere Vorhersagen als Big Data« Was ist Intuition und unter welchen Umständen ist intuitives sinnvoller als vermeintlich rationales Entscheiden? »Intuition ist keine Willkür. Intuition ist gefühltes Wissen, das auf jahrelanger Erfahrung beruht.« Was ist von den neuen Theorien der Rationalität, z. B. dem System 1 und 2 von Kahnemann zu halten? »The abject failure of models in the global financial crisis has not dented their popularity among regulators.«, Mervyn King Was ist defensives Entscheiden, und warum ist es eines der größten Probleme unserer modernen Welt? »Der Arzt ist nicht in einer Situation, dem Patienten das Beste zu empfehlen. Viele Ärzte fürchten, dass die Patienten klagen, insbesondere, wenn etwas unterlassen wurde. Die Patienten klagen nicht, wenn unnötige Operationen vorgenommen wurden.« Weniger kann oft mehr sein: »Viele Menschen denken — auch in der Wissenschaft — mehr ist immer besser.« Dabei gilt in den meisten Fällen, gerade auch dort, wo wir häufig versuchen, komplexe Modelle anzuwenden: »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, umso einfacher muss man die Regulierung [oder das Modell] machen.« Eine Erkenntnis, die im Grunde jedem klar ist, der sich mit der Steuerung komplexer Systeme auseinandersetzt. Warum handeln wir stetig dagegen? »Wir brauchen eine Welt, die den Mut hat zur Vereinfachung.« Und dann gibt es noch den Aspekt der Rückkopplung von (schlechten) Modellen auf die Welt, die sie vermeintlich beschreiben oder vorhersagen, und wir kommen leicht in einen Teufelskreis der zirkulären und selbstverstärkenden Fehler. Wie lassen sich diese vermeiden? Was wird die Folge sein, wenn diese Formen der Modellierung und Verhaltenssteuerung auf eine immer totalitärere und total überwachte Gesellschaft trifft? Entwickeln wir uns aber in der Realität mit künstlicher Intelligenz, Large Language Models und IT-getriebener Automatisierung, aber nicht gerade ins Gegenteil? Eine Welt, deren Entscheidungen von immer komplexeren Systemen intransparent getroffen werden, wo niemand mehr nachvollziehen oder bewerten und in Wahrheit verantworten kann, ob diese Entscheidungen sinnvoll sind? Denken wir beispielsweise an Modelle, die Rückfallwahrscheinlichkeiten von Straftätern bewerten. »Viele Menschen lächeln über altmodische Wahrsager. Doch sobald die Hellseher mit Computern arbeiten, nehmen wir ihre Vorhersagen ernst und sind bereit, für sie zu zahlen.« Zu welcher Welt bewegen wir uns hin? Zu einer, in der wir radikale Unsicherheit akzeptieren und entsprechen handeln, oder einer, wo wir uns immer mehr der Illusion von Kontrolle, Vorhersagbarkeit und Steuerbarkeit verlieren? »In einer Welt, in der Technik (vermeintlich) smart wird, brauchen wir vor allem eines, nämlich Menschen, die auch smart werden. Also Menschen, die mitdenken, die sich nicht zurücklehnen und konsumieren; die sich nicht auf das reduzieren lassen, was man ihnen empfiehlt.« Und zum Ende macht Prof. Gigerenzer noch den wichtigsten Aufruf der heutigen Zeit: Mitdenken! Denn es gilt: »The world is inherently uncertain and to pretend otherwise is to create risk, not to minimise it.«, Mervyn King Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 121: Künstliche Unintelligenz Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 99: Entkopplung, Kopplung, Rückkopplung Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer Prof. Gigerenzer amd MPIB-Berlin Fachliche Referenzen Gerd Gigerenzer, Bauchentscheidungen: Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition, Goldmann (2008) Gerd Gigerenzer, Das Einmaleins der Skepsis: Über den richtigen Umgang mit Zahlen und Risiken, Piper (2015) Gerd Gigerenzer, Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft, Pantheon (2020) Gerd Gigerenzer, Klick: Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen, Bertelsmann (2021) Gerd Gigerenzer, Smart Management: Mit einfachen Heuristiken gute Entscheidungen treffen, Campus (2025)  Daniel Kahnemann, Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken, Siedler Verlag (2012) Gerd Gigerenzer, The rationally wars: a personal reflection, BPP (2024) Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, Gerd Gigerenzer et al, Transparent modeling of influenza incidence: Big data or a single data point from psychological theory?, International Journal of Forecasting (2022) Mervyn King, John Kay, Radical Uncertainty, Bridge Street Press (2021) Rory Sutherland, Alchemy, WH Allen (2021) Peter Kruse, next practice. Erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität. Veränderung durch Vernetzung, Gabal (2020) John P. Ioannidis, Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed, International Journal of Forecasting (2022)

Join Adam Draper, Founder of Boost VC and host of the "Can't Be Done" Podcast, as he chats with Patrick Joyce, Co-Founder of ResearchHub. They dive into the challenges of modern science, the DeSci movement, and how ResearchHub is transforming funding for researchers. Joyce shares insights on “shorting academia” and reimagining the scientific process. This conversation is a must-watch for anyone passionate about the future of research and innovation.Patrick is a former PhD and medical student who dropped out of two separate academic institutions because of the broken incentives that govern the global economy for scientific research. He cofounded ResearchHub to accelerate science by building a modern venue for the decentralized publication of scholarly literature that leverages cryptocurrency rewards to align incentives and increase knowledge creation. Connect with Patrick JoyceResearch Hub https://www.researchhub.com/Research Hub on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/researchhubtechnologies/Research Hub on X https://x.com/ResearchHubPatrick on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-joyce-396b953b/Patrick on X  https://x.com/joycesticks  Connect with Boost VCBoost VC https://www.boost.vc/Boost VC on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/boost-vc/?viewAsMember=trueBoost VC on X https://x.com/BoostVC?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5EauthorBoost VC on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/boost_vc/?hl=en

In this episode, I had the privilege of speaking with John Ioannidis, a renowned scientist and meta-researcher whose groundbreaking work has shaped our understanding of scientific reliability and its societal implications. We dive into his influential 2005 paper, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, explore the evolution of scientific challenges over the past two decades, and reflect on how science intersects with policy and public trust—especially in times of crisis like COVID-19. We begin with John taking us back to 2005, when he published his paper in PLOS Medicine. He explains how it emerged from decades of empirical evidence on biases and false positives in research, considering factors like study size, statistical power, and competition that can distort findings, and why building on shaky foundations wastes time and resources. “It was one effort to try to put together some possibilities, of calculating what are the chances that once we think we have come up with a scientific discovery with some statistical inference suggesting that we have a statistically significant result, how likely is that not to be so?” I propose a distinction between “honest” and “dishonest” scientific failures, and John refines this. What does failure really mean, and how can they be categorised? The discussion turns to the rise of fraud, with John revealing a startling shift: while fraud once required artistry, today's “paper mills” churn out fake studies at scale. We touch on cases like Jan-Hendrik Schön, who published prolifically in top journals before being exposed, and how modern hyper-productivity, such as a paper every five days, raises red flags yet often goes unchecked. “Perhaps an estimate for what is going on now is that it accounts for about 10%, not just 1%, because we have new ways of massive… outright fraud.” This leads to a broader question about science's efficiency. When we observe scientific output—papers, funding—grows exponentially but does breakthroughs lag? John is cautiously optimistic, acknowledging progress, but agrees efficiency isn't what it could be. We reference Max Perutz's recipe for success: “No politics, no committees, no reports, no referees, no interviews; just gifted, highly motivated people, picked by a few men of good judgement.” Could this be replicated in today's world or are we stuck in red tape? “It is true that the progress is not proportional to the massive increase in some of the other numbers.” We then pivot to nutrition, a field John describes as “messy.” How is it possible that with millions of papers, results are mosty based on shaky correlations rather than solid causal evidence? What are the reasons for this situation and what consequences does it have, e.g. in people trusting scientific results? “Most of these recommendations are built on thin air. They have no solid science behind them.” The pandemic looms large next. In 2020 Nassim Taleb and John Ioannidis had a dispute about the measures to be taken. What happened in March 2020 and onwards? Did we as society show paranoid overreactions, fuelled by clueless editorials and media hype? “I gave interviews where I said, that's fine. We don't know what we're facing with. It is okay to start with some very aggressive measures, but what we need is reliable evidence to be obtained as quickly as possible.” Was the medicine, metaphorically speaking, worse than the disease? How can society balance worst-case scenarios without paralysis. “We managed to kill far more by doing what we did.” Who is framing the public narrative of complex questions like climate change or a pandemic? Is it really science driven, based on the best knowledge we have? In recent years influential scientific magazines publish articles by staff writers that have a high impact on the public perception, but are not necessarily well grounded: “They know everything before we know anything.” The conversation grows personal as John shares the toll of the COVID era—death threats to him and his family—and mourns the loss of civil debate. He'd rather hear from critics than echo chambers, but the partisan “war” mindset drowned out reason. Can science recover its humility and openness? “I think very little of that happened. There was no willingness to see opponents as anything but enemies in a war.” Inspired by Gerd Gigerenzer, who will be a guest in this show very soon, we close on the pitfalls of hyper-complex models in science and policy. How can we handle decision making under radical uncertainty? Which type of models help, which can lead us astray? “I'm worried that complexity sometimes could be an alibi for confusion.” This conversation left me both inspired and unsettled. John's clarity on science's flaws, paired with his hope for reform, offers a roadmap, but the stakes are high. From nutrition to pandemics, shaky science shapes our lives, and rebuilding trust demands we embrace uncertainty, not dogma. His call for dialogue over destruction is a plea we should not ignore. Other Episodes Episode 116: Science and Politics, A Conversation with Prof. Jessica Weinkle Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 103: Schwarze Schwäne in Extremistan; die Welt des Nassim Taleb, ein Gespräch mit Ralph Zlabinger Episode 94: Systemisches Denken und gesellschaftliche Verwundbarkeit, ein Gespräch mit Herbert Saurugg Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Episode 86: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, a conversation with Dr. Judith Curry Episode 67: Wissenschaft, Hype und Realität — ein Gespräch mit Stephan Schleim References Prof. John Ioannidis at Stanford University  John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, PLOS Medicine (2005) John Ioannidis, A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, weare making decisions without reliable data (2020) John Ioannidis, The scientists who publish a paper every five days, Nature Comment (2018) Hanae Armitage, 5 Questions: John Ioannidis calls for more rigorous nutrition research (2018) John Ioannidis, How the Pandemic Is Changing Scientific Norms, Tablet Magazine (2021) John Ioannidis et al, Uncertainty and Inconsistency of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical1Intervention Effects with Multiple Competitive Statistical Models (2025) John Ioannidis et al, Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed (2022) Gerd Gigerenzer, Transparent modeling of influenza incidence: Big data or asingle data point from psychological theory? (2022) Sabine Kleinert, Richard Horton, How should medical science change? Lancet Comment (2014) Max Perutz quotation taken from Geoffrey West, Scale, Weidenfeld & Nicolson (2017) John Ioannidis: Das Gewissen der Wissenschaft, Ö1 Dimensionen (2024)  

Heute wieder eine Episode in der ich kurz über eine Thema der Wissenschaftspraxis reflektieren möchte, den meisten Zuhörern wahrscheinlich nicht klar ist, dessen Konsequenzen sich auch mir noch nicht völlig erschließen, ich freue mich also auf Emails und Kommentare. Das Thema ist wenig erbaulich, ist aber ein Puzzlestein, der gut in das Bild passt, das wir in einigen früheren Episoden schon angesprochen haben. Die Qualität des wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesens scheint sich im Sturzflug zu befinden und dies seit vielen Jahren. Die deutsche Physikerin Sabine Hossenfeldern sagt leicht polemisch: »Scientific Process is slowing down and most of what gets published in academia is now bullshit.« Was erleben wir in den letzten Jahrzehnten und warum hat mich eine persönliche Beobachtung zu dieser Episode gebracht? Warum ist das Motto der 1660 gegründeten Royal Society heute aktueller als je zuvor. »Nullius in Verba« Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit Manfred Glauninger Episode 104: Aus Quantität wird Qualität Episode 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 86: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, a conversation with Dr. Judith Curry Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Episode 71: Stagnation oder Fortschritt — eine Reflexion an der Geschichte eines Lebens Episode 68: Modelle und Realität, ein Gespräch mit Dr. Andreas Windisch Episode 47: Große Worte Episode 41: Intellektuelle Bescheidenheit: Was wir von Bertrand Russel und der Eugenik lernen können Episode 39: Follow the Science? Fachliche Referenzen Report of the Investigation Committee on the Possibility of Scientific Misconduct in the Work of Hendrik Schön And Coauthors Publikationen von Jan Hendrik Schön (Google Scholar) John Ioannidis, Das Gewissen der Wissenschaft, Ö1 Dimensionen (2024) John Ioannidis, The scientists who publish a paper every five days, Nature Comment (2018) John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005) Jesse Singal, Quick Fix, Picador (2022) Erica Thompson, Escape from Model Land, Basic Books (2022) Sabine Hossenfelder, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (2020) Beall's List Jeffrey Beall Sabine Hossenfelder, Science is in trouble and it worries me (2024)

Read the full transcript here. How much should we trust social science papers in top journals? How do we know a paper is trustworthy? Do large datasets mitigate p-hacking? Why doesn't psychology as a field seem to be working towards a grand unified theory? Why aren't more psychological theories written in math? Or are other scientific fields mathematicized to a fault? How do we make psychology cumulative? How can we create environments, especially in academia, that incentivize constructive criticism? Why isn't peer review pulling its weight in terms of catching errors and constructively criticizing papers? What kinds of problems simply can't be caught by peer review? Why is peer review saved for the very end of the publication process? What is "importance hacking"? On what bits of psychological knowledge is there consensus among researchers? When and why do adversarial collaborations fail? Is admission of error a skill that can be taught and learned? How can students be taught that p-hacking is problematic without causing them to over-correct into a failure to explore their problem space thoroughly and efficiently?Daniel Lakens is an experimental psychologist working at the Human-Technology Interaction group at Eindhoven University of Technology. In addition to his empirical work in cognitive and social psychology, he works actively on improving research methods and statistical inferences, and has published on the importance of replication research, sequential analyses and equivalence testing, and frequentist statistics. Follow him on Twitter / X at @Lakens.Further reading:Nullius in Verba (Daniel's podcast) StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

II Nagrodę w kategorii poezji, w międzynarodowym konkursie „W duchu Strzeleckiego” otrzymała Monika Athanasiou z Melbourne, za wiersz 'Terra Nullius' (Ziemia niczyja).

So, das ist jetzt die letzte Folge der 6. Serie von Code for Thought und diesmal geht es um Open Science. Mein Gesprächspartner ist Konrad Förstner von der TH Köln, den einige von Euch vielleicht vom Open Science Radio her kennen, das er mit Matthias Fromm schon seit längerer Zeit betreibt. Euch Allen ein paar schöne und hoffentlich erholsame Tage. Ich mache eine kleine Pause und es geht dann im Januar 2024 mit der 7. Folge des Podcasts weiter. Hier noch ein paar Links zu dieser Folge:https://konrad.foerstner.org Konrad's Webseitehttps://www.openscienceradio.org Open Science Radio - das Podcasthttps://sci-hub.st Sci-Hub https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/ "Nullius in verbia" das Motto der Royal Society das Konrad anspricht. Will soviel heissen wie: traut nicht den Aussagen von anderen (und implizit - traut Euren Daten). Support the Show.Thank you for listening and your ongoing support. It means the world to us! Support the show on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/codeforthought Get in touch: Email mailto:code4thought@proton.me UK RSE Slack (ukrse.slack.com): @code4thought or @piddie US RSE Slack (usrse.slack.com): @Peter Schmidt Mastadon: https://fosstodon.org/@code4thought or @code4thought@fosstodon.org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pweschmidt/ (personal Profile)LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/codeforthought/ (Code for Thought Profile) This podcast is licensed under the Creative Commons Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

We are back with more geeky academic discussion than you can shake a stick at. This week we are doing our bit to save civilization by discussing issues in contemporary science, the replication crisis, and open science reforms with fellow psychologists/meta-scientists/podcasters, Daniël Lakens and Smriti Mehta. Both Daniël and Smriti are well known for their advocacy for methodological reform and have been hosting a (relatively) new podcast, Nullius in Verba, all about 'science—what it is and what it could be'. We discuss a range of topics including questionable research practices, the implications of the replication crisis, responsible heterodoxy, and the role of different communication modes in shaping discourses. Also featuring: exciting AI chat, Lex and Elon being teenage edge lords, feedback on the Huberman episode, and as always updates on Matt's succulents.Back soon with a Decoding episode!LinksNullius in Verba PodcastLee Jussim's Timeline on the Klaus Fiedler Controversy and a list of articles/sources covering the topicElon Musk: War, AI, Aliens, Politics, Physics, Video Games, and Humanity | Lex Fridman Podcast #400Daniel's MOOC on Improving Your Statistical InferenceCritical commentary on Fiedler controversy at Replicability-Index

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A Social History of Truth, published by Vaniver on August 1, 2023 on LessWrong. This is a chapter-by-chapter summary of A Social History of Truth by Steven Shapin. Focused on Robert Boyle, a founder of the Royal Society considered the first modern chemist, it is interested primarily in his social context and how he (and others) changed it. He was widely considered a role model at the time, and likely saw himself as creating the role of experimental scientist that many would follow. What did he create it from, and why that particular way? [You may also want to read thru Novum Organum, also available on Less Wrong; published seven years before Boyle was born. While Boyle claims it had little direct influence on him, it undoubtedly had significant indirect influence.] The Great Civility: Trust, Truth, and Moral Order "Truth" is often used to refer to correspondence between beliefs and reality. What is there to write a 'social history' about? Shapin isn't interested in the inaccessible truth of philosophers--correspondence between map and territory--but the practical truth of societies--correspondence between a statement and a map. Given that I don't have unmediated access to reality, I can only judge statements as "true according to me" instead of "absolutely true"; and "true according to me" has a bunch of interesting detail behind it. In particular, Shapin is interested in trust. You probably believe that Caesar was a real person who actually lived on Earth, and you probably never met him, instead following a chain of trust (you believe an author who themselves believed another author, and so on to antiquity). This trust is morally textured; if someone lies about something like the existence of Caesar, it's not a neutral action, and actions are coordinated (or not) based on what beliefs people have trust in, which depends on which people are trusted. Shapin points to thinkers from Cicero to Giddens identifying trust as one of the foundational elements of social order. Of course, our eventual subject will be Robert Boyle, the Royal Society, and the birth of science, which claim to be opposed to historical systems of trust. The Royal Society's motto is Nullius in verbia, or "take nobody's word for it", and the promotional literature for science foregrounds experiments and direct experience. But radical skepticism or absolute distrust are both impractical and impolite: Skeptics run the real risk of being ejected from the practical communities of which they are members. Their skepticism expresses an uncooperativeness which invites uncooperativeness from others. Persistent distrust, therefore, has a moral terminus: expulsion from the community. If you will not know, and accept the adequate grounds for, what the community knows, you will not belong to it, and even your distrust will not be recognized as such. Science as it stands today is built almost entirely out of received knowledge instead of experienced knowledge, and this is how it manages to accumulate at all. Society's system of shared knowledge is a communal good, produced like any other. He introduces the phenomenologist's concept of the 'natural attitude', a common-sense realism that views everyone as having access to different perceptions of the same underlying reality; accounts are supposed to not be too discrepant (as that calls into question there being one underlying reality) but some discrepancy is be expected (as observers have different locations, perspectives, perceptual tools, and so on). Shapin also brings up the idea of 'free action', i.e. being uncoerced by one's situation, which was highly relevant to early modern England. A promise made under duress is not considered a promise (and contracts signed under duress are not enforceable); a person under duress is not trustworthy, as the things they say m...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A Social History of Truth, published by Vaniver on August 1, 2023 on LessWrong. This is a chapter-by-chapter summary of A Social History of Truth by Steven Shapin. Focused on Robert Boyle, a founder of the Royal Society considered the first modern chemist, it is interested primarily in his social context and how he (and others) changed it. He was widely considered a role model at the time, and likely saw himself as creating the role of experimental scientist that many would follow. What did he create it from, and why that particular way? [You may also want to read thru Novum Organum, also available on Less Wrong; published seven years before Boyle was born. While Boyle claims it had little direct influence on him, it undoubtedly had significant indirect influence.] The Great Civility: Trust, Truth, and Moral Order "Truth" is often used to refer to correspondence between beliefs and reality. What is there to write a 'social history' about? Shapin isn't interested in the inaccessible truth of philosophers--correspondence between map and territory--but the practical truth of societies--correspondence between a statement and a map. Given that I don't have unmediated access to reality, I can only judge statements as "true according to me" instead of "absolutely true"; and "true according to me" has a bunch of interesting detail behind it. In particular, Shapin is interested in trust. You probably believe that Caesar was a real person who actually lived on Earth, and you probably never met him, instead following a chain of trust (you believe an author who themselves believed another author, and so on to antiquity). This trust is morally textured; if someone lies about something like the existence of Caesar, it's not a neutral action, and actions are coordinated (or not) based on what beliefs people have trust in, which depends on which people are trusted. Shapin points to thinkers from Cicero to Giddens identifying trust as one of the foundational elements of social order. Of course, our eventual subject will be Robert Boyle, the Royal Society, and the birth of science, which claim to be opposed to historical systems of trust. The Royal Society's motto is Nullius in verbia, or "take nobody's word for it", and the promotional literature for science foregrounds experiments and direct experience. But radical skepticism or absolute distrust are both impractical and impolite: Skeptics run the real risk of being ejected from the practical communities of which they are members. Their skepticism expresses an uncooperativeness which invites uncooperativeness from others. Persistent distrust, therefore, has a moral terminus: expulsion from the community. If you will not know, and accept the adequate grounds for, what the community knows, you will not belong to it, and even your distrust will not be recognized as such. Science as it stands today is built almost entirely out of received knowledge instead of experienced knowledge, and this is how it manages to accumulate at all. Society's system of shared knowledge is a communal good, produced like any other. He introduces the phenomenologist's concept of the 'natural attitude', a common-sense realism that views everyone as having access to different perceptions of the same underlying reality; accounts are supposed to not be too discrepant (as that calls into question there being one underlying reality) but some discrepancy is be expected (as observers have different locations, perspectives, perceptual tools, and so on). Shapin also brings up the idea of 'free action', i.e. being uncoerced by one's situation, which was highly relevant to early modern England. A promise made under duress is not considered a promise (and contracts signed under duress are not enforceable); a person under duress is not trustworthy, as the things they say m...

Carto Nullius In this episode I introduce the concept of Carto Nullius, which is strictly not linguistically correct but a play on the latin terms terra nullius, a term that for so long was used to marginalise and dispossess Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is my contention that cartography as a discipline has for a long time been empty of even very general traditional Aboriginal knowledge. The global renaissance of mapping technology, remote observations and need for data is an emerging sector that would be enhanced and strengthened by exposure to, partnership with and interpretation of traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge inputs. This podcast anticipates a seminar Kado Muir will be giving at the Geoscience Australia building in Canberra on Wednesday 10th May, 2023 at 11am, seminar title: Culturally Grounded Mapping for Country: TEK, Science & Technology Abstract Technological advances in remote sensing, mapping and data acquisition and analysis using new tools like machine learning, artificial intelligence and other digital mapping models are developed from western world views. Kado Muir offers insight into how traditional ecological knowledge contributes a culturally grounded perspective in country mapping. Geoscience Australia's Exploring for the Future program is proud to welcome Kado and thank him for his public contribution to the program's Geoscience Knowledge Sharing initiative. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kado-muir/message

It's been three decades since the landmark Mabo decision overturned the concept of terra nullius - land belonging to no one - yet the idea of aqua nullius and the fight for restoring Aboriginal water rights remains. In this episode Tessa speaks to Wiradjuri Nyemba woman Dr Virginia Marshall about detangling the complex web of water management, the Royal Commission into the Murray Darling basin and the commodification of water. Virginia is a practicing lawyer and a duty solicitor specialising in intellectual property and traditional knowledge. She's also an Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Water Trust and was a member of the inaugural Indigenous Water Summit established by the National Water Commission. In addition she was the first Indigenous postdoctoral fellow with ANU and a winner of the Stanner Award with her thesis "A web of Aboriginal water rights: Examining the competing Aboriginal claim for water property rights and interests in Australia". Keep up to date with Virginias work via ANU School of Regulation and Global Governance : https://regnet.anu.edu.au/our-people/academic/virginia-marshall This season is proudly supported by Spooked Kooks Surfboards, For Purpose Recycling and Camp Cove Swim. To go in the running to win one of TWO epic prize-packs head to our website for more details www.thenaturebetweenus.com @thenaturebetweenuspodcast @tessadejosselin

In this week's episode of Reformed Millennials, Broc and Joel discuss why inflation is killing SAAS, the BOOMING canadian economy and how to monetize free products.Listen on Apple, Spotify, or Google Podcasts.If you aren’t in the Reformed Millennials Facebook Group join us for daily updates, discussions, and deep dives into the investable trends Millennials should be paying attention to.👉 For specific investment questions or advice contact Joel @ Gold Investment Management.📈📊Market Update💵📉Good morning, everyone! The market showed signs of strength yesterday, but we’ll keep taking it one day at a time. The biggest story in markets yesterday was Jerome Powell and the Fed:Fed Chairman Jerome Powell: 1. "We will use our tools to get inflation back" 2. "If we have to raise rates more, we will" 3. "We probably remain in an era of very low interest rates" 4. 'It's a long road to normal' monetary policy All these statements contradict each other. Which is the point. Rate hikes have priced in to markets over the last month or so… So let’s move on to where we can make some money!EM is the best opportunity of 2022It looks to us like the tech market is nearing a short term low.Via Bloomberg/Sundial Research. 40% of stocks on the Nasdaq are down 50%+ from their 52 week high. More interesting in the context of the Nasdaq still near ATHs, which hasn’t happened before.The only other time this many stocks were down so much with the Nasdaq near a high was late 1999. The generals do generally get shot last. The generals are much cheaper, are arguably under-earning, have higher ROICs and are growing faster vs. 1999/2000 - many of them are basically just levered royalties on global GDP. SAAS: The superb QDS team at MS showing that their Crowded Longs (CRWD) and Expensive Tech (EVSA) baskets are 85% of the way through their typical downside move during a "rate shock" vs. indices only 40-50% of the way through. Software now approaching 2019 trough valuations.Combined with extremely light positioning in tech/growth by funds (nearing 5-10 year lows), the set up looks increasingly attractive.The issue growth stocks have is they are too expensive relative to the underlying growth, so there is no buyer. The only analysis that matters is how much do they need to grow over what time or how low do they need to go before they are attractive.RM Thesis: Growth is not broken. Far from it. This is a very healthy reset in QLCF (quality lacking cash flow™️) that will only last as long as big scary inflation headline #s do. When the scary headlines go away, multiples will expand and capital will flow back to the companies that define our future rather than the paint our past. Any 10 year rate below 4% is not going to suck a lot of $capital away from equity so money from everyone is still going to be looking for a home in the market. I don’t think we see multiples snap back - that party is over for now. However, I’m not paradigm shift where ‘value’ is king for years. Pain should end for best in class SMIDs before yr end but The cohort of “best in class” is always at best 20% of what people think actually belongs💸Reformed Millennials - Post of The Week21 Ideas from 2021 from David Parrel.Our favorites are highlighted.1. The Mind Creates Reality: The American Psychological Association once invited William James to give a talk on the first 50 years of psychology research.He simply said: “People by and large become what they think of themselves.”Then, he left.2. Make One Person Responsible: If you want to get something done, it’s tempting to put a huge number of people in charge. But often, when too many people are in charge, nobody accepts responsibility.This saying is illustrative: “A dog with two owners dies of hunger.”3. Kanye West, on Genius: "If you guys want these crazy ideas, these crazy stages, this crazy music, this crazy way of thinking, there’s a chance it might come from a crazy person.”4. The Knife Theory of Hiring: When you first start a company, you need Swiss Army Knife people who can do a little bit of everything. Once your company gets big, you need a bunch of kitchen knife people who do one thing very, very well.5. Sayre’s Law: In a dispute, the level of emotions are inversely related to what’s at stake. That’s why unimportant events can inspire such passionate arguments. In parts of academia, they say: “The battles are so fierce because the problems are so trivial.”6. Braess’ Paradox: Adding capacity to a system can counterintuitively slow things down. Highways are the classic example. For years, road designers have observed that adding more roads to a network can actually increase congestion and slow the flow of traffic.7. Current vs. The Wind: Novice sailors focus on the wind. Experienced ones study the currents. Since the winds change every day, the knowledge is ephemeral. But currents are persistent and predictable, even if they’re hard to see. Focus on the currents in life.8. Akrasia: In theory, we know how to behave. But in practice, we don’t always do it. The Ancient Greeks called this phenomenon “akrasia,” which translates to “weakness of will.” It describes our tragic proclivity to act against our best interests, even when we know what to do.9. Paradox of Consensus: Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect was unanimously found guilty, they were deemed innocent. Total agreement signaled a systematic flaw in the judicial process. Often, when everybody is thinking alike, nobody is thinking at all.10. The Paradox of Weirdness: The weird parts of ourselves are actually the thing that’s normal. People are actually weird. It’s how we’re born. What’s weird is the way social conditioning makes us seem more similar than we really are. - Tyler Cowan11. Make Uphill Decisions: If you’re split between two decisions and don’t know which one to choose, default to the one that’s more difficult in the short-term. - Naval Ravikant12. Nullius in Verba: This is Royal Society’s old motto. It translates to “take no one’s word for it.” Be curious. Figure things out for yourself. Move through the world with a posture of productive skepticism and when it comes to truth, do your own investigations.13. Otium: The Latin word for leisure. But not the lazy kind of leisure where you sit around and do nothing. It’s the Ancient Roman kind where you play sports, contemplate life, and consume great art. This is how I aspire to spend my weekends.14. Luxury Beliefs: People have always signaled status by buying expensive things. But now they do it by holding certain beliefs, which confer status on upper class people while inflicting costs on lower class ones. - Rob Henderson15. Pre-Headline vs. Post-Headline People: Pre-headline people know about things before they make it into the news. Post-headline people only know about things after they’re printed and become well-known. Pre-headline people have the edge in life. - Balaji16. Robustness Principle: A design guideline for software developers that applies to many things in life: “Be conservative in what you do, but liberal in what you accept from others.”17. Serving vs. Served: Self-sacrificial service is the great paradox of life. The more you give, with no expectation of reciprocity, the happier you will be. In a world of utility-maximizing selfishness, this is counterintuitive and counter cultural. - Brent Beshore18. Yuck and Yawn: If you want to start a profitable business, look for opportunities that are smelly (like trash collection) or ones that are boring (like niche materials). Avoid sexy industries like the ones prestige-thirsty MBA students tend to pursue. - AUM Energy19. The Story of Damocles: A man once got to be king for a day and sit on the king’s luxurious throne. From afar, the throne looked peaceful. But to his surprise, a sword hung above it. Immediately, Damocles learned that with great power comes great fear, anxiety, and danger.20. Planck’s Principle: Scientific knowledge doesn’t change because scientists change their mind. Rather, it changes as old scientists die, new ones are born, and a new generation of scientists gains influence.21. The Stupid Test: Peter Thiel once said: “As an investor, you want to find things that are so stupid that people are embarrassed to invest in them.“ Often, the best opportunities are the simplest. Unfortunately, people miss them because they think good ideas must be complex.Last Quarter App Downloads for Meta: $FB“Instagram had its BEST quarter for downloads since at least 2014, and Q4 2021 was the FIRST time Meta had the top app since Q4 2019.”Inspirational Thread:🌊 Canadian Companies To Peruse 🌊Headversity - Calgary based company raises $12.5m CAD Series A - Headversity is a workplace mental health and resilience platform helping workers through mental health issues. 🔮Best Links of The Week🔮Is $13b for Opensea crazy? Is Turo an example of a company that can come out of pandemic shining?Reed Duchscher (Mr Beast’s manager) on the iced coffee hour.Take Two's acquisition of Zynga - The beginning of content fortressesOur thing - Sammy The Bull This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.reformedmillennials.com

Nas palavras de ninguém. É correto questionar seu professor ? Ou você deve simplesmente aceitar tudo que falam para você ?

Standing at six feet tall, the sculpture “Nullius in Verba III” is intentionally the same height and weight as its sculptor, Steaphan Paton. The metal, diamond-shaped shield, mounted on a long pole, confronts the viewer. The shield's surface is scratched, evoking the centuries of violence and dispossession faced by Paton's ancestors. Among closer inspection, however, the sculpture is made from modern materials, asserting that this violence against Indigenous Australians is not an historic anecdote but a contemporary issue.    Steaphan Paton Gunai and Monaro-Ngarigo language groups, Indigenous Australian, b. 1985 Nullius in Verba III, 2019 Etched steel, acrylic paint, nanotech clear sealant Episode produced by Addie Patrick.

https://youtu.be/Xd2qbJNGG3c Nullius Filius “And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.” If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather healed” Hebrews‬ 12:5-13‬ NKJV‬‬ In the English law, an illegitimate child is termed "nullius filius." Latin, a son of nobody. The KJV uses the old English word, “bastard”. (tell my story) Illegitimate children are usually abandoned by their father. The care of them is left to the mother, and the father endeavors to avoid all responsibility, and usually to be concealed and unknown. His own child he does not wish to recognize; he neither provides for him; nor instructs him; nor governs him; nor disciplines him. A father, who is worthy of the name, will do all these things. It is the duty of a father to chasten his children. So the writer of Hebrews says it is with Christians. God has not cast these persecuted and afflicted believers off. In every way God demonstrates toward us the character of a Father. And if it should be that we went through this life without any occurrence that would indicate the care and attention of a loving Father designed to correct our faults, it would show that we never had been His children, but were cast off and wholly disregarded. This is a beautiful argument; and we should receive every affliction as full proof that we are not forgotten by the Almighty God who condescends to sustain to us good character, and to demonstrate toward us the watchful care of a Father. The term here “chasten” is translated in the most general sense. It means “to bring forth blood” by whatever means necessary And scourges every son whom he receives: scourges denotes the highest degree of chastening, even with the sharpest punishment, wherein God proceeds with all and every son or daughter, no exceptions, whom he hath adopted and received. “And you have forgotten this message of chastening” the writer of Hebrews tells them. This message of chastening and afflictions has been lost in the false love gospel. God is producing obedient and righteous children, not spoiled disobedient and rebellious brats. Affliction is good and pure and has a purpose of refining. Afflictions, should be regarded as chastening and not as small matters, for these reasons: (1) The fact that they are sent by God. Whatever He does is of importance, and is worthy of the profound attention of His people. (2) they are sent for some important purpose, and should be regarded, therefore, with attentive concern. Psalm 94:12 ESVBlessed is the man whom you discipline, O LORD, and whom you teach out of your law,  Rev 3:19 NKJVAs many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.  Men "despise" them when: (1) we treat them with affect or unconcern; (2) when we fail to receive them as divine admonitions, and regard them as without any intelligent design; and, (3) when we receive them with "expressions" of contempt,

Standing at six feet tall, the sculpture “Nullius in Verba III” is intentionally the same height and weight as its sculptor, Steaphan Paton. The metal, diamond-shaped shield, mounted on a long pole, confronts the viewer. The shield’s surface is scratched, evoking the centuries of violence and dispossession faced by Paton’s ancestors. Among closer inspection, however, the sculpture is made from modern materials, asserting that this violence against Indigenous Australians is not an historic anecdote but a contemporary issue.    Steaphan Paton Gunai and Monaro-Ngarigo language groups, Indigenous Australian, b. 1985 Nullius in Verba III, 2019 Etched steel, acrylic paint, nanotech clear sealant  Episode produced by Addie Patrick. 

https://youtu.be/Xd2qbJNGG3c Nullius Filius “And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.” If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather healed” Hebrews‬ 12:5-13‬ NKJV‬‬ In the English law, an illegitimate child is termed "nullius filius." Latin, a son of nobody. The KJV uses the old English word, “bastard”. (tell my story) Illegitimate children are usually abandoned by their father. The care of them is left to the mother, and the father endeavors to avoid all responsibility, and usually to be concealed and unknown. His own child he does not wish to recognize; he neither provides for him; nor instructs him; nor governs him; nor disciplines him. A father, who is worthy of the name, will do all these things. It is the duty of a father to chasten his children. So the writer of Hebrews says it is with Christians. God has not cast these persecuted and afflicted believers off. In every way God demonstrates toward us the character of a Father. And if it should be that we went through this life without any occurrence that would indicate the care and attention of a loving Father designed to correct our faults, it would show that we never had been His children, but were cast off and wholly disregarded. This is a beautiful argument; and we should receive every affliction as full proof that we are not forgotten by the Almighty God who condescends to sustain to us good character, and to demonstrate toward us the watchful care of a Father. The term here “chasten” is translated in the most general sense. It means “to bring forth blood” by whatever means necessary And scourges every son whom he receives: scourges denotes the highest degree of chastening, even with the sharpest punishment, wherein God proceeds with all and every son or daughter, no exceptions, whom he hath adopted and received. “And you have forgotten this message of chastening” the writer of Hebrews tells them. This message of chastening and afflictions has been lost in the false love gospel. God is producing obedient and righteous children, not spoiled disobedient and rebellious brats. Affliction is good and pure and has a purpose of refining. Afflictions, should be regarded as chastening and not as small matters, for these reasons: (1) The fact that they are sent by God. Whatever He does is of importance, and is worthy of the profound attention of His people. (2) they are sent for some important purpose, and should be regarded, therefore, with attentive concern. Psalm 94:12 ESVBlessed is the man whom you discipline, O LORD, and whom you teach out of your law,  Rev 3:19 NKJVAs many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.  Men "despise" them when: (1) we treat them with affect or unconcern; (2) when we fail to receive them as divine admonitions, and regard them as without any intelligent design; and, (3) when we receive them with "expressions" of contempt,

"Nullius In Verba" nedir, ne değildir anlattığım bu podcast bölümünün yazılı içeriğine youtube kanalımdan ulaşabilmeniz mümkün!

Transcript: https://nav.al/nullius-2

Listen to the full chapter of the Data Detective audiobook and check out Tim Harford's podcast, Cautionary Tales.Because of course you shouldn't take Tim at his word — The Yale study cited is here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41511108 (free pdf here)---"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speechconduct DistinctionDan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Donald Braman, Danieli Evans and Jeffrey J. RachlinskiAbstract"Cultural cognition" refers to the unconscious influence of individuals' group commitments on their perceptions of legally consequential facts. We conducted an experiment to assess the impact of cultural cognition on perceptions of facts relevant to distinguishing constitutionally protected "speech" from unprotected "conduct." Study subjects viewed a video of a political demonstration. Half the subjects believed that the demonstrators were protesting abortion outside of an abortion clinic, and the other half that the demonstrators were protesting the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy outside a military recruitment center. Subjects of opposing cultural outlooks who were assigned to the same experimental condition (and thus had the same belief about the nature of the protest) disagreed sharply on key "facts" — including whether the protestors obstructed and threatened pedestrians. Subjects also disagreed sharply with those who shared their cultural outlooks but who were assigned to the opposing experimental condition (and hence had a different belief about the nature of the protest). These results supported the study hypotheses about how cultural cognition would affect perceptions pertinent to the speech-conduct distinction. We discuss the significance of the results for constitutional law and liberal principles of selfgovernance generally.

If you want to be a physicist or think like a physicist, trust no one. In this episode I explain why

If you want to be a physicist or think like a physicist, trust no one. In this episode I explain why

Claire G. Coleman is a Wirlomin Noongar woman whose ancestral Country is in South Coast Western Australia. This interview is an exploration of her debut novel and speculative fiction masterpiece, Terra Nullius: A Novel. Claire wrote her black&write! fellowship-winning manuscript Terra Nullius while travelling around Australia in a caravan. The novel went on to win the Norma K Hemming Award, and was shortlisted for The Stella Prize and Best Sci-Fi Novel in the Aurealis Awards. The work was also Highly Commended in the Victorian Premier's Literary Awards. Claire and Astrid have previously spoken about speculative fiction, and you can listen to their panel (including Krissy Kneen, Pitchaya Sudbanthad and Michelle Tanmizi)) recorded at the Ubud Writers and Readers festival in 2019 here. About The Garret Read the transcript of this interview at thegarretpodcast.com soon. The interview was recorded by Zoom, and we can't wait to start recording in person again soon. You can also follow The Garret on Twitter and Facebook, or follow our host Astrid Edwards on Twitter or Instagram. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nullius in verba. Understanding uncertainty with statistician, Sir David Speigelhalter, PhD by PEERSPECTRUM

Week 1 of preseason in the books and everyone you can think of has shot up our rankings big time. Even the guys that didn't play. That's right. Because, ya know, they rested, so they'll be more readier for the games. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. See for yourself, my friends. Nullius in verba. There's your Latin lesson for the day. Cheers! Follow us: @TheOpenBarPod @JMicCheck @FFManBun @RussellJClay @EliteFantasyHQ @PaulFSFF @JustinFSFF @FatherSonFF Store: http://theopenbar.storenvy.com/

Mathematician Quantum Physicists have now proved: we are all made of Love Frequencies, Love Energy, Love Vibrations. Today's share will impact those curious about implicitly understanding this energy and embodying unconditional love. Tune in to learn more and hear a *disclaimer* in regard to some of the information I share. They birth from my own life experiences and learnings; although I always seek out the truth, I don't have a PHD beside my name and hence: disclaimer. I am a student of life, practice nullius in verba myself, practice embodying unconditional love 24/7 and chose refinement by living and experiencing life itself (walk the walk). Unconditional love helps me recognize the Divine Goddess in me and I'm here to awaken the one in you. *NOTE* The Human Design Episode is still in construction I intend it to be a powerful Episode 5

Thursday Breakfast 7 Feb 2019 7.00 am  Acknowledgement of Country7.10 am Jenny Smith, CEO of Council to Homeless Persons, on the importance of addressing homelessness in the Victorian Royal Commission into Mental Health and the increasing number of workers seeking homelessness assistance because wages aren’t keeping up with housing costs.7.30 am Julia Kretzenbacher, Vice President of Liberty Victoria, on the proposed spent convictions bill introduced by the Reason Party leader Fiona Patten this week.7:50 am Headlines and community announcements8.10 am Rene Woods, Nari Nari man and Chairperson Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) on Indigenous water rights, the importance of cultural flows and overturning aqua nullius.   8.30 am End Songs (such great new tracks!!) P-Unique and Krown   Change BIRDZ ft. Ecca Vandal  Place of DreamsBaker Boy Cool as HellLady Lash Nightlounge 3ØØØ 

Tuesday Breakfast 29 January 2019 Summer Skool ep 4: Gender and Sexuality  7.00 am  Acknowledgement of Country7.10 am  We talk to Jamie Lim, a trans man working as a migration professional, writer and volunteer at Out for Australia  We discuss queer terminology, queer experiences and intersections between queer and racial/cultural identities. 7.30 am Anya chats to Claire Coleman, writer from Western Australia who identifies with the South Coast Noongar people, and whose recent book, Terra Nullius  has sparked national and international praise. They discuss queer representation in writing and literature.  8.00 am Lauren speaks to Roj Amedi, a queer, Kurdish woman who came to Australia from Baghdad as a refugee. She’s currently the senior human rights and racial justice campaigner at Colour Code  and GetUp  Her work focuses on coordinating an independent and national racial justice movement with First Nations people and people of colour. song: They Come and They Goartist: Mojo Juju song:  Make Me Feelartist: Janelle Monaesong: Woman's World artist: Okenyo feat. Miss Blanks song: Closer artist: Tegan and Sara song: Friends with Feelingsartist: Alice Skye

Michael and Alex come back out of hiding to expose wine ratings, Thomas Edison and recycling. Don't believe anything you hear.

This week on BAAIFKM Corynne and Raine are joined by dancer and creator Will Hamilton. We talk what it’s like to be someone who constantly questions everything, the process of producing your first Toronto Fringe Festival Show and what its like taking the leap of faith and starting your own company. Be sure to keep your eyes out for Will and Rebel Yell presents Nullius in Verba at the Al Green Theatre July 4th to 14th.    Find and Follow us: www.galpalproductions.com  Instgram: galpalprods  Facebook: GALPAL Productions Support us: https://www.patreon.com/galpalproductions   

When a group of "natural philosophers" got together to found the Royal Society in 1660 - now the oldest scientific society in the world - they chose as their motto a Latin phrase meaning "Take nobody's word for it." In today's episode we talk about the role of trust in science. Trust can mean many things, and we talk about its tension with scientific verifiability, people's desire for trusting relationships and culture in their field, and the practical value of trust in doing our work. Plus: A letter about whether pressures to fit the mold of a job description or graduate program lead to impostor syndrome. Simine and Sanjay debrief on the ARP conference. And Alexa asks what's more intellectual, poker or chess? Links: Association for Research in Personality (ARP) conference "What is the value of social science? Challenges for researchers and government funders" by Arthur Lupia Peer Reviewers' Openness (PRO) Initiative The Black Goat is hosted by Sanjay Srivastava, Alexa Tullett, and Simine Vazire. Find us on the web at www.theblackgoatpodcast.com, on Twitter at @blackgoatpod, or on Facebook at facebook.com/blackgoatpod/. You can email us at letters@theblackgoatpodcast.com. You can subscribe to us on iTunes. Our theme music is Peak Beak by Doctor Turtle, available on freemusicarchive.org under a Creative Commons noncommercial attribution license. This is episode 10. It was recorded June 12, 2017.

Today’s episode is an addendum to my last episode, number 343 “Dr. George Sheehan: Beginning”.  Although not a prerequisite to listening to this, Alot of what I’m going to say about running flows directly from what Dr. Sheehan had to say about taking to the road and lacing up our shoes.

'Our mission here at Nullius is to find a pilot, and then put as much space as we can between us and the Guild...' You can now support the creation of Tin Can by becoming a Patreon supporter: https://www.patreon.com/tincanaudio This episode features the voices of Elizabeth Clutterbuck, Rowan Birkett, Roger Best, Malcolm Rumbles, Calum Ballantyne and Rosie Doyle

Interview with Susan Desmond-Hellmann, MD, MPH, author of Improving Health With Partnerships Between Academia and Industry, and Richard S. Lehman, MA, BM, BCh, MRCGP, author of Nullius In Verba: Don't Take Anyone's Word for It