Podcast appearances and mentions of peter hess

Produced by KSQD 90.7, 89.5 & 89.7FM “Be Bold America!” Sunday, October 6, 2024 at 5:00pm (PT) How do historic documents show that fire suppression was driven by explicit racist and colonial beliefs? Is there nothing in American history that isn't based in racism in some way? Well, fire suppress in California is and learn how in this "BurnScars", KSQD podcast during interviews with Dr. Char Miller and Dr. Peter Hess.  There have been efforts to suppress fire in California since the 18th century Spanish invasion continuing through the US Forest Service's relentless nationwide campaign in the 20th century. The Forest Service argues that suppression is critical for good forest management especially, but not exclusively, in the American West. Yet, in recent years, suppression has come under increasing scrutiny as a contributing factor to our current climate crisis exacerbated era of mega-wildfires. Interview Guest: Dr. Char Miller is an award-winning teacher and writer. Dr. Miller is the W. M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis and History at Pomona College. His new book is “Burn Scars: A Documentary History of Fire Suppression, from Colonial Origins to the Resurgence of Cultural Burning.” Dr. Miller's previous book was Natural Consequences: Intimate Essays for a Planet and Peril, and he also authored: West Side Rising: How San Antonio's 1921 Flood Devastated a City and Sparked a Latino Environmental Justice Movement, and Theodore Roosevelt: Naturalist in the Arena. Dr. Miller is a senior fellow at the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, Corresponding Member of the Society of American Foresters and a Fellow of the Forest History Society. Guest CoHost: Dr. Peter M. J. Hess earned his M.A. in Oxford and his Ph.D. in History in Berkeley, and writes and lectures on the relationship between religion, culture and sciences.  A former Director of Outreach of the National Center for Science Education, Peter is the author of Catholicism and Science and of numerous articles and book chapters on religious and ethical aspects of climate disruption.  Dr. Hess is qualified as a Firefighter Type Two (FFT2) and is co-founder of the Lake County Prescribed Burn Association, a consortium of trained fire practitioners. Dr. Hess is currently writing a paper for the Sierra Club on the similarities and differences between ancient cultural burning practiced by indigenous tribes in California, and the prescribed burning increasingly practiced by forest agencies, municipalities, and private groups. Dr. Hess is also a contributing chapter author in “Climate Abandoned: We're on the Endangered Species List.”

Peter Hess (Ph.D, FFT2) is a theologian, an environmental scientist, a wildland fire practitioner, and firefighter type two. I ask Peter about this work which is a collaboration of firefighters and indigenous communities, about the Catholic Theology, stewardship of the Earth, and Pope Francis's encyclical Laudatus Si'. Peter Hess's webpage at “Climate Abandoned.” Peter Hess's book, Catholicism and Science (Greenwood, 2008). Laudatus Si', Pope Francis's encyclical letter (2015). TERA website, the Tribal EcoRestoration Alliance. ‘Firefighter Type 2' explained at the National Wildfire Coordinating Group.  Related Almost Good Catholics episode: Joseph Nagel and Heather Skinner, episode 8: It's Elementary! Catholic Education in the 21st Century. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Peter Hess (Ph.D, FFT2) is a theologian, an environmental scientist, a wildland fire practitioner, and firefighter type two. I ask Peter about this work which is a collaboration of firefighters and indigenous communities, about the Catholic Theology, stewardship of the Earth, and Pope Francis's encyclical Laudatus Si'. Peter Hess's webpage at “Climate Abandoned.” Peter Hess's book, Catholicism and Science (Greenwood, 2008). Laudatus Si', Pope Francis's encyclical letter (2015). TERA website, the Tribal EcoRestoration Alliance. ‘Firefighter Type 2' explained at the National Wildfire Coordinating Group.  Related Almost Good Catholics episode: Joseph Nagel and Heather Skinner, episode 8: It's Elementary! Catholic Education in the 21st Century. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Hess (Ph.D, FFT2) is a theologian, an environmental scientist, a wildland fire practitioner, and firefighter type two. I ask Peter about this work which is a collaboration of firefighters and indigenous communities, about the Catholic Theology, stewardship of the Earth, and Pope Francis's encyclical Laudatus Si'. Peter Hess's webpage at “Climate Abandoned.” Peter Hess's book, Catholicism and Science (Greenwood, 2008). Laudatus Si', Pope Francis's encyclical letter (2015). TERA website, the Tribal EcoRestoration Alliance. ‘Firefighter Type 2' explained at the National Wildfire Coordinating Group.  Related Almost Good Catholics episode: Joseph Nagel and Heather Skinner, episode 8: It's Elementary! Catholic Education in the 21st Century. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Po diplomi iz arhitekture jo je poklicala glasbena umetnost. Svoje življenje zdaj posveča raziskovanju zvoka in njegovih magičnih pokrajin – skozi petje, vodenje individualnih in skupinskih zvokovno-glasbenih delavnic, poučevanje petja in terapevtsko delo z zvokom. Ob študiju jazzovskega petja in pedagogike na zasebni univerzi Gustava Mahlerja v Celovcu se je udeležila različnih izobraževanj s temo zdravljenja z zvokom in terapevtske uporabe glasu, kasneje pa je to znanje poglobila še na Peter Hess® akademiji v Zagrebu. Njeno umetniško glasbeno delovanje je stkano iz interpretacij glasbenega izročila svetovnih kultur, projektov uglasbene poezije in jazzovske glasbe. V zadnjem obdobju jo navdihujeta predvsem atmosferičnost in zvočnost v glasbi ter sodobni ustvarjalni pristopi. O dragocenem izkustvu, ki ga je oblikovalo večletno ustvarjanje, o zaznavanju in čutenju glasbe in prenašanju izkušenj na druge se z Aljo Petric pogovarja Nada Vodušek.

The much awaited return of Tood Sickafoose graces our playlist together with other gem ranging from the gorgeous to the adventurous, with a couple of surprising contributions from musicians whose relationship with jazz has been notoriously... ambivalent, Frank Zappa and Stewart Copeland. The playlist also features Samuel Blaser; Todd Sickafoose [pictured]; Amaury Faye; Rudy Royston; Alexander Hawkins; Mick Rossi, Peter Hess, Matt Moran; John Zorn. Detailed playlist at https://spinitron.com/RFB/pl/17670100/Mondo-Jazz (starting from ""Lady Rawlinson"). Happy listening! Photo credit: Shervin Lainez

Bije Ci serce? To jesteś dźwiękiem. To taka najprostsza prawda, żeby oglądać siebie i innych poprzez słuch, nie wzrok, nie węch. Każdy człowiek brzmi inaczej i oczywiście mamy ograniczone możliwości wsłuchania się, ale przecież się przytulamy i wtedy wiadomo – bliskość ma soje unikalne brzmienie. Czas wgapiania się w urodę zewnętrzną przemija, już wybory miss przechodzą do lamusa (ale retro fraza) - teraz gdy mówimy o pięknie duszy – wróćmy uwagę na to jak wybrzmiewa ktoś inny. Jak ja brzmię. Żeby nie brzmiało to chaotycznie – opowieść z końca świata, gdzie wprzyciągnęło mnie brzmienie, bo brzmieliśmy tak podobnie, a wspólny mianownik wybijał sobie każdy sam, bębniąc, jednym z iejsc było piękne duże tippi, gdzie wpełzłam z mikrofonem rzecz jasna Metoda relaksacyjnego masażu dźwiękiem została stworzona przez niemieckiego fizyka i badacza dźwięku Petera Hessa 40 lat temu. Opracował ją na podstawie wieloletnich badań wpływu fal dźwiękowych na ciało człowieka. Peter Hess poznał działanie dźwięku wykorzystywane w kulturze dalekiego Wschodu. Cały wszechświat i my sami jesteśmy stworzeni z dźwięków. Okazuje się, że wierzenia te nie mijają się z prawdą. Badania wykazały, iż każdy ludzki organ wydaje fale dźwiękowe i wchodzi w rezonans z otoczeniem. Zdrowy człowiek słyszy dźwięki w wysokości od 16 do 20 000 Hz, ale najbardziej wrażliwi jesteśmy na dźwięki mieszczące się w przedziale 2000-5000 Hz. Takie też wydają nasze struny głosowe. Justyna Koronkiewicz jest tym dźwiękiem, który mnie pokierował do jej siedziby, można Justynę znaleźć też na FB I teraz proszę wyobraź sobie jakim jesteś dziś dźwiękiem. Jak to widzisz, jak to słyszysz. Do brzmień mam ogromny szacunek, bo Dźwięki towarzyszą nam od pradziejów i nawet jeśli te ciche umykają naszym uszom to i tak jesteśmy w stanie odczuć działanie ich drgania. Budujące lub wprowadzające chaos w organizm. Dźwięki dzwonków, gongów, czy różnego rodzaju trąb i fletów, były i są obecne niemal w każdej kulturze i religii tego świata i były używane to rożnych celów. Patrz trąby Jerychońkie. Ale i tak najważniejsze są te dźwięki nam najbliższe: dźwięki ciała, głosu. Najwięcej częstotliwości rezonansów mechanicznych ma serce. A mało kto wie, że nawet gałka oczna „wydaje dźwięk” (o częstotliwości 60-90 Hz), dużo silniejszy niż np. jelita (mające w pozycji siedzącej 3-3,5 Hz). Ciało gra! Wszystko gra. Jesteś w tej grze. I teraz pytanie, czy jako instrument używany przez kogoś czy jako gracz. To ja sobie teraz pobębnię palcami po grasicy, to przyjemny dźwięk i w dodatku zdrowo! *** Lektury: L. Grzegorczyk, M. Walaszek, Drgania i ich oddziaływanie na organizm ludzki D. E. Wasserman, Human Aspect of Occupational Vibration P. Hess, Mosy dźwiękowe zastosowanie w życiu codziennym *** muz i efekty https://freesound.org/people/szegvari miejsce obejrzyj też tu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENkQs0SFEfg

Jacob Walter var en vanlig tysk menig soldat i Napoleons väldiga armé som invaderade Ryssland 1812. Det som gjorde honom ovanlig var att han skrev en dagbok om en av militärhistoriens största katastrofer.Napoleons fälttåg i Ryssland 1812 tillhör den militära historiens mest dramatiska händelser. I slutet av juni 1812 korsade en väldig armé omfattande mer 450 000 man – till och med över 600 000 om man räknar alla reserver – den ryska gränsen vid floden Njemen och rördes sig mot Moskva.Den ryska huvudstaden intogs i september efter ett antal brutala strider där slaget vid Borodino den 7 september var det i särklass blodigaste. Trots att Moskva var i franska händer kunde Napoleon inte tvinga Ryssland och Alexander till en fred på sina villkor.I oktober inleddes reträtten tillbaka. Efter övergången av floden Beresina i slutet av november bröts armén slutligen samman. Endast mellan 20 000 och 30 000 återkom av den väldiga armén. Resten dog eller tillfångatogs. Det hela var en katastrof.I den nymixade reprisen av avsnitt 26 av Militärhistoriepodden följer Martin Hårdstedt och Peter Bennesved en av deltagarna i fälttåget: den menige tyske soldaten Jacob Walter. Med utgångspunkt i hans bevarade dagbok rör sig samtalet kring det katastrofala fälttåget ur den enskilde soldatens perspektiv. Hur tedde sig umbärandena för den enskilde krigsdeltagaren? Varför utvecklades fälttåget till en katastrof? Vilken betydelse hade vintern egentligen?Den franska armén – La Grande Armée – bestod bara till hälften av franska soldater. Resten kom från andra delar av det franska imperiet utanför det egentliga Frankrikes gränser. Med i fälttåget fanns polacker, tyskar, österrikare holländare, italienare och så vidare. Jacob Walter kom från det tyska kungariket Würtemberg vars armé tämligen ovilligt deltog i fälttåget mot Ryssland.Jacob var veteran från tidigare fälttåg i den tyska armén som slogs mot Napoleon 1806-07 och även 1809. Efter 1812 fick han avsked på grund av sina skador som en följd av umbärandena i Ryssland. Men han var en av de mycket få som levande återvände hem. Jacob kom att skriva ner sina upplevelser i en dagbok som via utvandrande efterkommande hamnade i USA. Historikerna kan genom hans realistiska och i alla högsta grad trovärdiga berättelse få en inblick i detta världsdrama som är långt ifrån strategierna och de höga officerarnas staber. Lidandet i krig får ett ansikte.Om du vill lära dig mer om Napoleonkrigen, fälttåget 1812 och Jacob Walter kan du läsa hans dagbok som finns utgiven på svenska Jakob Walter Fotsoldat i Napoleons armé. Dominic Lieven har skrivit en fantastisk bok på engelska Russia against Napoleon. The battle för Europé 1807 to 1814 som rekommenderas för hard core-läsaren. En skönlitterär skildring är naturligtvis Leo Tolstoj Krig och Fred. En sammanfattning av hela Napoleonkrigen hittar du i Martin Hårdstedts Omvälvningarnas tid som innehåller ett par kapitel om ryska fälttåget.Bild: Korsandet av floden Berezina den 17 november 1812 av Peter Hess, målad 1844. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Anadolu'nun Şifacı Kadınları'nı konuk ettiğim programın bu haftaki konuğu Sırma Belin. 1965 Almanya doğumlu olan Sırma, İstanbul Üniversitesi Alman Dili ve Edebiyatı bölümünü bitirdi, ardından aynı bölümde yüksek lisans yaptı. Bir süre öğretim görevlisi olarak çalıştı. Daha sonra turist rehberi olarak yaklaşık 30 yıl çalıştı. Arayışı onu ses çanaklarıyla buluşturdu. Peter Hess Academy Türkiye Kurucusu ve Peter Hess Ses Masajı Uygulayıcısı Eğitmeni olan Sırma ile yolculuğunu konuştuk. Sırma'nın paylaşımlarını ve duyurularını https://www.instagram.com/sirma_belin/ Instagram adresinden, meditasyonlarını ise https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2So... Youtube adresinden takip edebilirsiniz. Keyifli dinlemeler :)

Le pouvoir guérisseur du son ! Par/avec Marc Baillet Fatigue physique, émotionnelle, mentale et même spirituelle, parfois nous sommes désaccordés, un peu comme un instrument dont le son n'envoie plus les bonnes vibrations. Le son, la voix, la musique ont un pouvoir guérisseur ! Quel est ce pouvoir ? Pourquoi vibrons-nous ? Comment mieux vibrer ? Swann Gong est thérapeute sonore. Formé à l'Académie de renommée mondiale Peter Hess, en Belgique et au College of Sound Healing Collège au Royaume-Uni, il soigne grâce à la musique. Multi-instrumentiste, il donne des sessions de thérapie sonore dans toute l'Europe, dans des centres de yoga et de bien- être, des festivals de méditation et yoga, des retraites de yoga et musicothérapie, et des évènements exceptionnels. Son intention principale avec la musique est de diffuser des vibrations et de l'énergie afin de favoriser le bien-être. Dans cet épisode, Swann, nous parle du pouvoir guérisseur du son et nous donne des conseils pratiques et concrets pour aller vers plus de mieux être physique, émotionnel et spirituel ! Nous parlons aussi des Pink Floyd, de Mozart et des Rolling Stones. Mais également de ce que cela signifie pour lui qu'être le héros de sa propre vie. Vous souhaitez prendre une dose d'inspiration et de conseils concrets pour mettre le son au service de votre mieux être ?  Ne ratez pas cette conversation inspirante avec Swann Gong ! C'est ici ! Mettez le son ! *** Si vous avez apprécié le Podcast, laissez-moi un commentaire et quelques étoiles ici https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/heroic-people-podcast/id1510935846?mt=2&ls=1 ! Cela prend 60 secondes et permet de convaincre les invités du podcast ! Retrouvez-nous sur www.heroicpeople.fr pour découvrir le podcast plus en détails, la newsletter, mes livres, nos services d'accompagnement et de coaching d'équipe.

Celebrity healer Adrien Blackwell returns to discuss the Qi of Love in its various guises. A ace storyteller, Adrien begins with sharing an early memory of what true love was, but she didn't recognise it until much later. We also chat about the importance of feeling safe to be able to open your heart and how rejecting love can sometimes be a defence mechanism. Qigong has been part of Adrien's energetic support system for many years, she tells us how she first got introduce in her last visit to Chi Time. Here the topic is easily included as another story of midnight repetitions of a certain form shifted her life once again. Adrien is adept at bringing us back to our heart resonance, so yes, I got my Peter Hess therapeutic heart bowl out while she talks us through a connect with your love process towards the end. To find out more about the Making Miracles Happen Love Series where over 30 experts, healers, coaches, mystics, therapists, mediums and psychologists share many practical 'how to's' in the field of living a life of incredible love, see here: Clara Apollo https://makingmiracleshappenseries.com/ClaraApollo  For information about the 'Grow With Your Flow' Elemental Qigong course on how to nurture your deep connection with nature and how this can ensure unlimited steadiness and energy resource, click over to; https://claraapollo.kartra.com/page/JOY17 The first session is on offer for FREE if you have not trained with me before and get in before Friday 4 Feb. Message chiqitemple@gmail.com for access. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pam Gregory is so well versed with 42 years of study and experience - that she has the kind of handle on astrology like no other. Indeed, Pam is a pioneer in the field of applied astrology, weaving it's profound history with the quantum field and vedic astrology. Pam helps us understand or translate the movements and relationships of the planets, stars and other celestial bodies.  'Astrology contains Divine Intelligence, study it and you can access the dreams of God'. In all our similarities, each of us is utterly unique and this is also what Pam is here to help us shine starry wise light on, asking; 'What is your soul's journey this incarnation?' C.G.Jung said that Astrology is a science of coincidences, containing theory about synchronicities, where the inner world matched the outer one, contained in most Mystery School teachings. We are on the brink of a massive revolution of consciousness, astrology is one of the true tools of conscious awareness. Pam advocates energy based practices like qigong, yoga, breath work and encourages us to keep choosing the higher frequency of being, for our own health and wellbeing but also to radiate that into the world. Here we discuss how using astrology wisely can help prepare us for the revelations and revolutions of this coming year so we may navigate moving from swiftly occurring disruption to re-organisation. Topics mentioned alongside the key astrology for 2022 are: Grounding - standing up for what you believe - be here, now Stress state - choice of experience - forgiveness of past personal choices  Centring practice - physical, emotional and mental health care Personal sovereignty - discernment - heart guide - shine your light Frequency - how to keep choosing your best vibe Qi - the language of truth - telepathy Building communities - collaboration & co-creation - on and off line Nurturing friendships - new, redefining old Entrepreneurial ideas - open to new inspiration  Grow food - micro-greens to permaculture  Managing the influx of light - Pam explains why this is occurring  Ancient shamanic and quantum understandings It's amazing to see how everything Pam speaks about reminds us how important it is to cultivate our inner resilience and keep returning to the peace at our centre. This is so up my Chi-street as Elemental Qigong personal energy cultivation deeply nurtures our connection with our centre of stabilisation and honours our support of Mother Earth and Cosmic Intelligence... feels essential.  When Pam speaks, portals open and you drop into clearer understanding of the truth within you. Also included is the sound from a special Peter Hess therapy singing bowl; https://www.thomann.de/gb/peter_hess_phks9_02.htm Connect more with Pam here: https://www.thenextstep.uk.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Organizational leaders can be the driving force behind effective change. They can improve employee engagement and navigate a team through difficult change. However, with new working environments, leaders have to double down on building and maintaining relationships with their team members. Peter Hess joins Jennifer on the Survive & Thrive podcast to discuss the importance of leadership on change and how leaders can be more effective. Listen to Jennifer and Peter discuss effective leadership:Peter's introduction (1:04) Jennifer introduces Peter and some of the projects they've worked on together. Peter details his experience and qualifications. Leading through change (3:34) Peter has noticed leadership has changed over the years. He believes leaders appreciate the role of people in helping achieve results as a team Engaging leaders (8:12) Peter shares what he's seen from leaders that are truly engaged with a change and navigating their team through it. The “future” of work (13:58) With organizations struggling to adapt to unique challenges like hybrid work environments, Peter believes it's even more important for leaders to build relationships with their teams. It can be as simple as making an effort to reach out and learning more about coworkers. What a leader can do to thrive in change (26:44) Peter gives several things leaders need to consider in order to not just survive, but thrive in change. Links mentioned:https://www.concinnityus.com/ (Concinnity - Website)

Helena Korošec je doktorica znanosti, profesorica na Pedagoški fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani za področje lutkovnega in dramskega izražanja. Je tudi strokovnjakinja s certifikatom Peter Hess na področjih zvočne masaže in komunikacije z zvokom za otroke. O pozitivnih učinkih zvoka za podporo zdravju, čustveni stabilnosti, povečanju zavedanja vseh čutil in izboljšanju komunikacije študira tudi na Britanski akademiji za terapijo z zvokom. Z dr. Heleno Korošec se bo pogovarjala Anamarija Štukelj Cusma.

Le pouvoir guérisseur du son ! Par/avec Marc Baillet Fatigue physique, émotionnelle, mentale et même spirituelle, parfois nous sommes désaccordés, un peu comme un instrument dont le son n'envoie plus les bonnes vibrations. Le son, la voix, la musique ont un pouvoir guérisseur ! Quel est ce pouvoir ? Pourquoi vibrons-nous ? Comment mieux vibrer ? Swann Gong est thérapeute sonore. Formé à l'Académie de renommée mondiale Peter Hess, en Belgique et au College of Sound Healing Collège au Royaume-Uni, il soigne grâce à la musique. Multi-instrumentiste, il donne des sessions de thérapie sonore dans toute l'Europe, dans des centres de yoga et de bien- être, des festivals de méditation et yoga, des retraites de yoga et musicothérapie, et des évènements exceptionnels. Son intention principale avec la musique est de diffuser des vibrations et de l'énergie afin de favoriser le bien-être. Dans cet épisode, Swann, nous parle du pouvoir guérisseur du son et nous donne des conseils pratiques et concrets pour aller vers plus de mieux être physique, émotionnel et spirituel ! Nous parlons aussi des Pink Floyd, de Mozart et des Rolling Stones. Mais également de ce que cela signifie pour lui qu'être le héros de sa propre vie. Vous souhaitez prendre une dose d'inspiration et de conseils concrets pour mettre le son au service de votre mieux être ?  Ne ratez pas cette conversation inspirante avec Swann Gong ! C'est ici ! Mettez le son ! *** Si vous avez apprécié le Podcast, laissez-moi un commentaire et quelques étoiles ici https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/heroic-people-podcast/id1510935846?mt=2&ls=1 ! Cela prend 60 secondes et permet de convaincre les invités du podcast ! Retrouvez-nous sur www.heroicpeople.fr pour découvrir le podcast plus en détails, la newsletter, mes livres, nos services d'accompagnement et de coaching d'équipe. L'article Swann Gong – Le pouvoir guérisseur du son ! (#28) est apparu en premier sur HEROIC PEOPLE.

"Mary Annaïse Heglar Needs You to Give a Shit about Fighting Climate Change" by Peter Hess (2019) (http://bit.ly/3rvUiaw) "I think a lot of people think of it as a one time thing. They think 'What can I do about climate change?' and they want to just check a box and be done. The full question should be, 'What can I do next?, and always next, because you're never going to be done. This problem is, if we're being real with ourselves, it's never really going to be solved because of how far we've gone." References: Mary Annaïse Heglar (https://twitter.com/MaryHeglar) Real Hot Take Podcast (https://www.criticalfrequency.org/hot-take) Peter Hess (https://twitter.com/PeterNHess) Inverse (https://www.inverse.com/) Take Action Global (http://www.takeactionglobal.org/) How to Save a Planet Podcast (http://apple.co/3kOiYJa) Alex Blumberg (https://twitter.com/abexlumberg) Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson (https://twitter.com/ayanaeliza) "Atomic Habits: An Easy and Proven Way to Build Good Habits and Break Bad Ones" by James Clear (http://bit.ly/3qjIiaI) James Clear (https://twitter.com/JamesClear) Michael Lipset, PhD of PassTell Stories (http://www.michaellipset.com/) Connect: Twitter (https://twitter.com/mjcraw) Website (https://www.mjcraw.com) Music from Digi G'Alessio CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 (https://bit.ly/2IyV71i)

Jacob Walter var en vanlig tysk menig soldat i Napoleons väldiga armé som invaderade Ryssland 1812. Det som gjorde honom ovanlig var att han skrev en dagbok om en av militärhistoriens största katastrofer.Napoleons fälttåg i Ryssland 1812 tillhör den militära historiens mest dramatiska händelser. I slutet av juni 1812 korsade en väldig armé omfattande mer 450 000 man – till och med över 600 000 om man räknar alla reserver – den ryska gränsen vid floden Njemen och rördes sig mot Moskva.Den ryska huvudstaden intogs i september efter ett antal brutala strider där slaget vid Borodino den 7 september var det i särklass blodigaste. Trots att Moskva var i franska händer kunde Napoleon inte tvinga Ryssland och Alexander till en fred på sina villkor.I oktober inleddes reträtten tillbaka. Efter övergången av floden Beresina i slutet av november bröts armén slutligen samman. Endast mellan 20 000 och 30 000 återkom av den väldiga armén. Resten dog eller tillfångatogs. Det hela var en katastrof.I detta det 26:e avsnittet av Militärhistoriepodden följer Martin Hårdstedt och Peter Bennesved en av deltagarna i fälttåget: den menige tyske soldaten Jacob Walter. Med utgångspunkt i hans bevarade dagbok rör sig samtalet kring det katastrofala fälttåget ur den enskilde soldatens perspektiv. Hur tedde sig umbärandena för den enskilde krigsdeltagaren? Varför utvecklades fälttåget till en katastrof? Vilken betydelse hade vintern egentligen?Den franska armén – La Grande Armée – bestod bara till hälften av franska soldater. Resten kom från andra delar av det franska imperiet utanför det egentliga Frankrikes gränser. Med i fälttåget fanns polacker, tyskar, österrikare holländare, italienare och så vidare. Jacob Walter kom från det tyska kungariket Würtemberg vars armé tämligen ovilligt deltog i fälttåget mot Ryssland.Jacob var veteran från tidigare fälttåg i den tyska armén som slogs mot Napoleon 1806-07 och även 1809. Efter 1812 fick han avsked på grund av sina skador som en följd av umbärandena i Ryssland. Men han var en av de mycket få som levande återvände hem. Jacob kom att skriva ner sina upplevelser i en dagbok som via utvandrande efterkommande hamnade i USA. Historikerna kan genom hans realistiska och i alla högsta grad trovärdiga berättelse få en inblick i detta världsdrama som är långt ifrån strategierna och de höga officerarnas staber. Lidandet i krig får ett ansikte.Om du vill lära dig mer om Napoleonkrigen, fälttåget 1812 och Jacob Walter kan du läsa hans dagbok som finns utgiven på svenska Jakob Walter Fotsoldat i Napoleons armé. Dominic Lieven har skrivit en fantastisk bok på engelska Russia against Napoleon. The battle för Europé 1807 to 1814 som rekommenderas för hard core-läsaren. En skönlitterär skildring är naturligtvis Leo Tolstoj Krig och Fred. En sammanfattning av hela Napoleonkrigen hittar du i Martin Hårdstedts Omvälvningarnas tid som innehåller ett par kapitel om ryska fälttåget.Bild: Korsandet av floden Berezina den 17 november 1812 av Peter Hess, målad 1844. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

"During this week’s episode of The Jazz Hole Brooklyn-based composer and woodwind master Peter Hess talks about three recent albums that came out on his own label Diskonife: Present Company by the Peter Hess Quartet, Falling by the Peter Hess Trio and Cut The Red Wire by the Mick Rossi/Peter Hess Duo. Tune in to hear the conversation in four parts and samples from all three albums in between. Peter Hess lives in NYC since 1997, can be heard on hundreds of recordings and is a member of the world-renowned Philip Glass Ensemble. Peter Hess Quartet - “Komma” & “The Net Menders” Album: Present Company Peter Hess (ts), Brian Dyre (tb), Adam Hopkins (b) and Tomas Fujiwara (d) Peter Hess Trio - “Move To Mars” & “Gone Lights” Album: Falling Peter Hess (ts), Matt Moran (vib) and Jeff Davis (d) Mick Rossi & Peter Hess - “4+11+3” & “Wadabe” Album: Cut The Red Wire Mick Rossi (p, harmonium, syn, guzheng, d, perc) and Peter Hes (Bb, Eb, Bass and Contra-Alto clarinets, ts, alto fl) 00:00 - The Jazz Hole with Linus 01:15 - Komma - Peter Hess Quartet 07:19 - The Net Menders - Peter Hess Quartet 14:18 - Interview with Peter Hess, Part I 20:32 - Move To Mars - Peter Hess Trio 27:23 - Interview with Peter Hess, Part II 31:35 - Gone Lights - Peter Hess Trio 36:37 - Interview with Peter Hess, Part III 42:09 - 4+11+3 - Mick Rossi, Peter Hess 48:52 - Interview with Peter Hess, Part IV 52:49 - Wadabe - Mick Rossi, Peter Hess 57:07 - Finish "

Am Mittwoch um zirka 19.30 Uhr schickt Radio Tell im Geris L

This week, listen in to learn more about using stem cells as a possible therapy for olfactory dysfunction in the article "Stem Cell Therapy Restores Mice's Sense of Smell in Proof-of-Concept Study" by Peter Hess, originally published on www.inverse.com on May 30, 2019. To read the article, click here. To find Peter Hess on Twitter, click here. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thesmellpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thesmellpodcast/support

We get to hang out with Ilusha and listen to selections from his new album, Yes & No.   Singer and guitarist Ilusha Tsinadze was born in Soviet-era Georgia and emigrated to the U.S. at the age of 8. Yes & No is a musical conversation between the contemporary sounds of Brooklyn and the traditional music his family left behind in Georgia. Ilusha has become recognized for his distinct interpretations of Georgia folk music following his first album, Deda Ena (Mother Tongue), the wildly successful single, Mokhevis Kalo Tinao, and tours across the U.S., including a 2018 performance at Carnegie Hall. With a background in jazz and many years spent playing in the NYC music scene, he has found his own voice in the rich musical traditions of his ancestors. In making his latest album, Ilusha collaborated with Grammy award-winning arranger and producer Kyle Sanna, in Brooklyn, NY. He also traveled to Georgia with a laptop and mics in hand, adding artists that have inspired him over the years. His American musical collaborators are considered some of best world and jazz musicians in New York City, including Peter Hess (clarinet, Slavic Soul Party), Chris Tordini (bass, Tyshawn Sorey) and Vitor Gonçalves (accordion, Anat Cohen).

This week on Shoot the Breeze, strap in and brace yourself for another hour of me talking to myself about photography (and black holes). After a close encounter with a mirrorless camera earlier in the week, I try to get my head around the tidal wave of mirrorless technology that threatens to make my D850 obsolete by next Tuesday. I also sing the praises of the FujiFilm X-T3 mirrorless camera, explain why Lightroom presets are a waste of time and money, tip my hat to the geniuses that photographed a black hole, and tell you everything you need to know to photograph the moon. For more information about the Event Horizon Telescope and the stunning black hole photograph, check out this article from Inverse by the excellent Peter Hess. And for Andy Mumford's spirited review of the Fujifilm X-T3 you need look no further than HERE. Here are some awesome images from the Fujifilm X-T3, shot by the incomparable Martin Howard... If none of that floats your boat, head over to my website and tell me what you want to talk about. Thanks for listening and for being a cool person.  

Christoph Daum, René Weiler, Christian Falk, Peter Hess, Timo Latsch, Reinhold Beckmann Für alle, die den Doppelpass verpasst haben. Hier gibt es jeden Montag die aktuelle Ausgabe zum Nachhören. Die Nationalmannschaft steckt auch nach der WM weiter in der Krise Du möchtest deinen Podcast auch kostenlos hosten und damit Geld verdienen? Dann schaue auf www.kostenlos-hosten.de und informiere dich. Dort erhältst du alle Informationen zu unseren kostenlosen Podcast-Hosting-Angeboten.

Christoph Daum, René Weiler, Christian Falk, Peter Hess, Timo Latsch, Reinhold Beckmann Für alle, die den Doppelpass verpasst haben. Hier gibt es jeden Montag die aktuelle Ausgabe zum Nachhören. Die Nationalmannschaft steckt auch nach der WM weiter in der Krise Du möchtest deinen Podcast auch kostenlos hosten und damit Geld verdienen? Dann schaue auf www.kostenlos-hosten.de und informiere dich. Dort erhältst du alle Informationen zu unseren kostenlosen Podcast-Hosting-Angeboten.

There’s organic material on Mars! But just what does that mean? In this mini-episode, astronomer David Weintraub talks to Steve about the importance of the NASA Mars announcements on June 7. We also pull in senior staff writer Peter Hess to contextualize the findings from the two papers.To hear the full conversation with astronomer and Vanderbilt University professor David Weintraub, listen to next week’s episode.Read more of Peter’s coverage of the Mars announcement on Inverse: https://www.inverse.com/article/45634-nasa-announcement-on-mars-curiosity-rover-discoveryFollow I Need My Space on Social Media:Twitter: @INeedMySpacePodInstagram: @INeedMySpacePodFB Group: I Need My Space PodTo continue the conversation from this episode, use the hashtag #INeedMySpaceAbout Inverse:Inverse sparks curiosity about the future. We explore the science of anything, innovations that shape tomorrow, and ideas that stretch our minds. Our goal is to motivate the next generation to build a better world.Credits:I Need My Space is an Inverse production hosted by Rae Paoletta and Steve Ward, produced by Sam Riddell, and executive produced by Hannah Margaret Allen and Weston Green. Our intro and outro music was created by Andrew Oliveras.Peter: @PeterNHessSteve: @stevejohnhenrywAndrew: https://soundcloud.com/andrewo

Allie and Armin discuss the latest news on religion in the past week. Record your opinions for our podcast: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/podcast Allie Jackson on Twitter https://twitter.com/atheistallie Armin Navabi on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ArminNavabi/ A Texas State Representative took to Twitter to gloat in the “fact” that Stephen Hawking was meeting his creator. Even with a lot of backlash from the community, the rep made a statement that God exists, and he'd be praying for the Hawking family. To celebrate International Women's Day, the Israeli Army posted a video encouraging equal gender military enrolment. A religious group took offense to this, demanded it be removed, and it was. The complaint was that women can't be soldiers as they are weak and it encourages them to not care for babies. A Bangladeshi sci-fi writer was stabbed in the back, and his accuser claims it was because his work was an “enemy of Islam”. He is recovering in a Hospital in Dhaka. A U.S. drone strike killed 21 people in Afghanistan, among them, was the son of Mullah Fazlullah, the chief of the Pakistan Taliban. A Taliban spokesman has said they will be attacking soon in retaliation. Richard Dawkins, being the scientist that he is, asked if we could “overcome our taboo views” and eat human meat if it was lab grown. Peter Hess, from Inverse, added some strange criticism, implying that atheists were more likely to become serial killers. Iran is threatening journalists with arrest for working with the BBC, accusing them of “conspiracy against national security” and threatening their family members still living in Iran. The BBC has appealed to the UN to stop Iran from continuing their harassment. The Scientology Network made its debut. Their website has a detailed list of programs which includes shows such as “Meet a Scientologist”. A girl was found outside of a church holding her eyeballs in her hands last month. She thought God told her to do it as a sacrifice and says life is more beautiful now. A Florida teen stabbed three people at a sleepover after reading the Quran to gain the courage to carry out the violent act. He told police he was mocked for being a Muslim, one person was fatally stabbed. Egypt has banned atheism as a means to combat it. A Pew Research survey showed that many Egyptians hold extremely violent views towards atheists and “sinners”.

Paralympic wheelchair basketball players set their own standards of performance Produced by Peter Hess and Sandy Ong

Peter Hess erklärt ausführlich die Funktion und die Vorteile des passiven 3D Systems aus Anlass unserer exklusiven Demonstration im Hotel Park Inn am 31. Mai 2014 in Kaarst.Wir sind INFITEK 3D Partner und können Ihnen das System mit 2 SONY Projektoren aus der aktuellen HW Serie demonstrieren. Weitere Informationen folgen in Kürze auf unserer Homepage www.grobi.tv Folge direkt herunterladen

Am 31. Mai 2014 haben wir in Zusammenarbeit mit unseren Partnern Auro-3D® und INFITEC 3D erstmalig diese neuen Technologien der Öffentlichkeit präsentiert. In diesem Video kommen unsere Besucher und Kunden zu Wort, die uns ihre Eindrücke mitteilen. Zusätzlich haben wir Wilfried van Baelen erneut interviewen können, da er persönlich an diesem Tag "sein" Auro-3D® System präsentierte.Peter Hess hat in einem 2. Raum das passive INFITEC 3D System demonstriert und wird in einem weiteren, separaten demächst von uns veröffentlichten Video, die Technologie und ihre Vorteile erklären.Wir sind Auro-3D® und INFITEC 3D Partner. Sprechen Sie uns an und erleben Sie demnächst in unseren Räumen die Revolution des 3D Sound und Bild.Hier sind die Videos von unserem Besuch in den GALAXY Studios.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcHcK84nUkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUZncnx5Go8Ihr GROBI.TV Team Folge direkt herunterladen

In part 2, Michael Eisen discusses the Public Library of Science, his position on GMOs and a labeling strategy. Eisen is Associate Professor of Genetics, Genomics, and Development in UC Berkeley's Dept. of Molecular Biology and an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.TranscriptSpeaker 1: Spectrum's next Speaker 2: [inaudible].Speaker 1: Welcome to spectrum the science and technology show on k a l x Berkeley, a biweekly 30 minute program [00:00:30] bringing you interviews featuring bay area scientists and technologists as well as a calendar of local events and news. Speaker 3: My name is Brad Swift. I'm the host of spectrum. Today we are presenting part two of our two part interview with Michael Isen and associate professor of genetics genomics in development in UC Berkeley's department of molecular biology. In part one Michael talked about his research of gene regulation this week. Michael explains [00:01:00] the Public Library of science, his feelings on labeling of GMOs in food as well as intellectual property science outreach and science funding. Enjoy the interview. I wanted to talk about the Public Library of science if you were a cofounder of. Yeah, and are you still involved with that? Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm on the board. I've still very actively involved in trying to shape its future and in general in the future of science publishing. Speaker 3: And so can you talk about its business model and how it's changing publishing? Speaker 4: [00:01:30] Sure. The basic idea is that science publishing, it's been around for as long as science has been an endeavor from the 17th century. Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, all these guys were sort of inventing science as we currently know it. And Science as a enterprise obviously requires that scientists communicate with each other and since time immemorial in science, we've had journaled, Francis Bacon, other scientists that 17th century started at seedings of the Royal Society. Right? And for 330 [00:02:00] years or so after they started these journals, they were using the only technology available to them at the time, which was print publishing and a lot of things that follow from the way scientific publishing was structured follow intrinsically from the limitations and features of that printed journal. And as an economic model, the only model that makes sense is for the end users to pay for the first subscription. And you know, there's problems with that. Speaker 4: Only people who [00:02:30] can afford the subscriptions can get access to the scientific literature and so forth. They follow from an intrinsic limitation of a medium. Now in the nineties 1990s that all changed, right? The Internet came along and science was amongst the first groups of people to embrace the Internet, and by the sort of mid to late 1990s basically every scientific journal that existed was online and publishing and electronic edition and increasingly going into their archives and digitizing their, their archives, so forth, so that [00:03:00] by 2000 you now could have had access to a large fraction of the tire published record of scientists. Such an amazing thing to be able to do that, but insanely the business model behind scientific publishing didn't change at all. So publishers who had all these subscriptions, now we're no longer selling print journals or decreasingly selling printed journals. They were just selling access to published material in a database and yet they didn't know innovation and the business [00:03:30] model at all. Speaker 4: They just simply charged people for accessing their database just like they'd been charging people to mail them copies. There was no longer any technical or economic reason why the whole universe couldn't have had immediate free access to the published scientific literature. The only reason that you or anybody else in the world didn't have immediate access to anything published in medicine or science or whatever was that the publishers then let them, so plus and the whole industry of open access publishing around [00:04:00] it. The basic idea is publishers do and have provided an important service and they should be paid for the service they provide, but that as soon as they're done, as soon as the publisher's hands are off the paper, it's freely available to everybody, not just to read, but to use and do with whatever to basically place the scientific literature into the public domain. Speaker 4: Where it belong. Science is a public venture, not exclusively, but for the most part funded by either the federal government, state governments or by public minded foundations. And the idea that [00:04:30] the end product of that investment is the property of publishers is insane and it's a huge impediment to the way science works and to the ability of the public to benefit from scientific information. And so plus has been trying to pull the rug out from underneath this subscription based business model by creating journals that use this alternative business model that are now quite successful plus as a journal plus one which is now the biggest biomedical research journal on the planet. Still only publishes a couple percent [00:05:00] of the total because there's a ton of journals out there, but it's big, it's successful, it's growing. Lots of other publishers are starting to switch not just because of it's a successful business, but because of the pressure from the public pressure from the government. Speaker 4: The NIH now requires that people make papers that are funded by NIH research freely available within a year after publication. Things are moving in the right direction and I think the insanity of a world in which the output of publicly funded publicly minded science is privately owned by people who had nothing to do with [00:05:30] a generation of the science in the first place is, it's not quite over, but it is. The writing's on the wall today. Let's go ahead and there was a bit of pushback on that in the, in the congress. What's the state of that? Is that so it's all a lot of pushback because the publishers, it's an incredibly lucrative business that profit margins for Elsevier and other big commercial publishers exceed those of apple and other sort of paragons of highly profitable businesses. When you have a company that's making $1 billion profit off of the public back [00:06:00] and they see a simple legislative solution to avoiding the problem, I think it's a natural instinct on their part to just try to write a law and you know, basically what happened was someone from their district who has a company in their district who gives them lots of money, writes a bill, gives it to them and says, Hey, could you introduce this?Speaker 4: We have a huge problem. These, you know, radical crazies from Berkeley are trying to undermine our entire business model and to lose jobs, blah, blah, blah. They get this bill introduced and there's non-trivial risk that this kind of things would pass [00:06:30] because they've managed to align themselves with a stronger force in Congress. The pro copyright lobby, they've managed to basically convinced them that this issue with scientific publishing is scientists want to steal publishers content. Just like college kids want to steal music from, you know, musicians the, and so there was a nontrivial risk that this was gonna pass and this is the second time it's been introduced. So fortunately it's very easy to say, look, the taxpayers paid for this stuff. You really think it's right for, you know, somebody who just got diagnosed [00:07:00] with some terrible disease to not have access to information that they paid for. Speaker 4: The publishers lose this every time this becomes a public fight, they're not in a winning path. And so I expect it to happen again, but just like this last time, I don't think they're gonna win. More people in Congress are on our side and paying attention than there are on Elsevier side or those publishers mostly private? Or are they publicly, I mean, they're corporations. I mean, yeah, they're mostly public corporations. So Elsevier is a big publicly traded corporation, but they're mostly from the Netherlands and [00:07:30] London. There's a bunch of big companies, but interestingly we've had as much problem historically with nonprofits, scientific societies, the societies themselves and make a lot of money on their journals. A lot of them do and it's put them in a kind of compromise position where their revenues from their journals are so important to their overall financial stability that they behave like commercial publishers. Speaker 4: It's not just big companies, any established publisher who makes a lot of money on publishing. This is sort of intrinsically compromised I think in this endeavor. [00:08:00] So the next sorta thing Blas is trying to do is to switch to a world in which publishing becomes almost instantaneous, still takes nine months or so on average for most works to go from when an author's ready to share it with the public to when it's actually publicly available, even if the journal is freely accessible. And so there's still a lot wrong with the waste. Scientists communicate with each other and with the public that this is not a close up shop. Once we win this open access battle, it's just the beginning. And this doesn't really conflict with intellectual property rights and things like that. [00:08:30] The idea of open science is really just sharing the information. The intellectual property is independent of how openly accessible the publication is. Speaker 4: On the other hand, I also think that the intellectual property stuff is bad. I've always believed that if you're getting money from the federal government, that the intellectual property you develop should not belong to you. It should be in the public domain, and I think that there's a lot of corruption of the way people behave in science that stems from the personal pressure as well as the pressure from the institutions to turn every idea, every little thing [00:09:00] they generate in the lab into a commodity, and I think it's makes science work poorly, but this is happening and so it doesn't benefit society to have academic, publicly funded research turn into privately held intellectual property. It inhibits the commercialization of those ideas that inhibits the broader use of ideas. Plenty of studies have shown this is generally cost more money to manage this whole intellectual property thing than the system benefits. Speaker 4: At the end of the day, very few universities profit from their intellectual property effort. [00:09:30] Mostly they spend a lot of money on lawyers and systems and they don't have the, you know, cloning patent or whatever it is. But if your interest is in the broader functioning of science and in the broader exposure to the public to the benefits of scientific research, you have to think that this stuff should just go right into the public domain where people want to commercialize it. They can, they just don't own any exclusive right to use it. And I think making it all pre competitive is by far the best thing to do. So while publishing itself to answer the question directly is not a [00:10:00] threatened virtual property. If I could figure out a way to make it so I would do stuff cause I think it's a very, very bad thing that publicly funded scientists, people at University of California that their stuff doesn't just belong to the public. Speaker 5: This is spectrum on KALX Berkeley today. Michael Isen, an associate professor at UC Berkeley reflects on the prop 37 campaign and GMO labeling on food. Speaker 3: Another issue [00:10:30] that involves the public a lot is the interest in GMOs in food. How would you like to see that debate transformed? Having just been through the the election cycle here in California where we had that propositionSpeaker 4: right. As you know, I was very, very much opposed to prop 37 and I think mostly because the campaign against genetically modified organisms was predicated on an ignorance of how the technology works and I felt a fear sort [00:11:00] of of science that the problem for most people was that science was involved in food and there's so many problems with that point of view that it's hard to know where to start. First of all, the reasons why I was particularly opposed to this initiative was that the backers were willfully distorting the science spreading the idea that GMOs were intrinsically dangerous, basically, that the public would benefit from having the wrong knowledge about GMOs, which is what I really felt like they were pushing some. Most scientists look at this and think what GMOs are doing [00:11:30] is so different than what we've done for thousands of years and selective breeding of crop. Speaker 4: The idea that the food we eat is in some natural state is a fallacy. Compare corn to its ancestor teosinte. You compare the tomato you buy in the supermarket to the wild slant islands, the person come. None of these things we eat. Look anything remotely like what you found in the wild. They were transformed by centuries of selective breeding and crossing and all sorts of other genetic techniques. Those are the tools of genetics that genetics has just gotten [00:12:00] better and we can do these things in a different way and yes, genetic modification is not identical, but there's nothing intrinsically weird or intrinsically dangerous about moving genes from one species to another. Putting synthetic genes into a plan. It could be, it's not intrinsically safe either, but the attitude that people seem to take is one of the food we have now is in a natural, untainted state and that the second scientist put their hands on it. Speaker 4: All of a sudden it becomes a dangerous threat, but I also think the industry has been stupid in my [00:12:30] mind and has caused a lot of this problem by basically being secret about it. For me it was sort of a lose lose situation in that neither side of that fight was actually interested in the public understanding the science. So you had a ballot measure from my mind in which more or less everybody involved was trying to promote public ignorance about an issue and it's a struggle. I don't know what the right exact solution is to achieve what I think we really need to do, which is to have the public have a, an understanding of the technology, not a detailed understanding [00:13:00] about what enzymes are used to move plans to do you know, why it exists, how it exists, how it works, what people are doing, why it will benefit them or why could benefit them in the long run and so that they understand it and can weigh the benefits and costs in a rational way. Speaker 4: Not in a rational way. I would love to see the food producers label their food, not with a huge thing on the front that says caution contain genetically modified ingredients, but with a label on back that says, here's where the seeds, the crops that went into this food come [00:13:30] from. Maybe there's not enough room on the label of every plant to give a comprehensive thing, but we know everybody's got a cell phone and a QR reader. Now. It's not impossible to imagine that every food had a little QR code on the back that you could scan and would say, here are the varieties that were used in the food. Some of them are genetically modified and here's why they were genetically modified and here's what benefit accrues from that genetic modification. Here's why you shouldn't be worried about it. I just think somehow we need to get the public more engaged in the, an understanding [00:14:00] of where food comes from, how it's grown, and what the rationale behind this process is so that they're rational actors in the process. Speaker 4: I mean, that's all. I mean, most scientists really want out of this. It's not so much to dictate that the public make particular decisions about science so that we all have our own biases about these things, but that that lack of understanding of the public about these issues and even very simple things like the simple fact that the food we eat has been subjected to genetics and that better education about simple [00:14:30] scientific things like that would make these debates focus on things that actually should be in the public debate, like part of the companies that are using genetically modified crops, exploiting intellectual property in ways that's bad for the public. It certainly seems like in many cases they do. Should we be developing genetically modified crop who basically resulted in increased herbicide use. Those are issues that are worth discussing, but they have to be discussed in a context where people understand what you're talking about and they don't think, oh my God, there's an insecticide [00:15:00] in my corn and everybody's going to die. Speaker 4: And so if I had an easy solution to that problem, we would implement it, but I can recognize when something is not going to achieve it. And I think scaring everybody into thinking that genetic modification is a horrible, dangerous technology that needs to be regulated by the government and some kind of special way was not going to achieve that. Isn't that sort of a difficulty with science in general that oftentimes it gets out in front of the population and presents it with quandaries that it can't grasp and it boils down to fear? [00:15:30] Yeah, I think this is true. This is a lot of this happening with human genetics and things like that. There's plenty of examples of where the way people are used to thinking about things is threatened in some ways or challenged by new science, and I think it's a constant challenge to the scientific community to try to make sure that it doesn't, not so much to make sure that it doesn't get ahead of the public. Speaker 4: That's fine. That's what we're paid to do. Right. But that in doing so, we grapple with the challenge of educating the public [00:16:00] about what we're doing and why and how it's going to benefit them, and it's never going to be completely successful. But I do think that the scientific community is as much to blame as anybody for not having engaged in these issues repeatedly and not having spent it's capital to some extent earning the trust of the public and things like this. You see it with human genetics and probably more acutely than anything with global warming where at some deep level the problem is would an insufficient number of people in the public trust scientists to convey. So what's important [00:16:30] about their understanding of the universe and say they trust them when you do surveys, but it's clear that that trust can be easily undermined with the right kind of PR, right? Speaker 4: It was easy to undermine it from the yes on 37 crowd was easy to undermine scientists as all being self interested somehow all we're all involved in making GMOs and therefore were just shells from Monsanto at some deep level. And though it's absurd and it's easy from the right to say, well scientists, you know, there are a bunch of crazy lefties who just [00:17:00] want us all to be environmentalist's and don't have any care about business. Say these, the public support science. But it's a thin support and it's a thin support because the scientific community hasn't really engaged the public in trying to understand what we're doing and you know, sure, there's plenty of good scientists who are trying to do that, but it certainly have to look at it as a general failure. You know, in terms of scientific literacy in this country. And it bites us all the times in small ways like prop 37 and in big ways like global warming Speaker 5: spectrum is on k a l x Berkeley alternating Fridays. [00:17:30] Michael Eisen is our guest and in this next section Michael Talks about sciences, failure in public outreach and new trends in science funding. Speaker 4: Scientific outreach is a difficult endeavor for a lot of scientists. It doesn't really have a lot of cachet or status within the, and it's tough to fund. Yeah. All that's true. I think it's not without its rewards if fun. I mean, I like talking to the public about science, not because I get anything particular from [00:18:00] it, but just because I like what I do. I like talking about what excites me about the world. I mean, it's fun. A lot of scientists don't feel that way. They don't know they'd rather be in the lab than talking in public. But it's like a lot of things. I think that partly it's just our expectation. We don't expect as a university, as a federal government funding science, it's not considered to be part of what we expect people to do to try to get engaged in communicating. The scientists sort of viewed that there's a another layer of people who are going to be involved in communicating science who are gonna know how to talk to the scientists [00:18:30] and know how to talk to the public. Speaker 4: And there's certainly are fantastic people who do that. But I think ultimately it has to come back to scientists recognizing that it's important. Like if we can't convince the public that what we're doing is important, they're not going to keep giving us money to do it. And so it's a threat to science in every way, not just in its application, but in some practical day to day existence that the public doesn't, when they don't understand us, the scientific community should expect [00:19:00] the people who are doing research or benefiting from the system to do a better job and to take seriously the challenge of communicating it to the public. That's not to say I'm in. Lots of people do it. It's just because it's not organized because it's not expected of people because there's no systematic method for doing it. It peaks me on and he's not as effective I think as it could be if this were a big part of what scientists did and just to tie all these things together. Speaker 4: I'll point out that one of the things I would hope in the long run would happen [00:19:30] as a consequence of the public having hacks as to the scientific literature is that people would start writing papers with the public at least partially in mind when they wrote them. The stuff we do isn't that complicated. I can explain what I do. I could write papers that explained sort of what I'm doing and why and it would be a huge benefit. One of the things we've really, really failed to do is we're good at explaining facts. Here's what we know, here's what we've learned, here's the truth of the system. We're really bad at explaining the scientific method to people and I think people [00:20:00] don't know why. We know things. We know why we believe them. And I think if we were better at writing our papers, I don't expect tons of people to break down the doors and read my papers. Speaker 4: But you know, I think they're interesting and well-written and certainly there are papers that plots publishes that get a lot of public attention to anything involving dinosaurs or anything involving weird sexual practices of animals, right? So when those things are good, really good, strong science, people are looking and paying attention. And if the papers were written in a way [00:20:30] that actually engages the public and thought, well, I'm going to try to explain what I did here to the public that this would probably be the most effective thing we could do, would be to educate the public, educate our students, educate everybody about what scientists do and how we do it. Not just what we discovered, which is I think one of the major problems is focus on facts and discoveries to problem in our public communication. It's a problem in education as a problem just in general for science that we don't talk very much about how we know things, what we're doing [00:21:00] and why. Speaker 4: We just talk about what we've learned. Is there anything that I haven't asked you about that you want to hold forth on? Um, you asking some questions about science funding and about amount of money available for sciences getting tighter and tighter arts, more and more scientists. And I think we're facing a kind of big question about like what does the public want to fund in science? Part of the downside of this big data move in science has been a sort of loss [00:21:30] of appreciation for the importance of individual scientists. And I think that there's all this big science and it's true in biology. People think, well, let's just get a hundred scientists from across the country and we'll all get together and we'll do the most important experiments to do. And these are increasing tendencies for the sort of science by committee kind of way of doing things. Speaker 4: And sometimes that worked, it worked for the human genome project and so forth. But probably one of the things I worry about most in sciences with that, that we're moving away from [00:22:00] a world in which individual scientists get to pursue their own ideas. And you know, which is ultimately where the most interesting stuff usually comes from. You know, genome projects don't win Nobel prizes because their infrastructure, they're not ultimately about discoveries. And so I do worry that seduction of big science is such that funding agencies and other people think that this is a great way for them to control what happens. They're going to put tons of money into these big projects and get everybody to sign on to whatever agenda is coming from the NIH rather than from individual scientists. [00:22:30] And I think it's a struggle we're about to see reach a real head in science as less and less money is available. It's harder and harder to get individual research grants and I think we're just starting to see push back against that in the scientific community. But I don't know who will prevail. I would not like being a scientist if what I did with my days was go to committee meetings with 30 other scientists where we discussed what one experiment we were going to do, which is pieces where things are headed at least at the moment. But Michael lies and thanks very much for coming on [00:23:00] spectrum. Absolute pleasure. Speaker 5: [inaudible] now our calendar of science and technology events happening locally over the next two weeks. Rick Kaneski and Renee arou present the calendar. Speaker 4: Charles Darwin may have been born on February 12th but the fellowship of humanity is celebrating his birthday with the Darwin Day on Sunday, February 24th at 1:30 PM David Seaborg of the world [00:23:30] rainforest fund and a leading expert on evolutionary theory presents the keynote evolution today. Current state of knowledge and controversies, Nobel prize physicist George Smoot and leading expert on Darwin, Peter Hess of the national for science Speaker 6: education. We'll also talk afterwards, enjoy a potluck dinner party with the Speakers. I anticipate primordial soup. The event is at Humanist Hall Three Nine Zero 27th Street in Oakland. Visit Humanist [00:24:00] hall.net for more Info every month. Speaker 7: Nerd night holds an event that can only be described as a gratifying mixture of the discovery channel and beer. This Monday, East Bay's own February nerd night will be held at the new parkway theater. Jessica Richmond will speak about the plethora of microbial cells we play host to within our bodies and what they do there. She will explore the latest research on how our microbes correlate with obesity, anxiety, heart disease, and tooth [00:24:30] decay. We'll Fischer. We'll discuss the history, physics and some modern advances of the processes of creating machines. Finally, Guy Pyre. Zack will speak about his experience as a science planner for the curiosity rover. Nerd night will begin at 7:00 PM on February 25th as the new Parkway Theater in Oakland. The HR tickets can be purchased online at Eastbourne or night, spelled n I t e.com this February 26th the life [00:25:00] sciences divisions at the Lawrence lab in Berkeley will hold a seminar on the subject of life and death at the cellular level. Speaker 7: Denise Montell, a professor of molecular and developmental biology at UC Santa Barbara. We'll discuss her research in the area. Her lab has recently discovered a surprising reversibility of the cell suicide process known as a pop ptosis. She is now testing the hypothesis that the ability of cells to return from the brink of death, so it's to salvage cells that are difficult [00:25:30] to replace such as heart muscles or neurons in the adult brain. The seminars open to the public, although non UC Berkeley students are asked to RSVP by phone or through the lab website. The event will be held in room one for one of the Lawrence Berkeley lab building at seven one seven potter street in West Berkeley. It will begin at 4:00 PM on February 26th this Wednesday at the herps leader in San Francisco. You can learn more about your nightly slumbers. [00:26:00] Professor Matt Walker in the sleep and neuroimaging laboratory at UC Berkeley has found compelling evidence that our light dreamless stage of sleep can solidify short term memories by rewiring the architecture of the brain, burst of electrical impulses known as sleep spindles, maybe networking between the brain's hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex is storage area. His team has also found evidence that sleep can associate and integrate new memories together. Dr. Walker will be in conversation with k a [00:26:30] l w reporter Amy Standen. Tickets for the February 27th event can be found online@calacademy.org Speaker 6: Berkeley Professor Alex Philip Pinko is speaking at the Commonwealth about dark energy and the runaway universe. We expected that the attractive force of gravity would slow down the rate at which the university is expanding, but observations of very distant exploding stars known as Supernova show that the expansion rate is actually speeding up the universe seems [00:27:00] to be dominated by a repulsive dark energy. An Idea Albert Einstein had suggested in 1917 the renounced in 1929 as his biggest blender. The physical origin and nature of dark energy is probably the most important unsolved problem in all of physics. This event will be Thursday, February 28th at five 30 there will be a networking reception followed by the program at six the cost is $20 $8 for Commonwealth members [00:27:30] or $7 for students with valid id. Visit Commonwealth club.org for more info now to news stories presented by Renee and Rick, Speaker 7: a UC Berkeley student team has made it into the final rounds of the Disney sponsored design competition known as imaginations. The competition challenges students to design a Disney experience for the residents of their chosen city. The student team, Tiffany, you on, Catherine Moore and Andrew Linn designed a green robot [00:28:00] food truck called Sammy the students do on Berkeley's reputation as an environmentally friendly city to create Sammy who comes equipped with solar panels and a self cultivating garden. Disney has praised the projects collaborative nature, which incorporates design aspects from each student's major. The students are now presenting their project at Disney headquarters along with five other teams from across the country. Speaker 6: Last Friday, February 16th you may have seen a large fireball in the night sky [00:28:30] over the bay area. Jonathan Bregman of the Chabot Space and science center in Oakland told The Washington Post that meteors that streak through the sky are a very common occurrence. What is uncommon is that it's so close to where people are living. Bregman also noted that 15,000 tons of debris from asteroids enter the earth's atmosphere every year. Usually these things break up into small pieces and are difficult to find. This event was ours. After the 200 foot asteroid named 2012 [00:29:00] d a 14 came within 18,000 miles of earth and after the Valentine's Day, media exploded over Russia and drain more than a thousand people. That media was the largest to hit the earth in more than a century streaking through the atmosphere at supersonic speeds, it created a loud shockwave that broke glass. Scientists estimate that it was about 15 meters across and 7,000 metric tons. Despite this massive size it was undetected until it hit the atmosphere. [00:29:30] Music heard during the show is by Scott and David from his album folk and acoustic released under a creative Commons license 3.0 attributional. Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to spectrum. If you have comments about the show, please send them to us via email. Our email address is spectrum dot k a l x@yahoo.com join us in two weeks at this same time. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In part 2, Michael Eisen discusses the Public Library of Science, his position on GMOs and a labeling strategy. Eisen is Associate Professor of Genetics, Genomics, and Development in UC Berkeley's Dept. of Molecular Biology and an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.TranscriptSpeaker 1: Spectrum's next Speaker 2: [inaudible].Speaker 1: Welcome to spectrum the science and technology show on k a l x Berkeley, a biweekly 30 minute program [00:00:30] bringing you interviews featuring bay area scientists and technologists as well as a calendar of local events and news. Speaker 3: My name is Brad Swift. I'm the host of spectrum. Today we are presenting part two of our two part interview with Michael Isen and associate professor of genetics genomics in development in UC Berkeley's department of molecular biology. In part one Michael talked about his research of gene regulation this week. Michael explains [00:01:00] the Public Library of science, his feelings on labeling of GMOs in food as well as intellectual property science outreach and science funding. Enjoy the interview. I wanted to talk about the Public Library of science if you were a cofounder of. Yeah, and are you still involved with that? Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm on the board. I've still very actively involved in trying to shape its future and in general in the future of science publishing. Speaker 3: And so can you talk about its business model and how it's changing publishing? Speaker 4: [00:01:30] Sure. The basic idea is that science publishing, it's been around for as long as science has been an endeavor from the 17th century. Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, all these guys were sort of inventing science as we currently know it. And Science as a enterprise obviously requires that scientists communicate with each other and since time immemorial in science, we've had journaled, Francis Bacon, other scientists that 17th century started at seedings of the Royal Society. Right? And for 330 [00:02:00] years or so after they started these journals, they were using the only technology available to them at the time, which was print publishing and a lot of things that follow from the way scientific publishing was structured follow intrinsically from the limitations and features of that printed journal. And as an economic model, the only model that makes sense is for the end users to pay for the first subscription. And you know, there's problems with that. Speaker 4: Only people who [00:02:30] can afford the subscriptions can get access to the scientific literature and so forth. They follow from an intrinsic limitation of a medium. Now in the nineties 1990s that all changed, right? The Internet came along and science was amongst the first groups of people to embrace the Internet, and by the sort of mid to late 1990s basically every scientific journal that existed was online and publishing and electronic edition and increasingly going into their archives and digitizing their, their archives, so forth, so that [00:03:00] by 2000 you now could have had access to a large fraction of the tire published record of scientists. Such an amazing thing to be able to do that, but insanely the business model behind scientific publishing didn't change at all. So publishers who had all these subscriptions, now we're no longer selling print journals or decreasingly selling printed journals. They were just selling access to published material in a database and yet they didn't know innovation and the business [00:03:30] model at all. Speaker 4: They just simply charged people for accessing their database just like they'd been charging people to mail them copies. There was no longer any technical or economic reason why the whole universe couldn't have had immediate free access to the published scientific literature. The only reason that you or anybody else in the world didn't have immediate access to anything published in medicine or science or whatever was that the publishers then let them, so plus and the whole industry of open access publishing around [00:04:00] it. The basic idea is publishers do and have provided an important service and they should be paid for the service they provide, but that as soon as they're done, as soon as the publisher's hands are off the paper, it's freely available to everybody, not just to read, but to use and do with whatever to basically place the scientific literature into the public domain. Speaker 4: Where it belong. Science is a public venture, not exclusively, but for the most part funded by either the federal government, state governments or by public minded foundations. And the idea that [00:04:30] the end product of that investment is the property of publishers is insane and it's a huge impediment to the way science works and to the ability of the public to benefit from scientific information. And so plus has been trying to pull the rug out from underneath this subscription based business model by creating journals that use this alternative business model that are now quite successful plus as a journal plus one which is now the biggest biomedical research journal on the planet. Still only publishes a couple percent [00:05:00] of the total because there's a ton of journals out there, but it's big, it's successful, it's growing. Lots of other publishers are starting to switch not just because of it's a successful business, but because of the pressure from the public pressure from the government. Speaker 4: The NIH now requires that people make papers that are funded by NIH research freely available within a year after publication. Things are moving in the right direction and I think the insanity of a world in which the output of publicly funded publicly minded science is privately owned by people who had nothing to do with [00:05:30] a generation of the science in the first place is, it's not quite over, but it is. The writing's on the wall today. Let's go ahead and there was a bit of pushback on that in the, in the congress. What's the state of that? Is that so it's all a lot of pushback because the publishers, it's an incredibly lucrative business that profit margins for Elsevier and other big commercial publishers exceed those of apple and other sort of paragons of highly profitable businesses. When you have a company that's making $1 billion profit off of the public back [00:06:00] and they see a simple legislative solution to avoiding the problem, I think it's a natural instinct on their part to just try to write a law and you know, basically what happened was someone from their district who has a company in their district who gives them lots of money, writes a bill, gives it to them and says, Hey, could you introduce this?Speaker 4: We have a huge problem. These, you know, radical crazies from Berkeley are trying to undermine our entire business model and to lose jobs, blah, blah, blah. They get this bill introduced and there's non-trivial risk that this kind of things would pass [00:06:30] because they've managed to align themselves with a stronger force in Congress. The pro copyright lobby, they've managed to basically convinced them that this issue with scientific publishing is scientists want to steal publishers content. Just like college kids want to steal music from, you know, musicians the, and so there was a nontrivial risk that this was gonna pass and this is the second time it's been introduced. So fortunately it's very easy to say, look, the taxpayers paid for this stuff. You really think it's right for, you know, somebody who just got diagnosed [00:07:00] with some terrible disease to not have access to information that they paid for. Speaker 4: The publishers lose this every time this becomes a public fight, they're not in a winning path. And so I expect it to happen again, but just like this last time, I don't think they're gonna win. More people in Congress are on our side and paying attention than there are on Elsevier side or those publishers mostly private? Or are they publicly, I mean, they're corporations. I mean, yeah, they're mostly public corporations. So Elsevier is a big publicly traded corporation, but they're mostly from the Netherlands and [00:07:30] London. There's a bunch of big companies, but interestingly we've had as much problem historically with nonprofits, scientific societies, the societies themselves and make a lot of money on their journals. A lot of them do and it's put them in a kind of compromise position where their revenues from their journals are so important to their overall financial stability that they behave like commercial publishers. Speaker 4: It's not just big companies, any established publisher who makes a lot of money on publishing. This is sort of intrinsically compromised I think in this endeavor. [00:08:00] So the next sorta thing Blas is trying to do is to switch to a world in which publishing becomes almost instantaneous, still takes nine months or so on average for most works to go from when an author's ready to share it with the public to when it's actually publicly available, even if the journal is freely accessible. And so there's still a lot wrong with the waste. Scientists communicate with each other and with the public that this is not a close up shop. Once we win this open access battle, it's just the beginning. And this doesn't really conflict with intellectual property rights and things like that. [00:08:30] The idea of open science is really just sharing the information. The intellectual property is independent of how openly accessible the publication is. Speaker 4: On the other hand, I also think that the intellectual property stuff is bad. I've always believed that if you're getting money from the federal government, that the intellectual property you develop should not belong to you. It should be in the public domain, and I think that there's a lot of corruption of the way people behave in science that stems from the personal pressure as well as the pressure from the institutions to turn every idea, every little thing [00:09:00] they generate in the lab into a commodity, and I think it's makes science work poorly, but this is happening and so it doesn't benefit society to have academic, publicly funded research turn into privately held intellectual property. It inhibits the commercialization of those ideas that inhibits the broader use of ideas. Plenty of studies have shown this is generally cost more money to manage this whole intellectual property thing than the system benefits. Speaker 4: At the end of the day, very few universities profit from their intellectual property effort. [00:09:30] Mostly they spend a lot of money on lawyers and systems and they don't have the, you know, cloning patent or whatever it is. But if your interest is in the broader functioning of science and in the broader exposure to the public to the benefits of scientific research, you have to think that this stuff should just go right into the public domain where people want to commercialize it. They can, they just don't own any exclusive right to use it. And I think making it all pre competitive is by far the best thing to do. So while publishing itself to answer the question directly is not a [00:10:00] threatened virtual property. If I could figure out a way to make it so I would do stuff cause I think it's a very, very bad thing that publicly funded scientists, people at University of California that their stuff doesn't just belong to the public. Speaker 5: This is spectrum on KALX Berkeley today. Michael Isen, an associate professor at UC Berkeley reflects on the prop 37 campaign and GMO labeling on food. Speaker 3: Another issue [00:10:30] that involves the public a lot is the interest in GMOs in food. How would you like to see that debate transformed? Having just been through the the election cycle here in California where we had that propositionSpeaker 4: right. As you know, I was very, very much opposed to prop 37 and I think mostly because the campaign against genetically modified organisms was predicated on an ignorance of how the technology works and I felt a fear sort [00:11:00] of of science that the problem for most people was that science was involved in food and there's so many problems with that point of view that it's hard to know where to start. First of all, the reasons why I was particularly opposed to this initiative was that the backers were willfully distorting the science spreading the idea that GMOs were intrinsically dangerous, basically, that the public would benefit from having the wrong knowledge about GMOs, which is what I really felt like they were pushing some. Most scientists look at this and think what GMOs are doing [00:11:30] is so different than what we've done for thousands of years and selective breeding of crop. Speaker 4: The idea that the food we eat is in some natural state is a fallacy. Compare corn to its ancestor teosinte. You compare the tomato you buy in the supermarket to the wild slant islands, the person come. None of these things we eat. Look anything remotely like what you found in the wild. They were transformed by centuries of selective breeding and crossing and all sorts of other genetic techniques. Those are the tools of genetics that genetics has just gotten [00:12:00] better and we can do these things in a different way and yes, genetic modification is not identical, but there's nothing intrinsically weird or intrinsically dangerous about moving genes from one species to another. Putting synthetic genes into a plan. It could be, it's not intrinsically safe either, but the attitude that people seem to take is one of the food we have now is in a natural, untainted state and that the second scientist put their hands on it. Speaker 4: All of a sudden it becomes a dangerous threat, but I also think the industry has been stupid in my [00:12:30] mind and has caused a lot of this problem by basically being secret about it. For me it was sort of a lose lose situation in that neither side of that fight was actually interested in the public understanding the science. So you had a ballot measure from my mind in which more or less everybody involved was trying to promote public ignorance about an issue and it's a struggle. I don't know what the right exact solution is to achieve what I think we really need to do, which is to have the public have a, an understanding of the technology, not a detailed understanding [00:13:00] about what enzymes are used to move plans to do you know, why it exists, how it exists, how it works, what people are doing, why it will benefit them or why could benefit them in the long run and so that they understand it and can weigh the benefits and costs in a rational way. Speaker 4: Not in a rational way. I would love to see the food producers label their food, not with a huge thing on the front that says caution contain genetically modified ingredients, but with a label on back that says, here's where the seeds, the crops that went into this food come [00:13:30] from. Maybe there's not enough room on the label of every plant to give a comprehensive thing, but we know everybody's got a cell phone and a QR reader. Now. It's not impossible to imagine that every food had a little QR code on the back that you could scan and would say, here are the varieties that were used in the food. Some of them are genetically modified and here's why they were genetically modified and here's what benefit accrues from that genetic modification. Here's why you shouldn't be worried about it. I just think somehow we need to get the public more engaged in the, an understanding [00:14:00] of where food comes from, how it's grown, and what the rationale behind this process is so that they're rational actors in the process. Speaker 4: I mean, that's all. I mean, most scientists really want out of this. It's not so much to dictate that the public make particular decisions about science so that we all have our own biases about these things, but that that lack of understanding of the public about these issues and even very simple things like the simple fact that the food we eat has been subjected to genetics and that better education about simple [00:14:30] scientific things like that would make these debates focus on things that actually should be in the public debate, like part of the companies that are using genetically modified crops, exploiting intellectual property in ways that's bad for the public. It certainly seems like in many cases they do. Should we be developing genetically modified crop who basically resulted in increased herbicide use. Those are issues that are worth discussing, but they have to be discussed in a context where people understand what you're talking about and they don't think, oh my God, there's an insecticide [00:15:00] in my corn and everybody's going to die. Speaker 4: And so if I had an easy solution to that problem, we would implement it, but I can recognize when something is not going to achieve it. And I think scaring everybody into thinking that genetic modification is a horrible, dangerous technology that needs to be regulated by the government and some kind of special way was not going to achieve that. Isn't that sort of a difficulty with science in general that oftentimes it gets out in front of the population and presents it with quandaries that it can't grasp and it boils down to fear? [00:15:30] Yeah, I think this is true. This is a lot of this happening with human genetics and things like that. There's plenty of examples of where the way people are used to thinking about things is threatened in some ways or challenged by new science, and I think it's a constant challenge to the scientific community to try to make sure that it doesn't, not so much to make sure that it doesn't get ahead of the public. Speaker 4: That's fine. That's what we're paid to do. Right. But that in doing so, we grapple with the challenge of educating the public [00:16:00] about what we're doing and why and how it's going to benefit them, and it's never going to be completely successful. But I do think that the scientific community is as much to blame as anybody for not having engaged in these issues repeatedly and not having spent it's capital to some extent earning the trust of the public and things like this. You see it with human genetics and probably more acutely than anything with global warming where at some deep level the problem is would an insufficient number of people in the public trust scientists to convey. So what's important [00:16:30] about their understanding of the universe and say they trust them when you do surveys, but it's clear that that trust can be easily undermined with the right kind of PR, right? Speaker 4: It was easy to undermine it from the yes on 37 crowd was easy to undermine scientists as all being self interested somehow all we're all involved in making GMOs and therefore were just shells from Monsanto at some deep level. And though it's absurd and it's easy from the right to say, well scientists, you know, there are a bunch of crazy lefties who just [00:17:00] want us all to be environmentalist's and don't have any care about business. Say these, the public support science. But it's a thin support and it's a thin support because the scientific community hasn't really engaged the public in trying to understand what we're doing and you know, sure, there's plenty of good scientists who are trying to do that, but it certainly have to look at it as a general failure. You know, in terms of scientific literacy in this country. And it bites us all the times in small ways like prop 37 and in big ways like global warming Speaker 5: spectrum is on k a l x Berkeley alternating Fridays. [00:17:30] Michael Eisen is our guest and in this next section Michael Talks about sciences, failure in public outreach and new trends in science funding. Speaker 4: Scientific outreach is a difficult endeavor for a lot of scientists. It doesn't really have a lot of cachet or status within the, and it's tough to fund. Yeah. All that's true. I think it's not without its rewards if fun. I mean, I like talking to the public about science, not because I get anything particular from [00:18:00] it, but just because I like what I do. I like talking about what excites me about the world. I mean, it's fun. A lot of scientists don't feel that way. They don't know they'd rather be in the lab than talking in public. But it's like a lot of things. I think that partly it's just our expectation. We don't expect as a university, as a federal government funding science, it's not considered to be part of what we expect people to do to try to get engaged in communicating. The scientists sort of viewed that there's a another layer of people who are going to be involved in communicating science who are gonna know how to talk to the scientists [00:18:30] and know how to talk to the public. Speaker 4: And there's certainly are fantastic people who do that. But I think ultimately it has to come back to scientists recognizing that it's important. Like if we can't convince the public that what we're doing is important, they're not going to keep giving us money to do it. And so it's a threat to science in every way, not just in its application, but in some practical day to day existence that the public doesn't, when they don't understand us, the scientific community should expect [00:19:00] the people who are doing research or benefiting from the system to do a better job and to take seriously the challenge of communicating it to the public. That's not to say I'm in. Lots of people do it. It's just because it's not organized because it's not expected of people because there's no systematic method for doing it. It peaks me on and he's not as effective I think as it could be if this were a big part of what scientists did and just to tie all these things together. Speaker 4: I'll point out that one of the things I would hope in the long run would happen [00:19:30] as a consequence of the public having hacks as to the scientific literature is that people would start writing papers with the public at least partially in mind when they wrote them. The stuff we do isn't that complicated. I can explain what I do. I could write papers that explained sort of what I'm doing and why and it would be a huge benefit. One of the things we've really, really failed to do is we're good at explaining facts. Here's what we know, here's what we've learned, here's the truth of the system. We're really bad at explaining the scientific method to people and I think people [00:20:00] don't know why. We know things. We know why we believe them. And I think if we were better at writing our papers, I don't expect tons of people to break down the doors and read my papers. Speaker 4: But you know, I think they're interesting and well-written and certainly there are papers that plots publishes that get a lot of public attention to anything involving dinosaurs or anything involving weird sexual practices of animals, right? So when those things are good, really good, strong science, people are looking and paying attention. And if the papers were written in a way [00:20:30] that actually engages the public and thought, well, I'm going to try to explain what I did here to the public that this would probably be the most effective thing we could do, would be to educate the public, educate our students, educate everybody about what scientists do and how we do it. Not just what we discovered, which is I think one of the major problems is focus on facts and discoveries to problem in our public communication. It's a problem in education as a problem just in general for science that we don't talk very much about how we know things, what we're doing [00:21:00] and why. Speaker 4: We just talk about what we've learned. Is there anything that I haven't asked you about that you want to hold forth on? Um, you asking some questions about science funding and about amount of money available for sciences getting tighter and tighter arts, more and more scientists. And I think we're facing a kind of big question about like what does the public want to fund in science? Part of the downside of this big data move in science has been a sort of loss [00:21:30] of appreciation for the importance of individual scientists. And I think that there's all this big science and it's true in biology. People think, well, let's just get a hundred scientists from across the country and we'll all get together and we'll do the most important experiments to do. And these are increasing tendencies for the sort of science by committee kind of way of doing things. Speaker 4: And sometimes that worked, it worked for the human genome project and so forth. But probably one of the things I worry about most in sciences with that, that we're moving away from [00:22:00] a world in which individual scientists get to pursue their own ideas. And you know, which is ultimately where the most interesting stuff usually comes from. You know, genome projects don't win Nobel prizes because their infrastructure, they're not ultimately about discoveries. And so I do worry that seduction of big science is such that funding agencies and other people think that this is a great way for them to control what happens. They're going to put tons of money into these big projects and get everybody to sign on to whatever agenda is coming from the NIH rather than from individual scientists. [00:22:30] And I think it's a struggle we're about to see reach a real head in science as less and less money is available. It's harder and harder to get individual research grants and I think we're just starting to see push back against that in the scientific community. But I don't know who will prevail. I would not like being a scientist if what I did with my days was go to committee meetings with 30 other scientists where we discussed what one experiment we were going to do, which is pieces where things are headed at least at the moment. But Michael lies and thanks very much for coming on [00:23:00] spectrum. Absolute pleasure. Speaker 5: [inaudible] now our calendar of science and technology events happening locally over the next two weeks. Rick Kaneski and Renee arou present the calendar. Speaker 4: Charles Darwin may have been born on February 12th but the fellowship of humanity is celebrating his birthday with the Darwin Day on Sunday, February 24th at 1:30 PM David Seaborg of the world [00:23:30] rainforest fund and a leading expert on evolutionary theory presents the keynote evolution today. Current state of knowledge and controversies, Nobel prize physicist George Smoot and leading expert on Darwin, Peter Hess of the national for science Speaker 6: education. We'll also talk afterwards, enjoy a potluck dinner party with the Speakers. I anticipate primordial soup. The event is at Humanist Hall Three Nine Zero 27th Street in Oakland. Visit Humanist [00:24:00] hall.net for more Info every month. Speaker 7: Nerd night holds an event that can only be described as a gratifying mixture of the discovery channel and beer. This Monday, East Bay's own February nerd night will be held at the new parkway theater. Jessica Richmond will speak about the plethora of microbial cells we play host to within our bodies and what they do there. She will explore the latest research on how our microbes correlate with obesity, anxiety, heart disease, and tooth [00:24:30] decay. We'll Fischer. We'll discuss the history, physics and some modern advances of the processes of creating machines. Finally, Guy Pyre. Zack will speak about his experience as a science planner for the curiosity rover. Nerd night will begin at 7:00 PM on February 25th as the new Parkway Theater in Oakland. The HR tickets can be purchased online at Eastbourne or night, spelled n I t e.com this February 26th the life [00:25:00] sciences divisions at the Lawrence lab in Berkeley will hold a seminar on the subject of life and death at the cellular level. Speaker 7: Denise Montell, a professor of molecular and developmental biology at UC Santa Barbara. We'll discuss her research in the area. Her lab has recently discovered a surprising reversibility of the cell suicide process known as a pop ptosis. She is now testing the hypothesis that the ability of cells to return from the brink of death, so it's to salvage cells that are difficult [00:25:30] to replace such as heart muscles or neurons in the adult brain. The seminars open to the public, although non UC Berkeley students are asked to RSVP by phone or through the lab website. The event will be held in room one for one of the Lawrence Berkeley lab building at seven one seven potter street in West Berkeley. It will begin at 4:00 PM on February 26th this Wednesday at the herps leader in San Francisco. You can learn more about your nightly slumbers. [00:26:00] Professor Matt Walker in the sleep and neuroimaging laboratory at UC Berkeley has found compelling evidence that our light dreamless stage of sleep can solidify short term memories by rewiring the architecture of the brain, burst of electrical impulses known as sleep spindles, maybe networking between the brain's hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex is storage area. His team has also found evidence that sleep can associate and integrate new memories together. Dr. Walker will be in conversation with k a [00:26:30] l w reporter Amy Standen. Tickets for the February 27th event can be found online@calacademy.org Speaker 6: Berkeley Professor Alex Philip Pinko is speaking at the Commonwealth about dark energy and the runaway universe. We expected that the attractive force of gravity would slow down the rate at which the university is expanding, but observations of very distant exploding stars known as Supernova show that the expansion rate is actually speeding up the universe seems [00:27:00] to be dominated by a repulsive dark energy. An Idea Albert Einstein had suggested in 1917 the renounced in 1929 as his biggest blender. The physical origin and nature of dark energy is probably the most important unsolved problem in all of physics. This event will be Thursday, February 28th at five 30 there will be a networking reception followed by the program at six the cost is $20 $8 for Commonwealth members [00:27:30] or $7 for students with valid id. Visit Commonwealth club.org for more info now to news stories presented by Renee and Rick, Speaker 7: a UC Berkeley student team has made it into the final rounds of the Disney sponsored design competition known as imaginations. The competition challenges students to design a Disney experience for the residents of their chosen city. The student team, Tiffany, you on, Catherine Moore and Andrew Linn designed a green robot [00:28:00] food truck called Sammy the students do on Berkeley's reputation as an environmentally friendly city to create Sammy who comes equipped with solar panels and a self cultivating garden. Disney has praised the projects collaborative nature, which incorporates design aspects from each student's major. The students are now presenting their project at Disney headquarters along with five other teams from across the country. Speaker 6: Last Friday, February 16th you may have seen a large fireball in the night sky [00:28:30] over the bay area. Jonathan Bregman of the Chabot Space and science center in Oakland told The Washington Post that meteors that streak through the sky are a very common occurrence. What is uncommon is that it's so close to where people are living. Bregman also noted that 15,000 tons of debris from asteroids enter the earth's atmosphere every year. Usually these things break up into small pieces and are difficult to find. This event was ours. After the 200 foot asteroid named 2012 [00:29:00] d a 14 came within 18,000 miles of earth and after the Valentine's Day, media exploded over Russia and drain more than a thousand people. That media was the largest to hit the earth in more than a century streaking through the atmosphere at supersonic speeds, it created a loud shockwave that broke glass. Scientists estimate that it was about 15 meters across and 7,000 metric tons. Despite this massive size it was undetected until it hit the atmosphere. [00:29:30] Music heard during the show is by Scott and David from his album folk and acoustic released under a creative Commons license 3.0 attributional. Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to spectrum. If you have comments about the show, please send them to us via email. Our email address is spectrum dot k a l x@yahoo.com join us in two weeks at this same time. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Peter and I get into some multimedia shenanigans here, or at the very least bend one of the conceits of the format. Watch out for the introduction of the first Necessary & Sufficient sound effect, and the sonic havoc wreaked … Continue reading →