Podcasts about principal investigators

One of the most exciting missions to ever journey to the outer solar system has the be the Dragonfly multi-rotor helicopter that will head to Saturn's moon Titan in 2028. The car-sized probe will arrive at that strange, frozen world in 2034, descending into the soupy, smoggy atmosphere and then taking flight before it even touches the ground! We spoke with the mission's Principal Investigator, Dr. Elizabeth "Zibi" Turtle, about the mission's origins, current progress, and what to expect in the coming years. She also took us through a narrated tour of the surface of Titan, with its hydrocarbon sand dunes and methane seas. The Dragonfly mission will be an adventure of a lifetime! Headlines: NASA's Artemis II Moon Rocket Aces New Fueling Test Boeing Starliner is Rated a "Type A" Mishap and Faces More Launch Delays Perseverance Rover Gets Instant Mars GPS-like Functionality Main Topic: NASA's Dragonfly Mission to Titan Dr. Elizabeth Turtle explains Dragonfly's origins and mission concept Why Titan is unique and somewhat akin to the primordial Earth, perfect for exploring prebiotic chemistry Dragonfly's advanced science suite and autonomous flying capability Insights from the Cassini/Huygens missions and how they are shaping Dragonfly Navigation, flight strategy, and safety planning for Titan's harsh environment Power, heating, and longevity on Titan's freezing surface Titan's dune landscape, flying conditions, and analogs to Earth Big scientific questions: methane cycle, atmospheric mysteries, and potential surprises Mission timeline, lander design, and the innovative "fly-as-you-land" arrival approach Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Dr. Elizabeth Turtle Download or subscribe to This Week in Space at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit

In Pathology of Plenty: Natural Resources in International Law (Bloomsbury 2025), Lys Kulamadayil offers a crucial examination of how international law shapes the exploitation of natural resources in post-colonial States. Kulamadayil reveals how international legal rules can be constitutive, punitive, remedial in creating the paradox of plenty in resource-rich States. The book revisits the making of foundational principles like sovereignty over natural resources and economic self-determination as applied during decolonisation; explores how humanitarian frameworks have justified extraction of public natural resources; and traces the proliferation of international treaties that protect foreign property rights. The book also zooms in on legal paradigms ranging from contract law to anti-corruption, human rights, and criminal law, arguing that these frameworks often work together to create the pathology of plenty. Through this interrogation, the book points to proposals to escape siloed ways of thinking about natural resources and embrace an intersectoral and anti-carceral thinking instead. Lys Kulamadayil is a Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione Fellow at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and the Principal Investigator of the project Law by Colour Code: Locating Race and Racism in International Law. Raghavi Viswanath is a postdoctoral researcher and teaching fellow at SOAS, University of London. Her research, supported by the Leverhulme Trust, examines how pastoralists claim grazing rights under India's Forest Rights Act 2006 and how the everyday processes of staking such claims has been impacted by the authoritarian turn in India. LinkedIn. Email:rv13@soas.ac.uk 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

In Pathology of Plenty: Natural Resources in International Law (Bloomsbury 2025), Lys Kulamadayil offers a crucial examination of how international law shapes the exploitation of natural resources in post-colonial States. Kulamadayil reveals how international legal rules can be constitutive, punitive, remedial in creating the paradox of plenty in resource-rich States. The book revisits the making of foundational principles like sovereignty over natural resources and economic self-determination as applied during decolonisation; explores how humanitarian frameworks have justified extraction of public natural resources; and traces the proliferation of international treaties that protect foreign property rights. The book also zooms in on legal paradigms ranging from contract law to anti-corruption, human rights, and criminal law, arguing that these frameworks often work together to create the pathology of plenty. Through this interrogation, the book points to proposals to escape siloed ways of thinking about natural resources and embrace an intersectoral and anti-carceral thinking instead. Lys Kulamadayil is a Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione Fellow at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and the Principal Investigator of the project Law by Colour Code: Locating Race and Racism in International Law. Raghavi Viswanath is a postdoctoral researcher and teaching fellow at SOAS, University of London. Her research, supported by the Leverhulme Trust, examines how pastoralists claim grazing rights under India's Forest Rights Act 2006 and how the everyday processes of staking such claims has been impacted by the authoritarian turn in India. LinkedIn. Email:rv13@soas.ac.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In Pathology of Plenty: Natural Resources in International Law (Bloomsbury 2025), Lys Kulamadayil offers a crucial examination of how international law shapes the exploitation of natural resources in post-colonial States. Kulamadayil reveals how international legal rules can be constitutive, punitive, remedial in creating the paradox of plenty in resource-rich States. The book revisits the making of foundational principles like sovereignty over natural resources and economic self-determination as applied during decolonisation; explores how humanitarian frameworks have justified extraction of public natural resources; and traces the proliferation of international treaties that protect foreign property rights. The book also zooms in on legal paradigms ranging from contract law to anti-corruption, human rights, and criminal law, arguing that these frameworks often work together to create the pathology of plenty. Through this interrogation, the book points to proposals to escape siloed ways of thinking about natural resources and embrace an intersectoral and anti-carceral thinking instead. Lys Kulamadayil is a Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione Fellow at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and the Principal Investigator of the project Law by Colour Code: Locating Race and Racism in International Law. Raghavi Viswanath is a postdoctoral researcher and teaching fellow at SOAS, University of London. Her research, supported by the Leverhulme Trust, examines how pastoralists claim grazing rights under India's Forest Rights Act 2006 and how the everyday processes of staking such claims has been impacted by the authoritarian turn in India. LinkedIn. Email:rv13@soas.ac.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/environmental-studies

In Pathology of Plenty: Natural Resources in International Law (Bloomsbury 2025), Lys Kulamadayil offers a crucial examination of how international law shapes the exploitation of natural resources in post-colonial States. Kulamadayil reveals how international legal rules can be constitutive, punitive, remedial in creating the paradox of plenty in resource-rich States. The book revisits the making of foundational principles like sovereignty over natural resources and economic self-determination as applied during decolonisation; explores how humanitarian frameworks have justified extraction of public natural resources; and traces the proliferation of international treaties that protect foreign property rights. The book also zooms in on legal paradigms ranging from contract law to anti-corruption, human rights, and criminal law, arguing that these frameworks often work together to create the pathology of plenty. Through this interrogation, the book points to proposals to escape siloed ways of thinking about natural resources and embrace an intersectoral and anti-carceral thinking instead. Lys Kulamadayil is a Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione Fellow at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and the Principal Investigator of the project Law by Colour Code: Locating Race and Racism in International Law. Raghavi Viswanath is a postdoctoral researcher and teaching fellow at SOAS, University of London. Her research, supported by the Leverhulme Trust, examines how pastoralists claim grazing rights under India's Forest Rights Act 2006 and how the everyday processes of staking such claims has been impacted by the authoritarian turn in India. LinkedIn. Email:rv13@soas.ac.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In Pathology of Plenty: Natural Resources in International Law (Bloomsbury 2025), Lys Kulamadayil offers a crucial examination of how international law shapes the exploitation of natural resources in post-colonial States. Kulamadayil reveals how international legal rules can be constitutive, punitive, remedial in creating the paradox of plenty in resource-rich States. The book revisits the making of foundational principles like sovereignty over natural resources and economic self-determination as applied during decolonisation; explores how humanitarian frameworks have justified extraction of public natural resources; and traces the proliferation of international treaties that protect foreign property rights. The book also zooms in on legal paradigms ranging from contract law to anti-corruption, human rights, and criminal law, arguing that these frameworks often work together to create the pathology of plenty. Through this interrogation, the book points to proposals to escape siloed ways of thinking about natural resources and embrace an intersectoral and anti-carceral thinking instead. Lys Kulamadayil is a Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione Fellow at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and the Principal Investigator of the project Law by Colour Code: Locating Race and Racism in International Law. Raghavi Viswanath is a postdoctoral researcher and teaching fellow at SOAS, University of London. Her research, supported by the Leverhulme Trust, examines how pastoralists claim grazing rights under India's Forest Rights Act 2006 and how the everyday processes of staking such claims has been impacted by the authoritarian turn in India. LinkedIn. Email:rv13@soas.ac.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kristof interviews Dr. Sarah HainesThe Indoor Microbiome is the complex, invisible world of microorganisms living within our daily surroundings, serving as the primary ecological interface through which buildings influence human biology. In this light, we are beginning to view indoor environments not merely as passive shelters, but as powerful positive health interventions that can actively shape our immune development and long-term wellbeing.Today, we are joined by Dr. Sarah Haines, Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto and Principal Investigator of the IMEE Lab, to explore the foundational framework behind this shift. We will discuss the emerging perspective of "biologically informed architectural design" and the fact that architects and interior designers don't just curate materials, they curate our basic microbial exposures and therefore our health and wellbeing. Sarah HainesProfessor Sarah Haines' interdisciplinary research integrates building science, engineering, and microbiology to analyze the impact the built environment has on human health. She uses cutting-edge microbiology techniques such as next-generation sequencing, metatranscriptomics, and bioinformatics to understand the impact of moisture on indoor environmental quality. Linking to climate change, her research explores the impact of weatherization and extreme weather events on indoor air quality, particularly in low income communities who may be at a higher risk for asthma. Her work aids in understanding indoor exposures from microorganisms and chemicals providing for a cleaner and sustainable indoor environment.TeamHosted by Kristof IrwinEdited by Nico MignardiProduced by M. Walker

In this episode, we take a deep dive into the NIHR Associate Principal Investigator (API) Scheme, exploring what it really means to step into a research role. Dr Anastasia Madenidou hosts this conversation with James Bluett, Holly Speight, Jill Firth & Tania-Elena Gudu.From a Research Delivery Network (RDN) perspective, we provide an overview of the scheme which is open to the entire MDT, highlight its purpose in developing the next generation of researchers, and signpost listeners to key API resources. We then hear directly from both sides of the experience: a mentor sharing insights on supporting and shaping emerging investigators, and an API mentee reflecting on the realities, challenges, and rewards of the programme.Whether you're considering applying, mentoring, or simply curious about how the NIHR API Scheme builds research capacity, this episode offers honest reflections, practical advice, and inspiration for your next career step.Thanks for listening to Talking Rheumatology! Join the conversation on X using #TalkingRheum or tweet us @RheumatologyUK.BSR is the UK's leading specialist medical society for rheumatology and MSK health professionals. To discover how we can support you in delivering the best care for your patients, visit our website.

While the Roman Empire conquered much of western Europe and established a powerful presence in Britain, Ireland remained beyond its grasp. But why? In this episode, I am joined by Dr Jacqueline Cahill Wilson to explore how Ireland interacted with the Roman world. It is a complex and intriguing story. Jacqueline reveals the considerable archaeological evidence that suggests Roman communities did exist in Ireland. If there was no invasion, however, this raises an obvious question: who were these people, why did they come to Ireland, and what were they doing there? Sound by Kate Dunlea. My guest on this episode is Dr Jacqueline Cahill Wilson. Originally from County Longford, she is a Research Fellow at the Royal Agricultural University in Cirencester. She holds an MA from the University of Reading and a PhD from the University of Bristol. From 2011 to 2015, she served first as Principal Investigator and later as Project Director of a major research project with the Discovery Programme in Dublin titled Late Iron Age and Roman Ireland. Her research focuses on social structures and identity in the past, and on how communities defined themselves and others through material evidence in the archaeological record. A key part of her work has involved the use of isotope geochemistry on human burials in Ireland, allowing researchers to identify where individuals originated from and challenging long held assumptions about identity and mobility in the past. Her work has consistently explored the interconnectedness of Ireland in its Iron Age with Britain and Europe under Roman control, periods that are often studied separately despite unfolding at the same time. She is currently working on a book titled Within or Without: Ireland in the Roman World, which brings together her doctoral research, the Discovery Programme project, and her subsequent research into a new historical study for a general readership. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Recorded 3rd February 2026. On Tuesday, 3 February, the Trinity Long Room Hub will host a discussion highlighting Trinity's collaboration with Boston College's McMullen Museum of Art spring 2026 exhibition, "Collaborating in Conflict: The Yeats Family and the Public Arts". The discussion will also address the Cuala Press archives and other Yeats collections held by both universities.   Short panel presentations will be given by Angela Griffith, Principal Investigator of Trinity's Cuala Press Project, along with TRIARC Visiting Research Fellow Billy Shortall, who will speak on how Cuala Press prints aimed to cultivate a positive image of Ireland. Trinity professor of English Tom Walker will speak on W.B. Yeats and the visual and applied arts. Boston College's Burns Librarian Christian Dupont will provide an overview of the Boston College exhibition and discuss Lily Yeats's embroidered Stations of the Cross displayed at the 1932 Eucharistic Congress. Laura Shanahan, Head of Research Collections at the Library of Trinity College Dublin, will moderate the discussion among panellists and the audience. Image sourced from TCD Digital Collections - Elizabeth Corbet Yeats : Cuala Press Prints - IE TCD MS 11574/18 Learn more at www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub

The sense of hearing is a finely tuned collaboration between physics and biology, transforming invisible sound waves into meaning, memory, and emotion. From the delicate mechanics of the middle ear to the neural pathways that help us localize danger, recognize voices, and enjoy music, hearing quietly shapes how we connect with the world. Yet it's also one of our most vulnerable senses—affected by aging, noise exposure, infection, and even cardiovascular health. How benign are ear pain and ringing? Is there a limit to how loud we should listen to music? And what can we do to protect this sense before silence becomes noticeable?In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Stacey Lim, AuD, PhD, CCC-A, an American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)-certified audiologist and Professor of Audiology.Dr. Lim received her BA in Communication Sciences and Disorders and German Language and Literature from Wooster College, her AuD (Doctor of Audiology) from the Northeast Ohio Au.D. Consortium at the University of Akron, and her PhD in Audiology from Kent State University. Currently, Dr. Lim is a Professor of Audiology at Central Michigan University, holds a Certificate of Clinical Competence in Audiology (CCC-A) from ASHA, and is a researcher focused on cochlear implants and aural rehabilitation, informed by her personal experience of bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss since birth. Previously, Dr. Lim was a Fulbright Scholar at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, studying hearing loss in Germany, a co-Principal Investigator in March of Dimes research on cognitive and linguistic skills related to hearing loss, and the Chapter President at the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.Dr. Lim is also a co-curator of (dis)ABLED BEAUTY, a museum exhibition featuring creatively designed adaptive devices, assistive devices, and apparel for people with disabilities.Follow Friends of Franz Podcast: Website, Instagram, FacebookFollow Christian Franz (Host): Instagram, YouTube

The Interdisciplinary Meeting of Antimicrobial Resistance and Innovation has launched! The first version of IMARI brought together researchers, clinicians, industry leaders and policymakers to address one of the greatest challenges in modern medicine: antimicrobial resistance" Check the highlights at IMARI.org and prepare for IMARI 2017 from January 27-29, 2027! The inaugural amazing conference took place in Las Vegas. This is the forst time that ASM and IDSA collaborate together in a scientific meeting. One of the sessions involved an unprecedent collaboration between two journals AAC and JID published by each society. To celebrate this achievement we had a session of the best AMR papers of 2025 for AAC and JID. This session will be presented here as apart of our series.  Watch this episode: https://youtu.be/XRYl7863z34 Objectives: - Review the best papers and topics of AMR in 2025 form AAC and JID. - Discuss the context of each finding and contributions to the AMR community - Elaborate on the implications for AMR, novelties and how the field is advancing. Guests:  - Ayesha Khan, Ph.D.  Assistant Professor, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine and Associate Director, Division of Clinical Microbiology Biomedical & Translational Research Track. Principal Investigator, UC3P UCI Prime Pre-Health Pathways Program. - Madison Stellfox, M.D. Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.  Links:  Links: AAC A microbiological and structural analysis of the interplay between sulbactam/durlobactam and imipenem against penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) of Acinetobacter spp. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01627-24 JID Ampicillin/Sulbactam in Combination with Ceftazidime/Avibactam Against Metallo-β-Lactamase-Producing Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: A Genomics-Informed Mechanism-based model https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaf567 AAC Advancements in the fight against globally distributed OXA-48 carbapenemase: evaluating the new generation of carbapenemase inhibitors https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01614-24 JID Daptomycin-Loaded Nanocarriers Facilitate Synergistic Killing of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus via Lipid-Mediated Interactions and Targeting https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaf492 AAC Amoxicillin-non-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae causing invasive pneumonia: serotypes, clones, and clinical impact https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00237-25 JID Blood Cultures Contain Populations of Genetically Diverse Candida albicans Strains that May Differ in Echinocandin Tolerance and Fitness https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaf495 AAC Antibiofilm activity of manogepix, ibrexafungerp, amphotericin B, rezafungin, and caspofungin against Candida spp. biofilms of reference and clinical strains https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.00137-25 JID Engineered Mycobacteriophage TM4::GeNL Rapidly Determines Bedaquiline, Pretomanid, Linezolid, Rifampicin, and Clofazimine Sensitivity in Mycobacterium tuberculosis Clinical Isolates https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae438 AAC Emergence of antibiotic-specific Mycobacterium tuberculosis phenotypes during prolonged treatment of mice https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01310-24 JID The Changing Paradigm in Infectious Diseases—Host-Directed Medicine: Implications for the Next Generation of ID Physicians https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaf497 JID Triggering Toll-Like Receptor 5 Signaling During Pneumococcal Superinfection Prevents the Selection of Antibiotic Resistance https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae239 IMARI Conference This episode is brought to you by the Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy journal available at https://asm.org/aac.  If you plan to publish in AAC, ASM Members get up to 50% off publishing fees. Visit https://asm.org/joinasm to sign up. Visit https://asm.org/aac to browse issues and/or submit a manuscript. Follow Cesar on twitter at https://twitter.com/SuperBugDoc for AAC updates. 

There aren't many things that prompt widespread agreement from people on all sides of the various educational debates. But whatever your educational stripes, young people becoming better critical thinkers usually gets unanimous support. And, arguably, it's being recognised as increasingly important in a world full of AI-generated content and chatbots pretending to be your friend! So I was completely fascinated when I discovered the work of my guests this week, who, as professors of Philosophy, are exploring the often overlooked embodied process of what it feels like to engage in critical thinking and how that process gets shaped by our experiences and inspirations. The fact that thinking comes from somewhere, is very often forgotten in the encouragement of our students to develop their "analytical", "rational" and "logical" skills in pursuit of objectivity. This applies as much in sciences and maths as it does in other humanities subjects like philosophy. And it has major implications for how we teach critical thinking in sophisticated ways aligned with the latest cognitive science, rather than perpetuating the narrow idea that it is simply a dispassionate logical set of computations (which we're clearly seeing the LLMs are much better at than us squishy humans who care about stuff!).Donata Schoeller - https://www.donataschoeller.com/ - is Research Professor, Philosophy, at the University of Iceland, Iceland and Associate Professor at the University of Koblenz. She is a Principal Investigator, and Conceptual Director of “Freedom to make sense: Embodied, experiential Inquiry and Research,” and the Academic Director of the European Erasmus programmes Training Embodied Critical Thinking and Understanding. She has researched and published extensively on embodied thinking, while developing international and interdisciplinary research and training cooperations on the topic. Recent publications: “Thinking at the edge in the context of embodied critical thinking: Finding words for the felt dimension of thinking within research,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 2022, Close Talking: Erleben zu Sprache bringen, 2019, Saying What We Mean, with Ed Casey, 2017, Thinking Thinking, with Vera Saller, 2016.Sigríður (Sigga) Þorgeirsdóttir - https://english.hi.is/staff/sigrthor - is a professor of philosophy at the University of Iceland. She is Principal Investigator of the “Freedom to make sense: Embodied, experiential Inquiry and Research” project, and one of the leaders of the “Training Embodied Critical Thinking and Understanding” training programme. She specialises in the philosophy of the body, the philosophy of the environment, the philosophy of Nietzsche, feminist philosophy, and women in the history of philosophy. She is Chair of the Committee on gender issues of International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP) that sponsors the World Congress of Philosophy.Useful Links:Training Embodied Critical Thinking and Understanding (TECTU) 2024-2026: https://www.trainingect.com/Freedom to Make Sense - Center of embodied, experiential and mindful research and education: https://makesense.hi.is/Practicing Embodied Thinking in Research and LearningEdited By Donata Schoeller, Sigridur Thorgeirsdottir, Greg Walkerden: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003397939/practicing-embodied-thinking-research-learning-donata-schoeller-sigridur-thorgeirsdottir-greg-walkerden

She's the patron saint of poets, healers, and blacksmiths. Her feast day marks the start of spring, but is St. Brigid of Ireland a Christian saint, a pagan goddess reborn, or a powerful symbol we've shaped over centuries? To help us unravel this mystery, we're joined by historian Dr. Niamh Wycherley. We'll dig into the earliest evidence, decode the famous legends, and ask what Brigid's complex legacy tells us about Irish spirituality—past and present. This is an exploration of how one extraordinary figure can hold so many worlds within her story.Dr Niamh Wycherley is Assistant Professor in Maynooth University. She hosts The Medieval Irish History Podcast and is the Principal Investigator of the Research project 'Power and Patronage in Medieval Ireland: Clonard from the sixth to twelfth centuries' and contributes regularly to RTÉ Brainstorm and television programmes such as the RTÉ 1 documentary Finding Brigid (with Siobhán McSweeney) and was historical consultant on RTÉ's Blindboy: the Land of Slaves and Scholars.If you would like to support the podcast, please Buy us a Coffee, share the episode on social media or drop us a message to purchase one of our Coffee Tumblrs.Instagram: @soulbrewpodcastFacebook: @soulbrewpodcastTik Tok: @soulbrewpodcastX/ Twitter: @soulrewpodcastEmail: soulbrewpodcast@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Scientific Sense ® by Gill Eapen: Prof. Jacqueline Gottlieb is Professor of Neuroscience and Principal Investigator at Columbia University's Zuckerman Institute. She studies the mechanisms that underlie the brain's higher cognitive functions, including decision making, memory, and attention. Her interest is in how the brain gathers the evidence it needs — and ignores what it doesn't — during everyday tasks and during special states such as curiosity. Please subscribe to this channel:https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1

What happens when we move beyond oversimplified cell cultures and truly embrace the complexity of human biology? In this episode of the Smart Biotech Scientist Podcast, we explore how advanced 3D cell models are reshaping preclinical research—recreating human tissue microenvironments to better understand tumors, immunotherapies, and gene and cell therapies.David's guest is Catarina Brito, Principal Investigator at ITQB NOVA and Head of the Advanced Cell Models Laboratory at iBET and ITQB NOVA (Portugal). Her work bridges academia and industry through iBET, a unique partnering organization that integrates cell engineering, bioprocessing, and translational modeling.Catarina's pioneering models help both pharma leaders and startups predict drug resistance and immunogenicity earlier and more reliably, accelerating the path to safer, more effective therapies—well before clinical trials begin.Topics discussed:Understanding the contribution of stromal and immune cells to therapy outcomes in tumor microenvironments (03:42)Studying immune responses to gene therapy vectors with advanced neural models (04:31)Combining multi-omics and spatial data with AI for predictive biology and patient-specific digital twins (05:16)Catarina's advice: Start simple, let the biological question dictate model design, and avoid premature overengineering (06:53)Importance of reproducibility, process controls, and standardization in advanced models (08:10)How academic-industry collaborations drive model development, scalability, and real-world relevance (08:42)Common pitfalls: Overengineering, poor cell source selection, insufficient system validation (11:03)Next steps for precision medicine and translational research using advanced cell models (13:08)Want to know how leading scientists make advanced cell models actionable and collaborative for pharma breakthroughs? Tune in for practical strategies, real-world collaborations, and pitfalls to avoid as you scale your own translational research.Connect with Catarina Brito:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/catarina-brito-ibetAdvanced Cell Models Lab – iBET: www.ibet.pt/laboratories/advanced-cell-models-labNext step:Need fast CMC guidance? → Get rapid CMC decision support hereSupport the show

What if the failure rate in clinical trials isn't about picking the wrong drug candidates—but about testing them in the wrong models?When you move cells from a 2D culture plate into a bioreactor, you're not simply scaling volume. You're fundamentally changing the biological context. Cell density shifts. Mass transfer dynamics evolve. Mechanical cues emerge. The cells sense these changes and respond—often in ways that derail strategies built on oversimplified assumptions.Most preclinical research still relies on flat plastic surfaces and animal models that miss critical aspects of human biology. The result? Therapeutics fail late in development because the models couldn't predict how human tissues would actually respond.In this episode, David Brühlmann speaks with Catarina Brito, Principal Investigator at ITQB NOVA and Head of the Advanced Cell Models Laboratory at iBET and ITQB NOVA in Portugal. Catarina's career-defining insight came early: studying glycan-protein interactions in murine versus human cells revealed that species differences weren't just nuances—they were fundamental gaps that could mislead entire research programs.Catarina and her team have developed neural, liver, and tumor models that capture the multicellular complexity and microenvironmental cues that 2D cultures cannot replicate. Her work creates preclinical models sophisticated enough to predict human responses while remaining scalable for drug development workflows.Highlights of the episode:Limitations of traditional 2D cell cultures and animal models in capturing realistic tissue behavior and therapeutic responses (06:27)Catarina Brito's personal scientific journey: from discovering model limitations to pioneering 3D culture systems in neural and liver tissues (04:19)How advanced 3D models recreate cell-to-cell interactions, tissue-specific microenvironments, diffusion gradients, and multicellular complexity (10:35)Regulatory movements toward reducing animal models, and the challenge of validating advanced alternatives for systemic biology studies (09:10)Key differences in designing bioreactors for various cell types, with practical examples from liver and neural models (15:16)The impact of scalable, robust 3D models on accelerating drug development and improving selection of candidate therapies (17:22)Key Takeaway:Bioprocess development starts when you choose the model that validates your therapeutic approach. If that model can't capture the biology that matters, every downstream optimization is built on a flawed foundation.In Part 2, Catarina reveals how 3D tumor microenvironments expose drug resistance mechanisms invisible in 2D cultures, and her vision for AI-powered digital twins enabling personalized medicine.Subscribe & Review:If this conversation changed how you think about preclinical model selection, leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Your reviews help other biotech scientists discover these insights.For more CMC development insights, visit smartbiotechscientist.com.Connect with Catarina Brito:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/catarina-brito-ibetAdvanced Cell Models Lab – iBET: www.ibet.pt/laboratories/advanced-cell-models-labNext step:Need fast CMC guidance? → Get rapid CMC decision support hereSupport the show

World's first research-backed intervention reduces harmful engagement with AI-generated explicit imagery. As the Grok AI-undressing controversy grows, researchers say user education must complement regulation and legislation. All to discuss with Dr Gillian Murphy, UCC School of Applied Psychology and research project Principal Investigator.

Ayana Jordan, MD, PhD, discusses how precision psychiatry must expand beyond biology to address the social, cultural, and structural realities shaping addiction and mental health care for historically underrepresented patients. The conversation explores how trauma, poverty, housing instability, health literacy, and stigma interact with substance use and serious mental illness—and why traditional clinic-based models often fail to meet patients where they are.Dr. Jordan describes the work of the Jordan Wellness Collaborative, including partnerships that integrate addiction treatment into primary care, community settings, and faith-based institutions. She explains how peer facilitators, housing support, and trusted community spaces can dramatically improve engagement, retention, and outcomes. Looking ahead, she reflects on how emerging tools—from AI-supported care models to novel treatments for addiction—may further transform access and equity in psychiatric care.Ayana Jordan, MD, PhD, is the Barbara Wilson Professor of Psychiatry at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Principal Investigator of the Jordan Wellness Collaborative.TOPICSExpanding precision psychiatry beyond biological modelsStructural barriers to care: housing, literacy, and stigmaAddiction treatment for historically underrepresented communitiesIntegrating care into primary care, community, and faith-based settingsThe role of peer facilitators and lived experience in treatmentTrust, safety, and engagement for patients with complex needsFuture directions: AI, novel addiction treatments, and workforce trainingWatch Insights on Psychiatry on YouTubeSenior Producer: Jon Earle

In the past decade there has been little progress in lowering malaria cases, with over half a million people still dying from the mosquito-borne disease every year. We look at the big ideas and innovations of the future that could help us eliminate malaria once and for all. What would happen if we got rid of the insect responsible for spreading the malaria parasite? Claudia heads to Imperial College London where she is joined by Dr Federica Bernardini and their 120 colonies of mosquitos to find out how revolutionary genetic technologies are aiming to do just that.Picking up on Imperial's work in the field is Principal Investigator at Target Malaria in Uganda, Dr Jonathan Kayondo. His job is to understand what it would mean to release these modified mosquitos into the wild.Looking at the existing tools that need levelling up is Dr Rob Moon, from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and Dr James Tibenderana, Chief Executive at the Malaria Consortium. Alongside Claudia they look at the next generation of vaccines and the importance of accessible rapid diagnostic tests.But is all this going to be enough to eliminate malaria? Presenter: Claudia Hammond Producer: Katie Tomsett

S7 E6: Disabilities & Accessibility w/Dr. Luis Pérez and Mia LaudatoIn this episode, Alexis and Gerald have an in depth discussion about the topic of disabilities and accessibility with two experts in the field of education and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) - Dr. Luis Perez and Mia Laudato. We get into many topics. We start by discussing the way in which accessibility is such a prominent aspect of society already and is beneficial to those with and without disabilities. The conversation attempts to pull in listeners who may not realize that most of us in our elderly years are likely to have some kind of disability and in need of support to access aspects of society and daily living. Then, we discuss the way in which systems can be viewed as aiming to support individuals with disabilities as a way to help everyone to both contribute and also to feel a sense of belonging. Further, the difference between ‘helping' versus ‘supporting' by reducing barriers is discussed as a way to shift the frame around what it means to address the needs of those with disabilities. Lastly, we discuss the way in which language is used regarding disabilities, including how language is perceived, how it evolves, and how we can think more openly and reflectively about the language we use and also on the effectiveness of how we embrace inclusion.Meet Mia Laudato, MSEd, a passionate leader in inclusive education and co-director of CITES—the Center on Inclusive Technology and Education Systems at CAST. With over 25 years of experience, she's dedicated to making sure every learner—especially those with complex needs—has access to equitable, high-quality education. Mia's expertise in assistive technology, Universal Design for Learning, and inclusive design has taken her around the world as a speaker and change-maker. As a teacher from Pre-K to college, she brings humor, heart, and a few “punny” jokes to everything she does. When she's not transforming systems, you'll find her kayaking, doing yoga, or laughing and sharing stories over good food with family and friends.Dr. Luis Pérez is Senior Director of Disability and Accessibility CAST and the Principal Investigator for CITES, but the views shared on this podcast episode are all his own. He holds a doctorate in special education and a master's degree in instructional technology from the University of South Florida. Luis was recognized with an International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Making It Happen! Award in 2020. Dr. Pérez has published three books on accessibility, mobile learning and UDL: Mobile Learning for All (Corwin Press), Dive into UDL (ISTE) and Learning on the Go (CAST Publishing). He currently serves as an AT and Workplace strand advisor for the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA).https://luisperezonline.comSummaryHow Accessibility affects SocietyBelonging and Contribution for AllThe Difference between Help and SupportsPerception and Use of LanguageThe Process of Integrating UDLThe ReidConnect-Ed Podcast is hosted by @AlexisAnnReid and Dr. Gerald Reid, produced by @CyberSoundRecordingStudios, and original music is written and recorded by Gerald Reid (www.Jerapy.com) @MusicJerapy.*Please note that different practitioners may have different opinions- this is our perspective and is intended to educate you on what may be possible.Show notes & Transcripts: https://reidconnect.com/reid-connect-ed-podcastBe Curious. Be Open. Be Well.

The human heart is a tireless biomechanical marvel—an exquisitely engineered pump powered by both mechanical precision and an intrinsic electrical system, beating over 100,000 times a day to sustain life. But like any machine, despite having an electrical mind of its own, it is not infallible—when its rhythm drifts or its mechanics strain, the impact is felt far beyond the chest. From more complex cases like heart failure and detrimental arrhythmias to the more-known feared heart attack caused by high cholesterol, it leads to questions — What can we do to safeguard the health of our heart? What should one do when they experience chest pain? And how do we learn to listen to the heart's warning signs before they become life-altering events?In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Diala Steitieh, MD, a board-certified cardiologist and assistant professor of clinical medicine, focusing on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and sports cardiology, based in New York City.Dr. Steitieh received her MD from Weill Cornell Medicine in Qatar and completed her Internal Medicine Residency and Cardiovascular Disease Fellowship at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College. Currently, Dr. Steitieh serves as an Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine and Principal Investigator of clinical studies at Weill Cornell Medical College and the Director of the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Program in the Division of Cardiology at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center.Dr. Steitieh has been featured on Yahoo!, SELF Magazine, Qatar Tribune, MSN, TCTMD, and The Peninsula Qatar.Follow Friends of Franz Podcast: Website, Instagram, FacebookFollow Christian Franz (Host): Instagram, YouTube

My guest today on the Online for Authors podcast is Danny Limny-Schmitt, author of the book 10 Little Rules for Understanding America. Danny works at NREL leading prize competitions for entrepreneurs and students in the American-Made Challenges program, while also serving as the Principal Investigator of the U.S. Utility Rate Database.   In his previous roles at NREL and work in graduate school, he led and supported urban science and sustainable transportation research. He seeks to integrate his skills in the geospatial sciences, research in urban environments, and entrepreneurial networks to build a career focused on sustainability in the energy and/or transportation sectors.   He has an enduring interest in better understanding the spatial dimensions of the current economic and sociopolitical challenges, and has traveled to all 3,144 counties in the United States in an attempt to better understand the country he calls home.   In my book review, I stated 10 Little Rules for Understanding America is an inspirational memoir you won't want to miss. Danny has visited every county in the United States (3,000+) including those found in Alaska and Hawaii! Why? He wanted to explore what made America tick. In the process, he learned a lot about how where a person lives affects what they believe about politics, social norms, religion, and more.   Do you have to see every county to get something from his rules? Absolutely not! His rules are perfect for anyone who wants to understand this great country we live in as well as the people who populate it. For instance, the rule Say Hello to Strangers can help any traveler understand just a bit more about those around them, and the rule to Take the Road Less Traveled can help you be more than a tourist.   I also loved how Danny recognized his own biases and continues to work hard to eliminate them. In today's world, his idea that there are good people on both sides of an argument is refreshing - and much needed. The best part is that he gives guided questions at the end of each chapter to help you develop your own rules for understanding America.   Don't miss this book!   Subscribe to Online for Authors to learn about more great books! https://www.youtube.com/@onlineforauthors?sub_confirmation=1   Join the Novels N Latte Book Club community to discuss this and other books with like-minded readers: https://www.facebook.com/groups/3576519880426290   You can follow Author Danny Limny-Schmitt Linked In: @Daniel Zimny Schmitt FB: @danny.zimnyschmitt IG: @dannyz3142   Purchase 10 Little Rules for Understanding America on Amazon: Paperback: https://amzn.to/47a0BHc Ebook: https://amzn.to/42y0Ytv   Teri M Brown, Author and Podcast Host: https://www.terimbrown.com FB: @TeriMBrownAuthor IG: @terimbrown_author X: @terimbrown1   Want to be a guest on Online for Authors? Send Teri M Brown a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/member/onlineforauthors   #dannyzimnyschmitt #10littlerules #understandingamerica #memoir #terimbrownauthor #authorpodcast #onlineforauthors #characterdriven #researchjunkie #awardwinningauthor #podcasthost #podcast #readerpodcast #bookpodcast #writerpodcast #author #books #goodreads #bookclub #fiction #writer #bookreview *As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

In this episode, Jamila M. Porter, DrPH, MPH, Chief of Staff and Principal Investigator of MADE for Health Justice at the de Beaumont Foundation, and Aysha Dominguez Pamukcu, JD, Policy Fund Director at the San Francisco Foundation, discuss their new book “Strategic Skills for Public Health Practice: Advancing Equity & Justice”. They share how the field can reclaim its social justice roots, push back against rising attacks on equity, and build a more inclusive and community driven future for public health.

In this episode, we're sharing some of our favorite things from past lists...including one of our favorite episodes. This month, we're revisiting a conversation from 2021 with Drs. Erin Chaparro and Ginny Joseph about Tier 2 teams and the foundations of decision making at the Tier 2 level. Dr. Chaparro is a Research Associate Professor at the University of Oregon and the Principal Investigator for the TIPS project. For more than a decade, Erin has worked with districts and schools to implement multi-tiered systems of support for literacy as well as PBIS. She is also the co-author of the book Assessment in Special and Inclusive Education.Dr. Ginny Joseph is the Coordinator of PBIS and Mental Health at Orange County Department of Education. She trains and supports school teams implementing a multi-tiered framework for behavior supports. Her experience ranges from function-based support planning, to using data to drive decisions, to planning behavioral support for small groups of students. For more information about some of the resources mentioned in this episode, check out these links:Favorite Things 2025PBISApps CommunityEp. 16: Adding Student Voice to Leadership TeamsEp. 43: Mythbusters - Rewards Don't Work to Improve Student OutcomesAn overview of the TIPS modelTIPS Meeting Minutes TemplateTiered Fidelity Inventory

Has the rolling out of tasers as part of a pilot programme with Gardaí been a rushed decision, and could it lead to an escalation in the use of force particularly in these busy Christmas weeks, with body cams also being piloted?Lucy Michael is Principal Investigator at Lucy Michael Research Training and Consultancy and a former member of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. She has done extensive research into this area, and joins Seán to discuss.

“ I think we're betting on AI as something that can help to solve a lot of problems for us. It's the future, we think, whether it's producing text or art, or doing medical research or planning our lives for us, etc., the bet is that AI is going to be great, that it's going to get us everything we want and make everything better. But at the same time, we're gambling, at the extreme end, with the future of humanity  , hoping for the best and hoping that this, what I'm calling the AI wager, is going to work out to our advantage, but we'll see.”As we move towards 2026, we are in a massive “upgrade moment” that most of us can feel. New pressures, new identities, new expectations on our work, our relationships, and our inner lives. Throughout the year, I've been speaking with professional creatives, climate and tech experts, teachers, neuroscientists, psychologists, and futureists about how AI can be used intelligently and ethically as a partnership to ensure we do not raise a generation that relies on machines to think for them. It's not that we are being replaced by machines. It's that we're being invited to become a new kind of human. Where AI isn't the headline; human transformation is. And that includes the arts, culture, and the whole of society. Generative AI – the technologies that write our emails, draft our reports, and even create art – have become a fixture of daily life, and the philosophical and moral questions they raise are no longer abstract. They are immediate, personal, and potentially disruptive to the core of what we consider human work.Our guest today, Sven Nyholm, is one of the leading voices helping us navigate this new reality. As the Principal Investigator of AI Ethics at the Munich Center for Machine Learning, and co-editor of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics. He has spent his career dissecting the intimate relationship between humanity and the machine. His body of work systematically breaks down concepts that worry us all: the responsibility gap in autonomous systems, the ethical dimensions of human-robot interaction, and the question of whether ceding intellectual tasks to a machine fundamentally atrophies our own skills. His previous books, like Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, have laid the foundational groundwork for understanding these strange new companions in our lives.His forthcoming book is The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction. The book is a rigorous exploration of everything from algorithmic bias and opacity to the long-term existential risks of powerful AI. We'll talk about what it means when an algorithm can produce perfect language without genuine meaning, why we feel entitled to take credit for an AI's creation, and what this technological leap might be costing us, personally, as thinking, moral beings.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

As we move towards 2026, we are in a massive “upgrade moment” that most of us can feel. New pressures, new identities, new expectations on our work, our relationships, and our inner lives. Throughout the year, I've been speaking with professional creatives, climate and tech experts, teachers, neuroscientists, psychologists, and futureists about how AI can be used intelligently and ethically as a partnership to ensure we do not raise a generation that relies on machines to think for them. It's not that we are being replaced by machines. It's that we're being invited to become a new kind of human. Where AI isn't the headline; human transformation is. And that includes the arts, culture, and the whole of society. Generative AI – the technologies that write our emails, draft our reports, and even create art – have become a fixture of daily life, and the philosophical and moral questions they raise are no longer abstract. They are immediate, personal, and potentially disruptive to the core of what we consider human work.Our guest today, Sven Nyholm, is one of the leading voices helping us navigate this new reality. As the Principal Investigator of AI Ethics at the Munich Center for Machine Learning, and co-editor of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics. He has spent his career dissecting the intimate relationship between humanity and the machine. His body of work systematically breaks down concepts that worry us all: the responsibility gap in autonomous systems, the ethical dimensions of human-robot interaction, and the question of whether ceding intellectual tasks to a machine fundamentally atrophies our own skills. His previous books, like Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, have laid the foundational groundwork for understanding these strange new companions in our lives.His forthcoming book is The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction. The book is a rigorous exploration of everything from algorithmic bias and opacity to the long-term existential risks of powerful AI. We'll talk about what it means when an algorithm can produce perfect language without genuine meaning, why we feel entitled to take credit for an AI's creation, and what this technological leap might be costing us, personally, as thinking, moral beings.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

As we move towards 2026, we are in a massive “upgrade moment” that most of us can feel. New pressures, new identities, new expectations on our work, our relationships, and our inner lives. Throughout the year, I've been speaking with professional creatives, climate and tech experts, teachers, neuroscientists, psychologists, and futureists about how AI can be used intelligently and ethically as a partnership to ensure we do not raise a generation that relies on machines to think for them. It's not that we are being replaced by machines. It's that we're being invited to become a new kind of human. Where AI isn't the headline; human transformation is. And that includes the arts, culture, and the whole of society. Generative AI – the technologies that write our emails, draft our reports, and even create art – have become a fixture of daily life, and the philosophical and moral questions they raise are no longer abstract. They are immediate, personal, and potentially disruptive to the core of what we consider human work.Our guest today, Sven Nyholm, is one of the leading voices helping us navigate this new reality. As the Principal Investigator of AI Ethics at the Munich Center for Machine Learning, and co-editor of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics. He has spent his career dissecting the intimate relationship between humanity and the machine. His body of work systematically breaks down concepts that worry us all: the responsibility gap in autonomous systems, the ethical dimensions of human-robot interaction, and the question of whether ceding intellectual tasks to a machine fundamentally atrophies our own skills. His previous books, like Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, have laid the foundational groundwork for understanding these strange new companions in our lives.His forthcoming book is The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction. The book is a rigorous exploration of everything from algorithmic bias and opacity to the long-term existential risks of powerful AI. We'll talk about what it means when an algorithm can produce perfect language without genuine meaning, why we feel entitled to take credit for an AI's creation, and what this technological leap might be costing us, personally, as thinking, moral beings.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“ I think we're betting on AI as something that can help to solve a lot of problems for us. It's the future, we think, whether it's producing text or art, or doing medical research or planning our lives for us, etc., the bet is that AI is going to be great, that it's going to get us everything we want and make everything better. But at the same time, we're gambling, at the extreme end, with the future of humanity  , hoping for the best and hoping that this, what I'm calling the AI wager, is going to work out to our advantage, but we'll see.”As we move towards 2026, we are in a massive “upgrade moment” that most of us can feel. New pressures, new identities, new expectations on our work, our relationships, and our inner lives. Throughout the year, I've been speaking with professional creatives, climate and tech experts, teachers, neuroscientists, psychologists, and futureists about how AI can be used intelligently and ethically as a partnership to ensure we do not raise a generation that relies on machines to think for them. It's not that we are being replaced by machines. It's that we're being invited to become a new kind of human. Where AI isn't the headline; human transformation is. And that includes the arts, culture, and the whole of society. Generative AI – the technologies that write our emails, draft our reports, and even create art – have become a fixture of daily life, and the philosophical and moral questions they raise are no longer abstract. They are immediate, personal, and potentially disruptive to the core of what we consider human work.Our guest today, Sven Nyholm, is one of the leading voices helping us navigate this new reality. As the Principal Investigator of AI Ethics at the Munich Center for Machine Learning, and co-editor of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics. He has spent his career dissecting the intimate relationship between humanity and the machine. His body of work systematically breaks down concepts that worry us all: the responsibility gap in autonomous systems, the ethical dimensions of human-robot interaction, and the question of whether ceding intellectual tasks to a machine fundamentally atrophies our own skills. His previous books, like Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, have laid the foundational groundwork for understanding these strange new companions in our lives.His forthcoming book is The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction. The book is a rigorous exploration of everything from algorithmic bias and opacity to the long-term existential risks of powerful AI. We'll talk about what it means when an algorithm can produce perfect language without genuine meaning, why we feel entitled to take credit for an AI's creation, and what this technological leap might be costing us, personally, as thinking, moral beings.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“ I think we're betting on AI as something that can help to solve a lot of problems for us. It's the future, we think, whether it's producing text or art, or doing medical research or planning our lives for us, etc., the bet is that AI is going to be great, that it's going to get us everything we want and make everything better. But at the same time, we're gambling, at the extreme end, with the future of humanity  , hoping for the best and hoping that this, what I'm calling the AI wager, is going to work out to our advantage, but we'll see.”As we move towards 2026, we are in a massive “upgrade moment” that most of us can feel. New pressures, new identities, new expectations on our work, our relationships, and our inner lives. Throughout the year, I've been speaking with professional creatives, climate and tech experts, teachers, neuroscientists, psychologists, and futureists about how AI can be used intelligently and ethically as a partnership to ensure we do not raise a generation that relies on machines to think for them. It's not that we are being replaced by machines. It's that we're being invited to become a new kind of human. Where AI isn't the headline; human transformation is. And that includes the arts, culture, and the whole of society. Generative AI – the technologies that write our emails, draft our reports, and even create art – have become a fixture of daily life, and the philosophical and moral questions they raise are no longer abstract. They are immediate, personal, and potentially disruptive to the core of what we consider human work.Our guest today, Sven Nyholm, is one of the leading voices helping us navigate this new reality. As the Principal Investigator of AI Ethics at the Munich Center for Machine Learning, and co-editor of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics. He has spent his career dissecting the intimate relationship between humanity and the machine. His body of work systematically breaks down concepts that worry us all: the responsibility gap in autonomous systems, the ethical dimensions of human-robot interaction, and the question of whether ceding intellectual tasks to a machine fundamentally atrophies our own skills. His previous books, like Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, have laid the foundational groundwork for understanding these strange new companions in our lives.His forthcoming book is The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction. The book is a rigorous exploration of everything from algorithmic bias and opacity to the long-term existential risks of powerful AI. We'll talk about what it means when an algorithm can produce perfect language without genuine meaning, why we feel entitled to take credit for an AI's creation, and what this technological leap might be costing us, personally, as thinking, moral beings.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

Recorded 1st December 2025. A discussion with Ambassador Lars Thuesen, Denmark's Ambassador to Ireland, about Denmark's European Presidency (ending on the 31st of December), their priorities and vision for Europe, as well as the challenges Europe faces at this pivotal moment. We will also hear from the Minister for European Affairs, Thomas Byrne TD about the objectives and ambitions of the forthcoming Irish Presidency, and Dr Deirdre Foley, Principal Investigator for the TÚS Research Ireland Pathway Project in the School of Histories and Humanities. The bond between Denmark and Ireland stretches back to the age of the Vikings, and today the relationship between Denmark and Ireland is a strong and rewarding one, both politically and economically. Our comparable sizes, shared interests, and historic links make for a solid foundation on which cooperation between our two countries can take place, and there is much that Ireland can learn from looking at how Denmark has approached its Presidency. Learn more at www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub

Enid Martinez, MD is a Senior Associate in Critical Care at Boston Children's Hospital, and an Assistant Professor of Anaesthesia at Harvard Medical School. She is the Director of the Pediatric Critical Care Nutrition Program in the Division of Critical Care Medicine and Principal Investigator for a clinical-translational research program on gastrointestinal function and nutrition in pediatric critical illness.Learning Objectives:By the end of this podcast, listeners should be able to:Recognize the impact of nutritional status on outcomes of critically-ill children.Describe the key aspects of the metabolic stress response in critical illness.Discuss a clinical approach to accurately estimating and prescribing nutrition in critically-ill children.Reflect on an expert's approach to managing aspects of nutrition in critically-ill children where there may not be high-quality evidence. Selected references:Mehta et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Pediatric Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017 Jul;41(5):706-742. doi: 10.1177/0148607117711387. Epub 2017 Jun 2. PMID: 28686844. Fivez et al. Early versus Late Parenteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Children. N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 24;374(12):1111-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514762. Epub 2016 Mar 15. PMID: 26975590.Questions, comments or feedback? Please send us a message at this link (leave email address if you would like us to relpy) Thanks! -Alice & ZacSupport the showHow to support PedsCrit:Please complete our Listener Feedback SurveyPlease rate and review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!Donations are appreciated @PedsCrit on Venmo , you can also support us by becoming a patron on Patreon. 100% of funds go to supporting the show. Please remember that all content during this episode is intended for educational and entertainment purposes only. It should not be used as medical advice. The views expressed during this episode by hosts and our guests are their own and do not reflect the official position of their institutions. If you have any comments, suggestions, or feedback-you can email us at pedscritpodcast@gmail.com. You can also check out our website at http://www.pedscrit.com. Thank you for listening to this episode of PedsCrit!

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

NASA’s twin ESCAPADE spacecraft have finally launched on their journey to Mars. Designed to study how the solar wind interacts with Mars’ patchy magnetic fields and drives the loss of its atmosphere, ESCAPADE is NASA’s first dual-spacecraft mission to the Red Planet and a major milestone for the SIMPLEx program’s small, low-cost planetary explorers. The mission began its voyage aboard Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket after several weather and space weather delays, marking the vehicle’s first science launch. We begin with Ari Koeppel, AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow and Space Policy Intern at The Planetary Society, who was at Cape Canaveral for the prelaunch activities. Ari shares what it was like to navigate repeated scrubs and even a powerful solar storm, along with the emotional experience of watching a spacecraft carrying an instrument he helped build begin its voyage to Mars. Next, we are joined by Dr. Rob Lillis, ESCAPADE’s Principal Investigator and Associate Director for Planetary Science at UC Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory. Rob explains how ESCAPADE aims to unravel Mars’ complex space environment using two coordinated orbiters, why its measurements are key to understanding atmospheric escape, and how its innovative trajectory made the mission possible after the loss of its original rideshare opportunity. Finally, Dr. Bruce Betts, Chief Scientist of The Planetary Society, returns for What’s Up to talk about why Mars produces aurora even without a global magnetic dynamo. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2025-escapadeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How do you run an innovative space in the heart of NYC that offers ketamine therapy and psychotherapy services? And is there more ketamine in the city than meets the eye? Join me as I dive into these questions with Dr. Casey Paleos, a pioneering psychiatrist reshaping the field of psychedelic-assisted therapy.Dr. Casey Paleos is -Chief Medical Officer and Co-Founder of InnerMost, a NYC-based Public Benefit Corporation focusing on psychedelic therapy.-with over 15 years of experience in mental health with a deep commitment to exploring the healing potential of psychedelic medicines.-Principal Investigator for MAPS-sponsored MDMA-Assisted Therapy trials and a key contributor to the Psilocybin Cancer Anxiety Study at NYU.Discussion Highlights:The importance of creating accessible, innovative therapy spaces and supporting therapists through experiential training and community-building.Dr. Paleos's personal journey and motivation for entering psychiatry, stemming from a desire to help individuals with mental health struggles.The contrast between conventional psychiatry treatments and the deeper, more holistic approaches offered through psychedelic therapy.Insights on the recent electoral win of Zohran Mamdani as NYC Mayor and its implications for psychedelic legalization and mental health reform.The cultural nuances of mental health in NYC and how they influence the acceptance and use of psychedelic treatments.The role of ketamine and other psychedelics in fostering connections and addressing crises of meaning and disconnection in modern urban life.Notable Quotes:"Psychedelics can be viewed as tools for map provision.""There's a crisis of connectedness in our society, and psychedelics may help restore that."Check Innermost out here : https://innermost.one/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“ I think we're betting on AI as something that can help to solve a lot of problems for us. It's the future, we think, whether it's producing text or art, or doing medical research or planning our lives for us, etc., the bet is that AI is going to be great, that it's going to get us everything we want and make everything better. But at the same time, we're gambling, at the extreme end, with the future of humanity  , hoping for the best and hoping that this, what I'm calling the AI wager, is going to work out to our advantage, but we'll see.”As we move towards 2026, we are in a massive “upgrade moment” that most of us can feel. New pressures, new identities, new expectations on our work, our relationships, and our inner lives. Throughout the year, I've been speaking with professional creatives, climate and tech experts, teachers, neuroscientists, psychologists, and futureists about how AI can be used intelligently and ethically as a partnership to ensure we do not raise a generation that relies on machines to think for them. It's not that we are being replaced by machines. It's that we're being invited to become a new kind of human. Where AI isn't the headline; human transformation is. And that includes the arts, culture, and the whole of society. Generative AI – the technologies that write our emails, draft our reports, and even create art – have become a fixture of daily life, and the philosophical and moral questions they raise are no longer abstract. They are immediate, personal, and potentially disruptive to the core of what we consider human work.Our guest today, Sven Nyholm, is one of the leading voices helping us navigate this new reality. As the Principal Investigator of AI Ethics at the Munich Center for Machine Learning, and co-editor of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics. He has spent his career dissecting the intimate relationship between humanity and the machine. His body of work systematically breaks down concepts that worry us all: the responsibility gap in autonomous systems, the ethical dimensions of human-robot interaction, and the question of whether ceding intellectual tasks to a machine fundamentally atrophies our own skills. His previous books, like Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, have laid the foundational groundwork for understanding these strange new companions in our lives.His forthcoming book is The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction. The book is a rigorous exploration of everything from algorithmic bias and opacity to the long-term existential risks of powerful AI. We'll talk about what it means when an algorithm can produce perfect language without genuine meaning, why we feel entitled to take credit for an AI's creation, and what this technological leap might be costing us, personally, as thinking, moral beings.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

The imposition of Communist ideology was a misfortune for millions in Eastern Europe, but never for Dennis Deletant. Instead, it drew him to Romania. The renowned historian's association with the country and its people dates back to 1965, when he first visited. Since then, Romania has made Dennis appreciate the value of shrewd dissimulation, in the face of the state's gross intrusion in the life of the individual. This vivid memoir charts his first-hand experience of the Communist era, coloured by the early 1970s surveillance of his future wife Andrea; his contacts with dissidents; and his articles and BBC World Service broadcasts, which led to his being declared persona non grata in 1988.  In Search of Romania (Hurst, 2022) also considers how life went on under dictatorship, even if it was largely mapped out by the regime. How did individual citizens negotiate the challenges placed in their path? How important was the political police, the Securitate, in maintaining compliance? How did dissent towards the regime manifest? How did all this affect the moral compass of the individual? Why did utopia descend into dystopia under Ceaușescu? And how has his legacy influenced the difficult transition to democracy since the collapse of Communism? Roland Clark is a Senior Lecturer in Modern European History at the University of Liverpool, a Senior Fellow with the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, and the Principal Investigator of an AHRC-funded project on European Fascist Movements. 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

Enid Martinez, MD is a Senior Associate in Critical Care at Boston Children's Hospital, and an Assistant Professor of Anaesthesia at Harvard Medical School. She is the Director of the Pediatric Critical Care Nutrition Program in the Division of Critical Care Medicine and Principal Investigator for a clinical-translational research program on gastrointestinal function and nutrition in pediatric critical illness. Learning Objectives:By the end of this podcast, listeners should be able to:Recognize the impact of nutritional status on outcomes of critically-ill children.Describe the key aspects of the metabolic stress response in critical illness.Discuss a clinical approach to accurately estimating and prescribing nutrition in critically-ill children.Reflect on an expert's approach to managing aspects of nutrition in critically-ill children where there may not be high-quality evidence. Selected references:Mehta et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Pediatric Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017 Jul;41(5):706-742. doi: 10.1177/0148607117711387. Epub 2017 Jun 2. PMID: 28686844. Fivez et al. Early versus Late Parenteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Children. N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 24;374(12):1111-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514762. Epub 2016 Mar 15. PMID: 26975590.Questions, comments or feedback? Please send us a message at this link (leave email address if you would like us to relpy) Thanks! -Alice & ZacSupport the showHow to support PedsCrit:Please complete our Listener Feedback SurveyPlease rate and review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts!Donations are appreciated @PedsCrit on Venmo , you can also support us by becoming a patron on Patreon. 100% of funds go to supporting the show. Thank you for listening to this episode of PedsCrit. Please remember that all content during this episode is intended for educational and entertainment purposes only. It should not be used as medical advice. The views expressed during this episode by hosts and our guests are their own and do not reflect the official position of their institutions. If you have any comments, suggestions, or feedback-you can email us at pedscritpodcast@gmail.com. Check out http://www.pedscrit.com for detailed show notes. And visit @critpeds on twitter and @pedscrit on instagram for real time show updates.

The imposition of Communist ideology was a misfortune for millions in Eastern Europe, but never for Dennis Deletant. Instead, it drew him to Romania. The renowned historian's association with the country and its people dates back to 1965, when he first visited. Since then, Romania has made Dennis appreciate the value of shrewd dissimulation, in the face of the state's gross intrusion in the life of the individual. This vivid memoir charts his first-hand experience of the Communist era, coloured by the early 1970s surveillance of his future wife Andrea; his contacts with dissidents; and his articles and BBC World Service broadcasts, which led to his being declared persona non grata in 1988.  In Search of Romania (Hurst, 2022) also considers how life went on under dictatorship, even if it was largely mapped out by the regime. How did individual citizens negotiate the challenges placed in their path? How important was the political police, the Securitate, in maintaining compliance? How did dissent towards the regime manifest? How did all this affect the moral compass of the individual? Why did utopia descend into dystopia under Ceaușescu? And how has his legacy influenced the difficult transition to democracy since the collapse of Communism? Roland Clark is a Senior Lecturer in Modern European History at the University of Liverpool, a Senior Fellow with the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, and the Principal Investigator of an AHRC-funded project on European Fascist Movements. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

As we move towards 2026, we are in a massive “upgrade moment” that most of us can feel. New pressures, new identities, new expectations on our work, our relationships, and our inner lives. Throughout the year, I've been speaking with professional creatives, climate and tech experts, teachers, neuroscientists, psychologists, and futureists about how AI can be used intelligently and ethically as a partnership to ensure we do not raise a generation that relies on machines to think for them. It's not that we are being replaced by machines. It's that we're being invited to become a new kind of human. Where AI isn't the headline; human transformation is. And that includes the arts, culture, and the whole of society. Generative AI – the technologies that write our emails, draft our reports, and even create art – have become a fixture of daily life, and the philosophical and moral questions they raise are no longer abstract. They are immediate, personal, and potentially disruptive to the core of what we consider human work.Our guest today, Sven Nyholm, is one of the leading voices helping us navigate this new reality. As the Principal Investigator of AI Ethics at the Munich Center for Machine Learning, and co-editor of the journal Science and Engineering Ethics. He has spent his career dissecting the intimate relationship between humanity and the machine. His body of work systematically breaks down concepts that worry us all: the responsibility gap in autonomous systems, the ethical dimensions of human-robot interaction, and the question of whether ceding intellectual tasks to a machine fundamentally atrophies our own skills. His previous books, like Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, have laid the foundational groundwork for understanding these strange new companions in our lives.His forthcoming book is The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction. The book is a rigorous exploration of everything from algorithmic bias and opacity to the long-term existential risks of powerful AI. We'll talk about what it means when an algorithm can produce perfect language without genuine meaning, why we feel entitled to take credit for an AI's creation, and what this technological leap might be costing us, personally, as thinking, moral beings.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

With hardening authoritarianism and state capture by militias exacerbating the challenges faced by providers of development and political aid across the Middle East and North Africa, how can aid be made more effective? Can donors overcome the limitations of their outdated assistance playbooks? Analysing the fraught relationships between Western aid providers and MENA recipients, the authors of Making Aid Work suggest innovative, practical approaches for overcoming the chronic limitations—and disappointing results—of assistance aimed at encouraging economic development and political reform in the region. Meet our speakers and chair Guilain Denoeux is professor of government at Colby College. His areas of expertise include: Middle Eastern and North African politics, terrorism, insurgency and counter-extremism programming and democracy-building strategies and activities. Robert Springborg is nonresident research fellow of the Italian Institute of International Affairs and adjunct professor in the School of International Studies at Simon Fraser University. Greg Shapland is a Research Fellow at the LSE Middle East Centre and Principal Investigator and UKRI FCDO Senior Research Fellow on the project, ‘The Political Economy of Water in the MENA Region: A Cross-Regional Assessment'.

Matias interviews James (Jim) Gorman MD PhD from the Wyss Institute. Jim is Principal Investigator on the Wyss Institute Brain Targeting Program (BTP). Jim leads a team developing new approaches to transport drugs through the blood brain barrier (BBB) into the CNS.In this episode, we discuss:Why the BBB blocks most modern drugs from entering the brain, creating the biggest bottleneck in neuroHow brain shuttles hijack natural transport pathways like the transferrin receptor to move drugs across the BBBHow new modalities that reach the brain can potentially treat diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, and lysosomal disorders Why delivery route of shuttles enable IV or subcutaneous dosing instead of invasive intrathecal injectionsHow early data shows that shuttle-enabled antibodies clear amyloid faster, at lower doses, and with fewer side effectsHow the field is accelerating through a pre-competitive consortium model that lets multiple companies share shuttle platformsCredits:Created by Greg Kubin and Matias SerebrinskyHost: Matias SerebrinskyProduced by Caitlin Ner & Nico V. Rey Find us at businesstrip.fm and psymed.venturesFollow us on Instagram and Twitter!Theme music by Dorian LoveAdditional Music: Distant Daze by Zack Frank

Do you long for something deeper in your life? Are you innately drawn toward spirituality and curious about what you may find? Do you think we as humans are naturally wired to search for deeper meaning in our lives? Whether it be a walk in the woods, or through mediation or prayer, our guest today, Dr. Lisa Miller, believes that we are naturally able to tap into a heightened awareness of the world around us. We are able to cultivate circuits in our brains which help us to become more spiritually aware. By developing this awareness, we can begin to free ourselves from depression, anxiety, loss of creativity, and so much more. We can consider things from a more awakened, more elevated perspective. Dr. Miller believes when we feel depressed, this is an alert asking us for deeper spiritual exploration.    Dr. Miller is a professor in the Clinical Psychology Program at Teachers College, Columbia University, where she founded the Spirituality Mind Body Institute, the first Ivy League graduate program and research institute in spirituality and psychology. She has been with the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University Medical School for more than a decade.    Dr. Miller is the NYT bestselling author of "The Spiritual Child" and her latest book is "The Awakened Brain." She is the Editor of the Oxford University Press Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality, Founding Co-Editor-in-Chief of the APA journal "Spirituality in Clinical Practice," an elected Fellow of The American Psychological Association (APA) and the two-time President of the APA Society for Psychology and Spirituality. A graduate of Yale University and University of Pennsylvania, she earned her doctorate under the founder of positive psychology, Martin Seligman, and she has served as Principal Investigator on multiple grant-funded research studies. Info: LisaMillerPhD.com.  

Modern data analytic methods and tools—including artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) classifiers—are revolutionizing prediction capabilities and automation through their capacity to analyze and classify data. To produce such results, these methods depend on correlations. However, an overreliance on correlations can lead to prediction bias and reduced confidence in AI outputs.  Drift in data and concept, evolving edge cases, and emerging phenomena can undermine the correlations that AI classifiers rely on. As the U.S. government increases its use of AI classifiers and predictors, these issues multiply (or use increase again). Subsequently, users may grow to distrust results. To address inaccurate erroneous correlations and predictions, we need new methods for ongoing testing and evaluation of AI and ML accuracy. In this podcast from the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Nicholas Testa, a senior data scientist in the SEI's Software Solutions Division (SSD), and Crisanne Nolan, and Agile transformation engineer, also in SSD, sit down with Linda Parker Gates, Principal Investigator for this research and initiative lead for Software Acquisition Pathways at the SEI, to discuss the AI Robustness (AIR) tool, which allows users to gauge AI and ML classifier performance with data-based confidence. 

Join us for a chat with noted Austen scholar Kathryn Sutherland about Jane Austen's surviving manuscripts and what they reveal about her writing process and creative confidence. Kathryn also shares the story behind the ambitious digital project that brought Austen's scattered manuscripts together in a virtual archive and talks about some of the material objects she included in her book Jane Austen in 41 Objects—reflecting on how tangible artifacts can bring us closer to the writer we think we know.Kathryn Sutherland is Professor Emerita and a Senior Research Fellow at St Anne's College, Oxford. She is the author Jane Austen's Textual Lives (2005), Why Modern Manuscripts Matter (2022), and Jane Austen in 41 Objects (2025). She is also the editor of many editions of Austen's works through Oxford World's Classics, including Teenage Writings (with Freya Johnston, 2017). Sutherland was also the Project Director and Principal Investigator for Jane Austen's Fiction Manuscripts, a website that houses the digitized files of all Jane Austen's known fiction manuscripts. She is a patron of Jane Austen's House in Chawton, a trustee of Friends of the Nations' Libraries, and a trustee of the British Library Collections Trust.For a transcript and show notes, visit https://jasna.org/austen/podcast/ep29/.*********Visit our website: www.jasna.orgFollow us on Instagram and FacebookSubscribe to the podcast on our YouTube channelEmail: podcast@jasna.org

David Clough is Professor and Chair in Theology and AppliedSciences at the University of Aberdeen. He is a Local Preacher in the Methodist Church. David is also co-president of the charity CreatureKind and he founded the DefaultVeg project, now part of the work of the Better Food Foundation. From 2018 to 2021 hewas Principal Investigator on the Christian Ethics of Farmed Animal Welfare (CEFAW) project. David is the author of "On Animals" volumes one and two.In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the most important questions: “what's real?”, “who matters?” and "how can we make a better world?"Sentientism answers those questions with "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.00:00 Clips00:48 Welcome02:45 David's Intro- Christian theology and ethics particularly re: non-human animals- Writing "On Animals"- "The moral emergency is the way that we're making use of other animals for food"- "That makes very little sense if you care about non-human animals, if you care about human wellbeing or you care about our shared environment"- "Once you've seen the problem... exposing billions of fellow creatures to significant unnecessary suffering... I've met first hand one to one a lot of animals who are caught up in this system... it's very hard to let go of that"- "What motivates me each day... think of ways to help others glimpse what I've seen about the wrongness of what we're doing and how we might change it"05:03 What's Real?- "Thinking about how to make sense of things wasalways a big deal for me"- Raised in the #christian #methodist Church- Father from a line of Methodist ministers- "That sense of being formed in a particular traditionand encountering other worlds through that experience of faith"- "That was never in competition with exercising myrational faculties to the utmost"- "I always wanted to ask bigger and bigger questionsabout the world"- "If the kinds of things Christians believed in... auniverse dependent on God... if that made sense... then pushing with our utmostintellectual ability to try to understand better... could never be discoveringanything that was foreign to faith."- "A faith-based formation and real a commitment topursuing intellectual and deep philosophical questions... always felt to me tobe one and the same project"- Separate magisteria vs. a more integrated, consistentepistemology?- "I would find it deeply, intellectually, unsatisfyingif I needed to compartmentalise in that kind of way"16:45 What Matters?40:36 Who Matters?01:17:33 A Better World?01:28:25 Follow David- David on BlueSky- David at Aberdeen University- David on Wikipedia- David on LinkedIn- David's talks on YouTubeAnd more... full show notes at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sentientism.info⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sentientism.info⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Join our⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠"I'm a Sentientist" wall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ via⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ this simple form⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠groups⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. The biggest so far is ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here on FaceBook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Come join us there!

Faiza Venzant, CVA, Executive Director of the Council for Certification in Volunteer Administration (CCVA) and Principal Investigator with the Assessing Diversity and Equity in Volunteer Inclusion project.With over 25 years of leadership experience in volunteer engagement, Faiza brings both a global and deeply personal perspective to the nonprofit sector. In one of the final interviews of the year, Faiza sits down with Swim to get her perspective of the state of nonprofits in Canada and the U.S., the wave of layoffs across the sector, and the question that never seems to go away: Are volunteer administrators truly being valued?Faiza even gets candid about what she doesn't like seeing in the nonprofit space right now, why DEI is not dead, what keeps her up at night as an Executive Director, and why she wants to see everyone win.Whether you lead volunteers, fund programs, or are just passionate about community impact, this is an episode you'll want to hear.Key Topics:The current state of nonprofits in North AmericaWhy layoffs are hitting the sector so hardThe respect (and reality) of volunteer management rolesBalancing identity between the personal and professionalIs DEI dead?What keeps nonprofit leaders awake at nightReal-world advice for emerging nonprofit leadersMore about Faiza Venzant, CVA. Faiza Venzant is the Executive Director of the Council for Certification in Volunteer Administration.With 25 years of leadership in volunteer engagement, Faiza has been recognized for excellence with numerous awards, including the 2022 June Callwood Outstanding Achievement Award for Voluntarism. She's also a published author and passionate advocate for improving equity, access, and representation across volunteer leadership.Learn more at www.cvacert.orgLearn about Faiza and her team here: https://cvacert.org/our-team/

Milk has long been sold as the key to strong bones, but research challenges that claim: many people don't tolerate dairy, calcium needs are lower than advertised, and higher milk intake doesn't necessarily prevent fractures. Politics and industry marketing helped set “three glasses a day,” even though healthy bones depend more on overall diet and lifestyle—things like vitamin D, movement, and avoiding soda, excess sugar, and stress that drive calcium loss. Dairy may be helpful for some diets, but it can also trigger bloating, acne, congestion, or digestive issues. The good news is that strong bones and good nutrition are still very doable without cow's milk—think leafy greens, sardines, almonds, chia, and sunshine for vitamin D. In this episode, I discuss, along with Dr. David Ludwig and Dr. Elizabeth Boham why bone health depends more on diet, lifestyle, and nutrient balance than on dairy. David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, is an endocrinologist and researcher at Boston Children's Hospital, Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He co-directs the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center and founded the Optimal Weight for Life (OWL) program, one of the nation's largest clinics for children with obesity. For over 25 years, Dr. Ludwig has studied how diet composition affects metabolism, body weight, and chronic disease risk, focusing on low glycemic index, low-carbohydrate, and ketogenic diets. Called an “obesity warrior” by Time Magazine, he has championed policy changes to improve the food environment. A Principal Investigator on numerous NIH and philanthropic grants, Dr. Ludwig has published over 200 scientific articles and three books for the public, including the #1 New York Times bestseller Always, Hungry? Dr. Elizabeth Boham is Board Certified in Family Medicine from Albany Medical School, and she is an Institute for Functional Medicine Certified Practitioner and the Medical Director of The UltraWellness Center. Dr. Boham lectures on a variety of topics, including Women's Health and Breast Cancer Prevention, insulin resistance, heart health, weight control and allergies. She is on the faculty for the Institute for Functional Medicine. This episode is brought to you by BIOptimizers. Head to bioptimizers.com/hyman and use code HYMAN to save 15%. Full-length episodes can be found here:Why Most Everything We Were Told About Dairy Is Wrong Is It Okay To Eat Cheese And What Types Of Dairy Should You Avoid? Is Lactose Intolerance Causing Your Gut Issues?

Dr. Uri Tabori is a Staff Physician in the Division of Haematology/Oncology, Senior Scientist in the Genetics & Genome Biology program, and Principal Investigator of The Arthur and Sonia Labatt Brain Tumour Research Centre at The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids). Uri is also a Professor in Paediatrics and Associate Professor in the Institute of Medical Sciences at the University of Toronto. Uri works as a physician treating kids with cancer, particularly brain tumors. Through his research, he is working to identify drugs and make new discoveries that may cure cancers or improve patients' lives. When he's not hard at work in the lab or clinic, Uri enjoys spending time with his family, watching American football, and exploring the wilderness of Canada. He is especially fond of canoeing and canoe camping with his family. He received his MD from the Hadassah School of Medicine of Hebrew University in Israel. Afterwards, he completed a Rotating Internship and his Residency in Pediatrics at the Sorasky Medical Center in Israel. Next, Uri accepted a Fellowship in Pediatric Hematology and Oncology at the Sheba Medical Center in Israel. He served as a Staff Physician in Pediatric Hematology and Oncology at The Sheba Medical Center for about a year before accepting a Research and Clinical Fellowship at The Hospital for Sick Children in Canada SickKids where he remains today. Over the course of his career, Uri has received numerous awards and honors, including the Early Researcher Award from the Ontario Ministry of Development and Innovation, the New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the Junior Physician Research Award from the University of Toronto Department of Pediatrics, The New Investigator Award from the Terry Fox Foundation, A Eureka! new investigator award from the International Course of Translational Medicine, A Merit Award from the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, and The Young Investigator Award from the Canadian Neuro-Oncology Society. In our interview, Uri shares more about his life, science, and clinical care.