Podcasts about principal investigators

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.

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

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!

Global challenges like climate change demand urgent action, and chemistry is at the center of these emerging solutions. However, graduates starting chemistry-based careers often leave the classroom unprepared to tackle complex global issues. In this podcast, we speak with Dr. Alison Flynn, Principal Investigator of the Flynn Research Group, about how her team is developing strategies to create more engaging and effective learning experiences for students, including the integration of systems thinking into the curriculum. We explore her educational journey, what inspired her to focus on chemistry education, how systems thinking can be applied in classrooms, her thoughts on AI as an emerging educational tool, and more. We also share insights from Dr. Peter Mahaffy on educational resources available to support instructors. Learn more: https://www.flynnresearchgroup.com/00:11 | Introduction01:23- Dr. Flynn's education background02:49| Challenges and highlights of researching chemistry education03:40| What is systems thinking06:24| How to integrate systems thinking into the classroom07:32| Comment from Peter Mahaffy on tips for educators07:50| Challenges in organic chemistry and how to succeed09:14| Redesigning the UOttawa curriculum11:10| Artificial Intelligence as a tool13:20| The future of chemistry education14:48| Conclusion and closing remarksSoundtrack by The Underground Drive. All rights reserved. Listen more:https://music.apple.com/ca/artist/the-underground-drive/1571062779https://open.spotify.com/artist/4sCJG8TMQyTZ9FDd1JjJmRJustin Nguyen (Producer), Sophia Guy (Host), Induja Arulchelvam (Writer), Kathleen Connolly (Social Media Producer) 

 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

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

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

South East Technological University's (SETU) Walton Institute secures €4m MSCA project to train Europe's next generation of quantum innovators. Walton Institute at South East Technological University has been selected to coordinate QUESTING, a €4 million Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) doctoral network that will train the next generation of quantum internet experts. The project brings together nine European universities and 13 industry partners to address one of the continent's most pressing technology challenges. QUESTING is the first doctoral network to tackle the complete lifecycle of distributed quantum networks. Over the coming years, it will train 15 fully-funded PhD candidates as "Q-System Innovators" - specialists with rare interdisciplinary expertise spanning quantum technology, communications, computing, and social sciences. The project addresses a critical skills shortage. Quantum networks promise to revolutionise secure communications and distributed computing, but Europe requires a trained workforce to design, manage, and operate these systems at scale. Dr Indrakshi Dey, Principal Investigator of QUESTING at Walton Institute, is calling on Europe's brightest talent to apply. "We are not just offering 15 PhD positions," she said. "We are inviting exceptional minds to join an elite, interdisciplinary team backed by industry leaders and world-class infrastructure. If you are ready to stop studying the future and start engineering it, QUESTING is your launching pad." For Ireland, the project represents a significant boost to the country's position in quantum research. As coordinator, Walton Institute will manage the entire consortium, enhancing its international profile and attracting top doctoral talent to the south east region. The institute brings extensive experience leading large-scale EU projects to the role. Speaking about the growing demand for quantum technologies, Dr Deirdre Kilbane, Director of Research at the Walton Institute, SETU, explains the leading role Walton plays in elevating the understanding and capabilities of the technologies. "We are expanding on our existing quantum expertise with the announcement of this QUESTING project here in the Walton Institute. Our team of researchers will be leaders in theoretical modelling and optimisation of advanced quantum networks, which will benefit society in untold ways." The QUESTING consortium includes Trinity College Dublin and the University of Galway's Irish Centre for High-End Computing among its partners. Industry collaborators include Airbus Defence and Space, British Telecommunications, Telecom Italia, and the Austrian Institute of Technology. By training specialists who understand quantum systems from design through to deployment, QUESTING aims to give Europe a competitive edge in the race to build the quantum internet. The project will establish a harmonised doctoral curriculum that becomes the European standard for training in quantum network systems. The work addresses what researchers call the "fertile nexus" where quantum and classical computing meet. Rather than treating quantum networks in isolation, QUESTING takes a holistic approach, integrating expertise from quantum physics, complex systems theory, information engineering, and even humanities disciplines to consider ethical and societal implications. Applications for the 15 funded PhD positions are now open. Contact Indrakshi.Dey@waltoninstitute.ie for details.

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.  

Up to 45% of dementia cases are preventable through addressing modifiable risk factors. That's according to new research out today from Trinity College. Principal Investigator of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing and Head of the Ageing Research Programme in Trinity College Dublin, Rose Anne Kenny discuss the findings with Newstalk Breakfast.

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/

Dr. Camila Coelho is a Principal Investigator at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, where her lab studies emerging pathogens. She talks about her lab's work on mpox and other viruses, her approach to mentorship, and how her MBA education helps her in science.

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?

Stem cell research is offering new possibilities for treating age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of vision loss. In this Macular Chat, Dr. Jeffrey Stern and Dr. Sally Temple, Principal Investigators and Co-Founders of the Neural Stem Cell Institute, will explain what stem cells are, share the latest updates from clinical trials such as Luxa Biotechnology's RPESC-RPE transplantation, and discuss the safety, outcomes, and future potential of stem cell therapies. They will also address what these advances mean for patients and caregivers today, what clinical trials are available, and what timelines might look like for making these treatments more widely accessible.

Dr Gowri Subramanian, MD, CPH, is a medical doctor in integrative (functional) medicine focused on obesity, medical aesthetics, menopause and fertility. Previously the Medical, Compliance and Regulatory Director at Besins Healthcare, she has been a Principal Investigator in more than 20 clinical trials. Dr Subramanian has authored various publications and posters and presented at medical conferences and health technology assessments. In the pharmaceutical industry, she has helped lobby topics at Parliament and contributed to National Guidelines. She delivers medical training, mentors doctors and Pranic Healers and she is passionate about integrating spirituality in school and family life. Dr Gowri is the Director of the British Pranic Healing Council and is a Basic Pranic Healing Instructor in the UK.Links:https://www.britishpranichealingcouncil.org.uk/(Use code DW10 for 10% discount for the course in the UK)www.linkedin.com/in/british-pranic-healing-council-80123729bdebbiewilliamspodcast.comSupport the show

Associate Professor Fran Boyle shares the MAJOR research findings for improving care for parents and families after perinatal loss. Fran is a Principal Investigator with the Australian Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth where she co-leads the Care after Stillbirth program. Her research addresses the psychosocial impacts of perinatal loss and is committed to improving outcomes for women and families through the implementation and evaluation of best practice parent-centered perinatal bereavement care in hospital and community settings.  Social media: @glimmer_project@daydot_midwifery@brisbanegriefcounselling@rednosegriefandloss  Special thank you to: -3P StudioHosts: Amy Larsen and Liana QuinlivanPodcast Producer and Glimmer Project Founder: Dr Ashleigh Smith Caroline Renshaw, Fiona Jordan and all our special guests for this season  Links: Home - Red Nose AustraliaBrisbane Grief Counselling Home - Amy Larsen specialising in loss, grief and trauma. Brisbane Grief Counselling Brisbane Grief CounsellingDay Dot MidwiferyDeveloping a parent version of a guideline for respectful and supportive perinatal bereavement care | The Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth 

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.

Dr. Michel Dugon, Principal Investigator of the Venom System Lab in the University of Galway

Scott Murakami, PHIG Workforce Director and Principal Investigator with the State of Hawaii, shares how his department is utilizing Public Health Infrastructure Grant funds to support the state's public health workforce; jurisdictions looking to stay current on PHIG deadlines, project updates, resources and more can subscribe to the PHIG National Partners Connections newsletter; Melissa Touma, Director of the Public Health Infrastructure Program at ASTHO, discusses why procurement timelines are so critical and how PHIG recipients are using the grant to accelerate them; and Melissa Magstadt, ASTHO member and Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Health, was recently honored with the State Official Award by the South Dakota Association of Healthcare Organizations.  ASTHO Web Page: Public Health Infrastructure Grant ASTHO Web Page: Subscribe: PHIG Connections Newsletter ASTHO Blog: PHIG Recipients Accelerating Procurement Processes South Dakota Association of Healthcare Organizations: SDAHO recognizes 9 individuals with Distinguished Service Awards during 2025 Annual Convention  

Matt Dowling is the Chief Scientific Officer and Director at Medcura Team. Matt completed his graduate work at the Fischell Department of Bioengineering at the University of Maryland (UMD), after completing his undergrad in Chemical Engineering from the University of Notre Dame. At UMD, he was awarded the Fischell Fellowship in Biomedical Engineering for his innovative ideas in drug delivery systems. Matt then co-created gel-e, a novel biomaterial platform, raising several initial grants to develop the technology and to launch Medcura as a corporate entity. Matt was the recipient of the Dean's Doctoral Research Award from the UMD Clark School of Engineering for his work on chitosan-based self-assembled soft materials for use in wound treatment. He has been the Principal Investigator on $10 million in non-dilutive grant awards to Medcura; these have been used to achieve 5 FDA clearances, 2 Breakthrough Device Designations, 28 issued patents, and 10+ peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals. Matt's work has been featured on several US and international media outlets including the BBC TV program, Brave New World with Stephen Hawking. He's also the lead vocalist in the band, Swoll.Swollhttps://www.swollmusic.com/Light the NightLLS is on a mission to cure blood cancers and improve quality of life for the nearly 1.7 million people in the U.S. living with or in remission from blood cancer.Help Team Zavadowski reach our fundraising goal! Thank you for your generous donations:https://pages.lls.org/ltn/fdk/Montcomd25/rsmith--Get in touch: robinsmithshow@gmail.comCall the hotline: +1 (301) 458-0883Follow Robin on Insight Timer: https://insighttimer.com/robinsmithBecome a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/therobinsmithshowGot a question? We'd love to hear from you!

Episode 25 with Marsha Rosenbaum, PhD, is a journey back through the psychedelic time machine. Marsha started her medicine journey back in the 1970s, both as an underground explorer of psychedelics and an above-ground researcher for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). For nearly 20 years, she was the Principal Investigator on grants from NIDA to study women heroin addicts, cocaine, methadone maintenance treatment, and MDMA. She then moved to drug policy and education at the Drug Policy Alliance in San Francisco (where she is Director Emerita) where she founded the Safety First drug education project. Back when Marsha, got her start, the general view was that all drugs were bad, which then led to the creation of the war on drugs and all its devastating impacts. Marsha is one of the many voices that has helped our society to come to the new understanding that some drugs can actually be very beneficial and that the drug war did more damage than any drug ever did. Join us for a trip through the psychedelic decades as we explore the amazing contribution of Marsha Rosenbaum to the evolution of drug research, policy and education.   Learn More About Marsha Rosenbaum, PhD Drug Policy Alliance: drugpolicy.org Safety First Program: https://drugpolicy.org/resource/safety-first/ Before You Trip: beforeyoutrip.org Coalition for Psychedelic Safety and  Education: https://www.coalitionforpsychedelicsafety.org   Connect with Carla If you're inspired by this episode and want to stay connected, follow Carla and Psychedelic Divas on social media or visit the website to get your Psychedelic Safety Guide Including What to Do When Things Go Wrong: ·        Website: PsychedelicDivas.com ·        Carla's Coaching: CarlaDetchon.com ·        Instagram: @psychedelicdivas ·        YouTube: @carladetchon  ·        Subscribe & Review: If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, rate, and review Psychedelic Divas. Your support helps amplify these important conversations and grow our community.

Jane chats with Dr. David Almeida, a  Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Penn State. He is the Principal Investigator of the National Study of Daily Experiences (NSDE), the largest longitudinal diary study of daily experiences and health in the United States. Dr. Almeida's work examines how daily experiences of stress are associated with health and well-being. In this episode, Jane and Dr. Almeida discuss the ways in which people experience and react to stress in their daily lives, who is most likely to experience and be reactive to stress, ways to manage stress, and even some unexpected upside of experiencing stress in daily life.If you found this episode interesting at all, subscribe on our Substack and consider leaving us a good rating! It just takes a second but will allow us to reach more people and make them excited about psychology.Some papers relevant to today's discussion:  Changes in daily stress reactivity and changes in physical health across 18 years of adulthoodLongitudinal change in daily stress across 20 years of adulthood: Results from the National Study of Daily ExperiencesThe Mixed Benefits of a Stressor-Free Life Podcast Twitter @StanfordPsyPodPodcast SubstackLet us know what you thought of this episode, or of the podcast! :) stanfordpsychpodcast@gmail.com

The Natural Nuse Ellen Kamhi talks with Dr. Eric (Rick) Leskowitz, a psychiatrist who was with the Pain Management Program at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital (SRH) in Boston for over 25 years, where he founded the hospital's Integrative Medicine Project and was the Principal Investigator of a grant from the Langeloth Foundation to develop a comprehensive integrative medicine program. He has an appointment to the Harvard Medical School (HMS) Osher Research Institute, where he organized  conferences on “Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Rehabilitation”. He also was a guest lecturer along with spiritual teacher Ram Dass, and Trisha Meili (the Central Park Jogger).  www.TheMysteryOfLifeEnergy.com

Guest: Dr Lauren Byrne, Principal Investigator at the Huntington's Disease Centre at UCL

Welcome to Episode 148 of the Think UDL podcast: Students Tell Us What Works in Statistics with Jen McNally and Laura Callis. Jen McNally is a Professor and the Math Area Coordinator in the Department of Science and Mathematics at Curry College. Laura Callis is an Associate Professor in the Department of Science and Mathematics. Jen is the PI, or Principal Investigator, and Laura is the Co-PI of the DISCUS-IS (Discourse to Improve Student Conceptual Understanding of Statistics in Inclusive Settings) project which we will be exploring today. Jen and Laura have found that students are often the best collaborators to understand what UDL interventions and applications work best in their particular settings. Their project is particularly focussed in statistics and today's conversation will explore how to help students learn and even have a little fun in statistics classes using UDL. From flipping pennies to dolphin tricks, this episode has it all. You can also find the resources associated with today's conversation on the thinkUDL.org website and thank you for listening to the Think UDL podcast.

In this episode, you'll learn how many-year grants can bolster nonprofit people and programmatic impact. Host Rusty Stahl sits down with Betsy Leondar-Wright, Ph.D., the lead researcher at Fund the People, to discuss our brand-new report, Long-Haul Grantmaking.Betsy brings decades of nonprofit leadership, social justice activism, and academic research to the conversation, and she shares how her personal experiences with underfunded, unstable nonprofit jobs shaped her passion for this work. Together, Rusty and Betsy explore the vital question: what happens when funders commit to long-term, flexible support for nonprofits with an emphasis on supporting employees?Drawing from a case study of the Walter & Elise Haas Fund's Endeavor Fund, which made seven-year unrestricted grants to seven Bay Area nonprofits, Betsy highlights transformative impacts for organizations and their staff. From stronger internal systems and fairer pay, to improved work-life balance, healthier collaboration, and greater program impact, the research shows how funding stability, paired with financial incentives to focus on job quality, directly translates to healthier, more effective nonprofits. Betsy also shares moving examples of staff and program participants whose lives have been improved by this approach—from frontline workers gaining access to healthcare and rest, to immigrant entrepreneurs modeling better job practices in their own small businesses.This conversation offers funders and nonprofit leaders alike practical insights into how funding can shift from a cycle of scarcity to a model of sustainability. Listeners will also learn about an upcoming interactive webinar (October 10, 2025, 10am PT / 1pm ET) where Betsy and special guests will dive deeper into the findings and share strategies for overcoming barriers to many-year funding. Register to discover how embracing long-haul grantmaking can fuel high-performing people, organizations, and impact.Betsy Leondar-Wright, Ph.D.Betsy leads Staffing the Mission, Fund the People's research and dissemination arm. In this role, she serves as Principal Investigator of the Upgrading Nonprofit Workplaces study. The first publication from this research is Long-Haul Grantmaking report. Betsy joined the team when Staffing the Mission became part of Fund the People in late 2023.Dr. Leondar-Wright is a veteran of 30+ years at economic justice nonprofits in various roles, including United for a Fair Economy. She has facilitated more than 250 popular education workshops around the US and the UK. As an Associate Professor of Sociology at Lasell University, she taught about race and class inequality and social movement strategy. She is the author of Missing Class: Strengthening Social Movement Groups by Seeing Class Cultures, and a co-author of The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the US Racial Wealth Divide.Related episodes:Jamie Allison, Walter and Elise Haas Fund, on the FTP Podcast EpisodeLong-Haul Grantmaking Research:Long-Haul Grantmaking ReportRegister for Free Webinar on the Report (Fri 10/10, 10a PT)Other Resources Discussed in the Episode:Endeavor Fund Cohort info on Haas Sr. Fund websiteStaffing the Mission (on Fund the People site)Sustainable Jobs Toolkit (created by Staffing the Mission and All Due Respect)Workshops on Burnout for Nonprofits from StaffingIs It Racist? Is It Sexist? Why Red and Blue White People Disagree, and How to Decide in the Gray Areas (book by Betsy)Missing Class: Strengthening Social Movement Groups by Seeing Class Cultures (book by Betsy)CA Talent Justice Summit webpage

Osteosarcoma Webinar Series: Amy Armstrong, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Siteman Kids, joins us on OsteoBites to discuss an open-label, cohort-sequential dose-escalation and dose-confirmation Phase 1/2 clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of domatinostat in combination with sirolimus in adolescents and adults with relapsed, refractory sarcoma and osteosarcoma. She will review background, patient selection, treatment plan and study calendar for this clinical trial.Dr. Amy Armstrong is a pediatric oncologist who directs the Solid Tumor Program at Siteman Kids, affiliated with St. Louis Children's Hospital, as well as co-directs the Adolescent and Young Adult Sarcoma Program in collaboration with Siteman Kids and Siteman Cancer Center. She is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Washington University in St. Louis and has research interests in Neurofibromatosis Type 1-related plexiform neurofibromas, renal tumors, and sarcomas found most commonly in the adolescent and young adult population. Dr. Armstrong serves as site Principal Investigator for the Children's Oncology Group, Neurofibromatosis Clinical Trials Consortium and National Pediatric Cancer Foundation and is invested in conducting and developing clinical trials to serve a diverse range of solid tumors in both the upfront and relapsed setting.

Nations need manufacturing workforces that are competent, empowered, and diverse. Attracting and educating this base – ranging from operators and technicians to technologists and engineers – poses unique challenges and opportunities. Underinvestment in manufacturing education has led to a lack of integration of manufacturing content in higher education curriculum. In many countries, deep disconnects exist between manufacturing and workforce development. Expanding industries such as semiconductors and the submarine industrial base struggle to grow their workforce at a pace to support growth. And at times, manufacturing has struggled to attract young people and develop talent. This webinar will present a new 2025 special issue in SME Manufacturing Letters: Innovations in Manufacturing Education. This issue will provide a platform for findings that advance the frontiers of manufacturing education and workforce development. Topics will include, but are not limited to: innovative manufacturing education in higher education, community colleges, and K-12; learning technologies for manufacturing education and training; and novel approaches to experiential learning and labs. The presentation will include timeline, topics and scope, review process, and Q&A. Visit https://advancedmanufacturing.org/webinars for a more interactive experience with visuals.    SPEAKERS: Dr. John LiuDirector and Principal Investigator, MIT Learning Engineering and Practice (LEAP) Group Ismail Fidan, PhDProfessor of Engineering Technology and Director of the University's Maker Space, Tennessee Tech University John Irwin, EdD Professor, Mechanical Engineering Technology Chair, Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering Technology Department, Coll, Michigan Technological University      

Dr. Sam Osmanagich is a scientist, megalithic and pyramid sites researcher, internationally acclaimed author and businessman. He's Bosnian-born American citizen who lives and works in Houston (USA) and Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina).He has discovered the Bosnian Pyramids that consist of at least five colossal pyramid structures and huge network of prehistorical underground tunnel network near the town of Visoko in central Bosnia-Herzegovina. He's been Principal Investigator of the Project from 2005 to present.He holds Ph.D. on Mayan pyramids. He's Anthropology professor and Director of Center for Anthropology at American University in Bosnia-Herzegovina, foreign member of Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Moscow, Russia (2007) and Croatian Academy of Science and Art in Diaspora, Basel, Switzerland (2015).Author of 18 books on pyramids around the world and ancient civilizations, translated into 17 languages (1986 to present).Recipient of the United States Congressional Certificate of Recognition (2013) “for continuous support in promoting cultural and economic independence for people new to the USA.” First honoree of the Amelia B. Edwards Award for "outstanding research and advancement of knowledge of pyramids around the world", Chicago, USA (2016)His work and scientific field experiments on Bosnian Pyramids has resulted in new definition on pyramids: they are not tombs for kings but energy machines used by living communities for cosmic communication, self-healing, improvement of molecular structure of water and food, development of spiritual senses and refinement of social organization.Official web site: www.samosmanagich.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/earth-ancients--2790919/support.

What's next in deep space exploration? Dr. Alan Stern, planetary scientist and the Principal Investigator for the New Horizons mission to Pluto, joins us to discuss what we learned about Pluto, the prospects for a future Pluto orbiter, the news from the Kuiper Belt, and to talk about his experiences as a commercial suborbital astronaut. Oh, and he might just mention that he was short-listed to fly on the space shuttle! Alan is one of those people that just has one adventure after another... did I mention that he dove on the Titanic? Yeah, that kind of guy. Join us for an hour of deep space adventure. Headlines: U.S. Faces Warnings of Losing Lunar Race to China NASA Selects a New Associate Administrator Third Interstellar Comet Spotted With Unusual CO2 Cloud Main Topic: Pluto, the New Horizons Mission, and the Future of Planetary Exploration Why Pluto Was Chosen as a Prime Target for Exploration Building and Launching New Horizons: Team Effort and Challenges Emotional Moments as Pluto Data Arrived on Earth Precise Navigation: Getting New Horizons Safely to Pluto Pluto's Surprising Geological Activity and Complexity Major Discoveries at Pluto's Moon Charon Exploring Arrokoth: Insights into Planetary Formation The Search for a Possible Third Flyby Target in the Kuiper Belt The Importance of Long-Term Funding for New Horizons NASA Budget Threats Could End Multiple Key Space Missions The Possible Role of Kuiper Belt Objects in Delivering Organics to Earth How Flybys at Pluto and Arrokoth Reshaped Theories of Planetary Systems Prospects for Future Pluto Orbiters and Human Spaceflight Advocacy for Continued U.S. Leadership in Deep Space Exploration Host: Rod Pyle Co-Host: Fredrick (Rick) Jenet Guest: Alan Stern 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 shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Living with MS means living with uncertainty, possible physical disability or cognitive dysfunction, bouts of crushing fatigue, mood changes, and let's not forget the very real irritation of well-meaning people telling you how healthy you look. Just processing the world around you can feel challenging. In this episode, psychologist Dr. Miriam Franco joins me to discuss how developing a growth mindset can make all the difference in how you experience your MS journey.   We're also sharing a real-world example of how the drastic cuts in federal funding are already impacting MS care. We'll tell you about the first country in the world to approve Tolebrutinib, a new disease-modifying therapy for nonrelapsing secondary progressive MS. And we'll explain why people are particularly excited about this medication. We'll share details about the MS Clinical Imaging and Data Resource that's been launched by the International Progressive MS Alliance. We'll tell you how and where to catch the MS Standup Comedy Benefit next Monday in New York. And we're reminding you about your opportunity to impact future MS therapies by helping the FDA better understand what living with MS is really like. We have a lot to talk about! Are you ready for RealTalk MS??! This Week: Developing a growth mindset  :22 How those federal research funding cuts are impacting MS patient care  1:30 United Arab Emirates becomes the first country in the world to approve Tolebrutinib for nonrelapsing secondary progressive MS  5:05 The International Progressive MS Alliance launches an MS Clinical Imaging and Data Resource open to the MS research community   8:32 The MS Standup Comedy Benefit takes place next Monday in New York  10:15 Add your voice and participate in the Shaping Tomorrow Together initiative  11:04 Dr. Miriam Franco discusses what it means to have a growth mindset when you're living with MS   14:50 Share this episode  34:11 Next week's episode   34:31 SHARE THIS EPISODE OF REALTALK MS Just copy this link & paste it into your text or email: https://realtalkms.com/418 ADD YOUR VOICE TO THE CONVERSATION I've always thought about the RealTalk MS podcast as a conversation. And this is your opportunity to join the conversation by sharing your feedback, questions, and suggestions for topics that we can discuss in future podcast episodes. Please shoot me an email or call the RealTalk MS Listener Hotline and share your thoughts! Email: jon@realtalkms.com Phone: (310) 526-2283 And don't forget to join us in the RealTalk MS Facebook group! LINKS If your podcast app doesn't allow you to click on these links, you'll find them in the show notes in the RealTalk MS app or at www.RealTalkMS.com PARTICIPATE: Take the Shaping Tomorrow Together Survey https://s.alchemer.com/s3/Perspectives-on-MS REGISTER: Attend the virtual Shaping Tomorrow Together meeting with the FDA https://nmss.quorum.us/event/25463 VIDEO: Dr. Robert Fox, Principal Investigator in the Phase 3 Clinical Trial for Tolebrutinib and Secondary Progressive MS https://youtu.be/tJQ93qdlXrU?si=S5jREy5ixVcE7ol- VIDEO: Dr. Jiwon Oh, Principal Investigator in the Phase 3 Clinical Trial for Tolebrutinib and Relapsing-Remitting MS https://youtu.be/zcBmAHRTotA?si=n86KRjB9Xt9sdZMg The International Progressive MS Alliance Clinical Imaging and Data Resource https://progressivemsalliance.org/ms-clinical-and-imaging-data-resource ATTEND: MS Stand-Up Comedy Benefit  https://msstandup.org Join the RealTalk MS Facebook Group https://facebook.com/groups/realtalkms Download the RealTalk MS App for iOS Devices https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/realtalk-ms/id1436917200 Download the RealTalk MS App for Android Deviceshttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tv.wizzard.android.realtalk Give RealTalk MS a rating and review http://www.realtalkms.com/review Follow RealTalk MS on Twitter, @RealTalkMS_jon, and subscribe to our newsletter at our website, RealTalkMS.com. RealTalk MS Episode 418 Guest: Dr. Miriam Franco Privacy Policy