Podcasts about Science journalism

An avalanche of information besets us on what to eat. It comes from the news, from influencers of every ilk, from scientists, from government, and of course from the food companies. Super foods? Ultra-processed foods? How does one find a source of trust and make intelligent choices for both us as individuals and for the society as a whole. A new book helps in this quest, a book entitled Food Intelligence: the Science of How Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us. It is written by two highly credible and thoughtful people who join us today.Julia Belluz is a journalist and a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times. She reports on medicine, nutrition, and public health. She's been a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT and holds a master's in science degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Dr. Kevin Hall trained as a physicist as best known for pioneering work on nutrition, including research he did as senior investigator and section chief at the National Institutes of Health. His work is highly regarded. He's won awards from the NIH, from the American Society of Nutrition, the Obesity Society and the American Physiological Society. Interview Transcript Thank you both very much for being with us. And not only for being with us, but writing such an interesting book. I was really eager to read it and there's a lot in there that people don't usually come across in their normal journeys through the nutrition world. So, Julia, start off if you wouldn't mind telling us what the impetus was for you and Kevin to do this book with everything else that's out there. Yes, so there's just, I think, an absolute avalanche of information as you say about nutrition and people making claims about how to optimize diet and how best to lose or manage weight. And I think what we both felt was missing from that conversation was a real examination of how do we know what we know and kind of foundational ideas in this space. You hear a lot about how to boost or speed up your metabolism, but people don't know what metabolism is anyway. You hear a lot about how you need to maximize your protein, but what is protein doing in the body and where did that idea come from? And so, we were trying to really pair back. And I think this is where Kevin's physics training was so wonderful. We were trying to look at like what are these fundamental laws and truths. Things that we know about food and nutrition and how it works in us, and what can we tell people about them. And as we kind of went through that journey it very quickly ended up in an argument about the food environment, which I know we're going to get to. We will. It's really interesting. This idea of how do we know what we know is really fascinating because when you go out there, people kind of tell us what we know. Or at least what they think what we know. But very few people go through that journey of how did we get there. And so people can decide on their own is this a credible form of knowledge that I'm being told to pursue. So Kevin, what do you mean by food intelligence? Coming from a completely different background in physics where even as we learn about the fundamental laws of physics, it's always in this historical context about how we know what we know and what were the kind of key experiments along the way. And even with that sort of background, I had almost no idea about what happened to food once we ate it inside our bodies. I only got into this field by a happenstance series of events, which is probably too long to talk about this podcast. But to get people to have an appreciation from the basic science about what is going on inside our bodies when we eat. What is food made out of? As best as we can understand at this current time, how does our body deal with. Our food and with that sort of basic knowledge about how we know what we know. How to not be fooled by these various sound bites that we'll hear from social media influencers telling you that everything that you knew about nutrition is wrong. And they've been hiding this one secret from you that's been keeping you sick for so long to basically be able to see through those kinds of claims and have a bedrock of knowledge upon which to kind of evaluate those things. That's what we mean by food intelligence. It makes sense. Now, I'm assuming that food intelligence is sort of psychological and biological at the same time, isn't it? Because that there's what you're being told and how do you process that information and make wise choices. But there's also an intelligence the body has and how to deal with the food that it's receiving. And that can get fooled too by different things that are coming at it from different types of foods and stuff. We'll get to that in a minute, but it's a very interesting concept you have, and wouldn't it be great if we could all make intelligent choices? Julia, you mentioned the food environment. How would you describe the modern food environment and how does it shape the choices we make? It's almost embarrassing to have this question coming from you because so much of our understanding and thinking about this idea came from you. So, thank you for your work. I feel like you should be answering this question. But I think one of the big aha moments I had in the book research was talking to a neuroscientist, who said the problem in and of itself isn't like the brownies and the pizza and the chips. It's the ubiquity of them. It's that they're most of what's available, along with other less nutritious ultra-processed foods. They're the most accessible. They're the cheapest. They're kind of heavily marketed. They're in our face and the stuff that we really ought to be eating more of, we all know we ought to be eating more of, the fruits and vegetables, fresh or frozen. The legumes, whole grains. They're the least available. They're the hardest to come by. They're the least accessible. They're the most expensive. And so that I think kind of sums up what it means to live in the modern food environment. The deck is stacked against most of us. The least healthy options are the ones that we're inundated by. And to kind of navigate that, you need a lot of resources, wherewithal, a lot of thought, a lot of time. And I think that's kind of where we came out thinking about it. But if anyone is interested in knowing more, they need to read your book Food Fight, because I think that's a great encapsulation of where we still are basically. Well, Julie, it's nice of you to say that. You know what you reminded me one time I was on a panel and a speaker asks the audience, how many minutes do you live from a Dunkin Donuts? And people sort of thought about it and nobody was more than about five minutes from a Dunkin Donuts. And if I think about where I live in North Carolina, a typical place to live, I'm assuming in America. And boy, within about five minutes, 10 minutes from my house, there's so many fast-food places. And then if you add to that the gas stations that have foods and the drug store that has foods. Not to mention the supermarkets. It's just a remarkable environment out there. And boy, you have to have kind of iron willpower to not stop and want that food. And then once it hits your body, then all heck breaks loose. It's a crazy, crazy environment, isn't it? Kevin, talk to us, if you will, about when this food environment collides with human biology. And what happens to normal biological processes that tell us how much we should eat, when we should stop, what we should eat, and things like that. I think that that is one of the newer pieces that we're really just getting a handle on some of the science. It's been observed for long periods of time that if you change a rat's food environment like Tony Sclafani did many, many years ago. That rats aren't trying to maintain their weight. They're not trying to do anything other than eat whatever they feel like. And, he was having a hard time getting rats to fatten up on a high fat diet. And he gave them this so-called supermarket diet or cafeteria diet composed of mainly human foods. And they gained a ton of weight. And I think that pointed to the fact that it's not that these rats lacked willpower or something like that. That they weren't making these conscious choices in the same way that we often think humans are entirely under their conscious control about what we're doing when we make our food choices. And therefore, we criticize people as having weak willpower when they're not able to choose a healthier diet in the face of the food environment. I think the newer piece that we're sort of only beginning to understand is how is it that that food environment and the foods that we eat might be changing this internal symphony of signals that's coming from our guts, from the hormones in our blood, to our brains and the understanding that of food intake. While you might have control over an individual meal and how much you eat in that individual meal is under biological control. And what are the neural systems and how do they work inside our brains in communicating with our bodies and our environment as a whole to shift the sort of balance point where body weight is being regulated. To try to better understand this really intricate interconnection or interaction between our genes, which are very different between people. And thousands of different genes contributing to determining heritability of body size in a given environment and how those genes are making us more or less susceptible to these differences in the food environment. And what's the underlying biology? I'd be lying to say if that we have that worked out. I think we're really beginning to understand that, but I hope what the book can give people is an appreciation for the complexity of those internal signals and that they exist. And that food intake isn't entirely under our control. And that we're beginning to unpack the science of how those interactions work. It's incredibly interesting. I agree with you on that. I have a slide that I bet I've shown a thousand times in talks that I think Tony Sclafani gave me decades ago that shows laboratory rats standing in front of a pile of these supermarket foods. And people would say, well, of course you're going to get overweight if that's all you eat. But animals would eat a healthy diet if access to it. But what they did was they had the pellets of the healthy rat chow sitting right in that pile. Exactly. And the animals ignore that and overeat the unhealthy food. And then you have this metabolic havoc occur. So, it seems like the biology we've all inherited works pretty well if you have foods that we've inherited from the natural environment. But when things become pretty unnatural and we have all these concoctions and chemicals that comprise the modern food environment the system really breaks down, doesn't it? Yeah. And I think that a lot of people are often swayed by the idea as well. Those foods just taste better and that might be part of it. But I think that what we've come to realize, even in our human experiments where we change people's food environments... not to the same extent that Tony Sclafani did with his rats, but for a month at a time where we ask people to not be trying to gain or lose weight. And we match certain food environments for various nutrients of concern. You know, they overeat diets that are higher in these so-called ultra-processed foods and they'd spontaneously lose weight when we remove those from the diet. And they're not saying that the foods are any more or less pleasant to eat. There's this underlying sort of the liking of foods is somewhat separate from the wanting of foods as neuroscientists are beginning to understand the different neural pathways that are involved in motivation and reward as opposed to the sort of just the hedonic liking of foods. Even the simple explanation of 'oh yeah, the rats just like the food more' that doesn't seem to be fully explaining why we have these behaviors. Why it's more complicated than a lot of people make out. Let's talk about ultra-processed foods and boy, I've got two wonderful people to talk to about that topic. Julia, let's start with your opinion on this. So tell us about ultra-processed foods and how much of the modern diet do they occupy? So ultra-processed foods. Obviously there's an academic definition and there's a lot of debate about defining this category of foods, including in the US by the Health and Human Services. But the way I think about it is like, these are foods that contain ingredients that you don't use in your home kitchen. They're typically cooked. Concocted in factories. And they now make up, I think it's like 60% of the calories that are consumed in America and in other similar high-income countries. And a lot of these foods are what researchers would also call hyper palatable. They're crossing these pairs of nutrient thresholds like carbohydrate, salt, sugar, fat. These pairs that don't typically exist in nature. So, for the reasons you were just discussing they seem to be particularly alluring to people. They're again just like absolutely ubiquitous and in these more developed contexts, like in the US and in the UK in particular. They've displaced a lot of what we would think of as more traditional food ways or ways that people were eating. So that's sort of how I think about them. You know, if you go to a supermarket these days, it's pretty hard to find a part of the supermarket that doesn't have these foods. You know, whole entire aisles of processed cereals and candies and chips and soft drinks and yogurts, frozen foods, yogurts. I mean, it's just, it's all over the place. And you know, given that if the average is 60% of calories, and there are plenty of people out there who aren't eating any of that stuff at all. For the other people who are, the number is way higher. And that, of course, is of great concern. So there have been hundreds of studies now on ultra-processed foods. It was a concept born not that long ago. And there's been an explosion of science and that's all for the good, I think, on these ultra-processed foods. And perhaps of all those studies, the one discussed most is one that you did, Kevin. And because it was exquisitely controlled and it also produced pretty striking findings. Would you describe that original study you did and what you found? Sure. So, the basic idea was one of the challenges that we have in nutrition science is accurately measuring how many calories people eat. And the best way to do that is to basically bring people into a laboratory and measure. Give them a test meal and measure how many calories they eat. Most studies of that sort last for maybe a day or two. But I always suspected that people could game the system if for a day or two, it's probably not that hard to behave the way that the researcher wants, or the subject wants to deceive the researcher. We decided that what we wanted to do was bring people into the NIH Clinical Center. Live with us for a month. And in two two-week blocks, we decided that we would present them with two different food environments essentially that both provided double the number of calories that they would require to maintain their body weight. Give them very simple instructions. Eat as much or as little as you'd like. Don't be trying to change your weight. We're not going to tell you necessarily what the study's about. We're going to measure lots of different things. And they're blinded to their weight measurements and they're wearing loose fitting scrubs and things like that, so they can't tell if their clothes are getting tighter or looser. And so, what we did is in for one two-week block, we presented people with the same number of calories, the same amount of sugar and fat and carbs and fiber. And we gave them a diet that was composed of 80% of calories coming from these ultra-processed foods. And the other case, we gave them a diet that was composed of 0% of calories from ultra-processed food and 80% of the so-called minimally processed food group. And what we then did was just measured people's leftovers essentially. And I say we, it was really the chefs and the dieticians at the clinical center who are doing all the legwork on this. But what we found was pretty striking, which was that when people were exposed to this highly ultra-processed food environment, despite being matched for these various nutrients of concern, they overate calories. Eating about 500 calories per day on average, more than the same people in the minimally processed diet condition. And they gained weight and gained body fat. And, when they were in the minimally processed diet condition, they spontaneously lost weight and lost body fat without trying in either case, right? They're just eating to the same level of hunger and fullness and overall appetite. And not reporting liking the meals any more or less in one diet versus the other. Something kind of more fundamental seemed to have been going on that we didn't fully understand at the time. What was it about these ultra-processed foods? And we were clearly getting rid of many of the things that promote their intake in the real world, which is that they're convenient, they're cheap, they're easy to obtain, they're heavily marketed. None of that was at work here. It was something really about the meals themselves that we were providing to people. And our subsequent research has been trying to figure out, okay, well what were the properties of those meals that we were giving to these folks that were composed primarily of ultra-processed foods that were driving people to consume excess calories? You know, I've presented your study a lot when I give talks. It's nice hearing it coming from you rather than me. But a couple of things that interest me here. You use people as their own controls. Each person had two weeks of one diet and two weeks of another. That's a pretty powerful way of providing experimental control. Could you say just a little bit more about that? Yeah, sure. So, when you design a study, you're trying to maximize the efficiency of the study to get the answers that you want with the least number of participants while still having good control and being able to design the study that's robust enough to detect a meaningful effect if it exists. One of the things that you do when you analyze studies like that or design studies like that, you could just randomize people to two different groups. But given how noisy and how different between people the measurement of food intake is we would've required hundreds of people in each group to detect an effect like the one that we discovered using the same person acting as their own control. We would still be doing the study 10 years later as opposed to what we were able to do in this particular case, which is completed in a year or so for that first study. And so, yeah, when you kind of design a study that way it's not always the case that you get that kind of improvement in statistical power. But for a measurement like food intake, it really is necessary to kind of do these sorts of crossover type studies where each person acts as their own control. So put the 500 calorie increment in context. Using the old fashioned numbers, 3,500 calories equals a pound. That'd be about a pound a week or a lot of pounds over a year. But of course, you don't know what would happen if people were followed chronically and all that. But still 500 calories is a whopping increase, it seems to me. It sure is. And there's no way that we would expect it to stay at that constant level for many, many weeks on end. And I think that's one of the key questions going forward is how persistent is that change. And how does something that we've known about and we discuss in our books the basic physiology of how both energy expenditure changes as people gain and lose weight, as well as how does appetite change in a given environment when they gain and lose weight? And how do those two processes eventually equate at a new sort of stable body weight in this case. Either higher or lower than when people started the program of this diet manipulation. And so, it's really hard to make those kinds of extrapolations. And that's of course, the need for further research where you have longer periods of time and you, probably have an even better control over their food environment as a result. I was surprised when I first read your study that you were able to detect a difference in percent body fat in such a short study. Did that surprise you as well? Certainly the study was not powered to detect body fat changes. In other words, we didn't know even if there were real body fat changes whether or not we would have the statistical capabilities to do that. We did use a method, DXA, which is probably one of the most precise and therefore, if we had a chance to measure it, we had the ability to detect it as opposed to other methods. There are other methods that are even more precise, but much more expensive. So, we thought that we had a chance to detect differences there. Other things that we use that we also didn't think that we necessarily would have a chance to detect were things like liver fat or something like that. Those have a much less of an ability. It's something that we're exploring now with our current study. But, again, it's all exploratory at that point. So what can you tell us about your current study? We just wrapped it up, thankfully. What we were doing was basically re-engineering two new ultra-processed diets along parameters that we think are most likely the mechanisms by which ultra-processed meals drove increased energy intake in that study. One was the non-beverage energy density. In other words, how many calories per gram of food on the plate, not counting the beverages. Something that we noticed in the first study was that ultra-processed foods, because they're essentially dried out in the processing for reasons of food safety to prevent bacterial growth and increased shelf life, they end up concentrating the foods. They're disrupting the natural food matrix. They last a lot longer, but as a result, they're a more concentrated form of calories. Despite being, by design, we chose the overall macronutrients to be the same. They weren't necessarily higher fat as we often think of as higher energy density. What we did was we designed an ultra-processed diet that was low in energy density to kind of match the minimally processed diet. And then we also varied the number of individual foods that were deemed hyper palatable according to kind of what Julia said that crossed these pairs of thresholds for fat and sugar or fat and salt or carbs and salt. What we noticed in the first study was that we presented people with more individual foods on the plate that had these hyper palatable combinations. And I wrestle with the term terminology a little bit because I don't necessarily think that they're working through the normal palatability that they necessarily like these foods anymore because again, we asked people to rate the meals and they didn't report differences. But something about those combinations, regardless of what you call them, seemed to be driving that in our exploratory analysis of the first study. We designed a diet that was high in energy density, but low in hyper palatable foods, similar to the minimally processed. And then their fourth diet is with basically low in energy density and hyper palatable foods. And so, we presented some preliminary results last year and what we were able to show is that when we reduced both energy density and the number of hyper palatable foods, but still had 80% of calories from ultra-processed foods, that people more or less ate the same number of calories now as they did when they were the same people were exposed to the minimally processed diet. In fact they lost weight, to a similar extent as the minimally processed diet. And that suggests to me that we can really understand mechanisms at least when it comes to calorie intake in these foods. And that might give regulators, policy makers, the sort of information that they need in order to target which ultra-processed foods and what context are they really problematic. It might give manufacturers if they have the desire to kind of reformulate these foods to understand which ones are more or less likely to cause over consumption. So, who knows? We'll see how people respond to that and we'll see what the final results are with the entire study group that, like I said, just finished, weeks ago. I respond very positively to the idea of the study. The fact that if people assume ultra-processed foods are bad actors, then trying to find out what it is about them that's making the bad actors becomes really important. And you're exactly right, there's a lot of pressure on the food companies now. Some coming from public opinion, some coming from parts of the political world. Some from the scientific world. And my guess is that litigation is going to become a real actor here too. And the question is, what do you want the food industry to do differently? And your study can really help inform that question. So incredibly valuable research. I can't wait to see the final study, and I'm really delighted that you did that. Let's turn our attention for a minute to food marketing. Julia, where does food marketing fit in all this? Julia - What I was very surprised to find while we were researching the book was this deep, long history of calls against marketing junk food in particular to kids. I think from like the 1950s, you have pediatrician groups and other public health professionals saying, stop this. And anyone who has spent any time around small children knows that it works. We covered just like a little, it was from an advocacy group in the UK that exposed aid adolescents to something called Triple Dip Chicken. And then asked them later, pick off of this menu, I think it was like 50 items, which food you want to order. And they all chose Triple Dip chicken, which is, as the name suggests, wasn't the healthiest thing to choose on the menu. I think we know obviously that it works. Companies invest a huge amount of money in marketing. It works even in ways like these subliminal ways that you can't fully appreciate to guide our food choices. Kevin raised something really interesting was that in his studies it was the foods. So, it's a tricky one because it's the food environment, but it's also the properties of the foods themselves beyond just the marketing. Kevin, how do you think about that piece? I'm curious like. Kevin - I think that even if our first study and our second study had turned out there's no real difference between these artificial environments that we've put together where highly ultra-processed diets lead to excess calorie intake. If that doesn't happen, if it was just the same, it wouldn't rule out the fact that because these foods are so heavily marketed, because they're so ubiquitous. They're cheap and convenient. And you know, they're engineered for many people to incorporate into their day-to-day life that could still promote over consumption of calories. We just remove those aspects in our very artificial food environment. But of course, the real food environment, we're bombarded by these advertisements and the ubiquity of the food in every place that you sort of turn. And how they've displaced healthy alternatives, which is another mechanism by which they could cause harm, right? It doesn't even have to be the foods themselves that are harmful. What do they displace? Right? We only have a certain amount the marketers called stomach share, right? And so, your harm might not be necessarily the foods that you're eating, but the foods that they displaced. So even if our experimental studies about the ultra-processed meals themselves didn't show excess calorie intake, which they clearly did, there's still all these other mechanisms to explore about how they might play a part in the real world. You know, the food industry will say that they're agnostic about what foods they sell. They just respond to demand. That seems utter nonsense to me because people don't overconsume healthy foods, but they do overconsume the unhealthy ones. And you've shown that to be the case. So, it seems to me that idea that they can just switch from this portfolio of highly processed foods to more healthy foods just doesn't work out for them financially. Do you think that's right? I honestly don't have that same sort of knee jerk reaction. Or at least I perceive it as a knee jerk reaction, kind of attributing malice in some sense to the food industry. I think that they'd be equally happy if they could get you to buy a lot and have the same sort of profit margins, a lot of a group of foods that was just as just as cheap to produce and they could market. I think that you could kind of turn the levers in a way that that would be beneficial. I mean, setting aside for example, that diet soda beverages are probably from every randomized control trial that we've seen, they don't lead to the same amount of weight gain as the sugar sweetened alternatives. They're just as profitable to the beverage manufacturers. They sell just as many of them. Now they might have other deleterious consequences, but I don't think that it's necessarily the case that food manufacturers have to have these deleterious or unhealthy foods as their sole means of attaining profit. Thanks for that. So, Julia, back to you. You and Kevin point out in your book some of the biggest myths about nutrition. What would you say some of them are? I think one big, fundamental, overarching myth is this idea that the problem is in us. That this rise of diet related diseases, this explosion that we've seen is either because of a lack of willpower. Which you have some very elegant research on this that we cite in the book showing willpower did not collapse in the last 30, 40 years of this epidemic of diet related disease. But it's even broader than that. It's a slow metabolism. It's our genes. Like we put the problem on ourselves, and we don't look at the way that the environment has changed enough. And I think as individuals we don't do that. And so much of the messaging is about what you Kevin, or you Kelly, or you Julia, could be doing better. you know, do resistance training. Like that's the big thing, like if you open any social media feed, it's like, do more resistance training, eat more protein, cut out the ultra-processed foods. What about the food environment? What about the leaders that should be held accountable for helping to perpetuate these toxic food environments? I think that that's this kind of overarching, this pegging it and also the rise of personalized nutrition. This like pegging it to individual biology instead of for whatever the claim is, instead of thinking about how did environments and don't want to have as part of our lives. So that's kind of a big overarching thing that I think about. It makes sense. So, let's end on a positive note. There's a lot of reason to be concerned about the modern food environment. Do you see a helpful way forward and what might be done about this? Julia, let's stay with you. What do you think? I think so. We spent a lot of time researching history for this book. And a lot of things that seem impossible are suddenly possible when you have enough public demand and enough political will and pressure. There are so many instances and even in the history of food. We spend time with this character Harvey Wiley, who around the turn of the century, his research was one of the reasons we have something like the FDA protecting the food supply. That gives me a lot of hope. And we are in this moment where a lot of awareness is being raised about the toxic food environment and all these negative attributes of food that people are surrounded by. I think with enough organization and enough pressure, we can see change. And we can see this kind of flip in the food environment that I think we all want to see where healthier foods become more accessible, available, affordable, and the rest of it. Sounds good. Kevin, what are your thoughts? Yes, I just extend that to saying that for the first time in history, we sort of know what the population of the planet is going to be that we have to feed in the future. We're not under this sort of Malthusian threat of not being able to know where the population growth is going to go. We know it's going to be roughly 10 billion people within the next century. And we know we've got to change the way that we produce and grow food for the planet as well as for the health of people. We know we've got to make changes anyway. And we're starting from a position where per capita, we're producing more protein and calories than any other time in human history, and we're wasting more food. We actually know we're in a position of strength. We don't have to worry so acutely that we won't be able to provide enough food for everybody. It's what kind of food are we going to produce? How are we going to produce it in the way that's sustainable for both people and the planet? We have to tackle that anyway. And for the folks who had experienced the obesity epidemic or finally have drugs to help them and other kinds of interventions to help them. That absolve them from this idea that it's just a matter of weak willpower if we finally have some pharmaceutical interventions that are useful. So, I do see a path forward. Whether or not we take that is another question. Bios Dr. Kevin Hall is the section chief of Integrative Physiology Section in the Laboratory of Biological Modeling at the NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Kevin's laboratory investigates the integrative physiology of macronutrient metabolism, body composition, energy expenditure, and control of food intake. His main goal is to better understand how the food environment affects what we eat and how what we eat affects our physiology. He performs clinical research studies as well as developing mathematical models and computer simulations to better understand physiology, integrate data, and make predictions. In recent years, he has conducted randomized clinical trials to study how diets high in ultra-processed food may cause obesity and other chronic diseases. He holds a Ph.D. from McGill University. Julia Belluz is a Paris-based journalist and a contributing opinion writer to the New York Times, she has reported extensively on medicine, nutrition, and global public health from Canada, the US, and Europe. Previously, Julia was Vox's senior health correspondent in Washington, DC, a Knight Science Journalism fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and she worked as a reporter in Toronto and London. Her writing has appeared in a range of international publications, including the BMJ, the Chicago Tribune, the Economist, the Globe and Mail, Maclean's, the New York Times, ProPublica, and the Times of London. Her work has also had an impact, helping improve policies on maternal health and mental healthcare for first responders at the hospital- and state-level, as well as inspiring everything from scientific studies to an opera. Julia has been honored with numerous journalism awards, including the 2016 Balles Prize in Critical Thinking, the 2017 American Society of Nutrition Journalism Award, and three Canadian National Magazine Awards (in 2007 and 2013). In 2019, she was a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Communications Award finalist. She contributed chapters on public health journalism in the Tactical Guide to Science Journalism, To Save Humanity: What Matters Most for a Healthy Future, and was a commissioner for the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges.

This episode features Miles O'Brien, a science journalist who has been a correspondent for PBS News and CNN. He talks about his experience breaking in to science journalism, past and current science reporting, public and political views of science, the value of scientific research, and some particular stories including beavers, prostheses, and climate change research in … Continue reading "Science Journalism with Miles O'Brien // Acetaminophen and Autism"

Dr. Hoffman continues his conversation with UK-based science journalist and author Caroline Williams, author of “Inner Sense: How the New Science of Interoception Can Transform Your Health.”

In this episode of the Intelligent Medicine podcast, Dr. Ronald Hoffman explores the concept of interoception with UK-based science journalist and author Caroline Williams. They discuss her latest book, “Inner Sense: How the New Science of Interoception Can Transform Your Health.” The conversation details the intricate relationship between the mind and body, the importance of bodily self-awareness, and how it impacts mental and physical health. Williams shares insights from her extensive research and practical strategies for enhancing interoception, such as controlled breathing exercises and body scans. They also touch on future advancements and therapeutic applications in the realm of interoception, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of this emerging science and its potential to revolutionize healthcare.

Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, founding dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine, codirector of the Texas Children's Center for Vaccine Development, and professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine and Michael E. Mann, presidential distinguished professor and director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania and author of several books and co-author and, together, co-authors of Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World (PublicAffairs, 2025), talk about the specific groups promoting anti-science and how they make fighting the global threats of disease and climate change harder. 

Share your Field Stories!Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Kendra Pierre-Louis, climate journalist about Climate Science, Journalism, and Working Backwards to get to Your Career.   Read her full bio below.Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-form Showtimes: 1:40 - ChatGpt Weighing in 8:01 - Interview with Kendra Starts19:44 - What does it mean being a Journalist in this moment 33:19 - Accepting Supremacy of Natural Systems 35:30 - #Fieldnotes with KendraPlease be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Kendra Pierre-Louis at https://www.kendrawrites.com/Guest Bio: Kendra Pierre-Louis is an award-winning climate reporter. She has worked as climate reporter with Bloomberg, a senior climate reporter with the Gimlet/Spotify podcast How to Save a planet,  and as a staff writer for Popular Science.  She is also the author of the book, "Green Washed: Why We Can't Buy Our Way to a Green Planet." Kendra is a recipient of the 2023 New York Press Club Award for the audio story, “Sandy Was Just the Start. Is New York City Building Resiliently Enough for What's Coming Next?” and a  2022 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award. She received the gold award in the magazine category for her story "How rising groundwater caused by climate change could devastate coastal communities in MIT Technology Review. Kendra has  an MS in Science Writing from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an MA in Sustainable Development  from the SIT Graduate Institute and a B.A. in Economics from Cornell University.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.Support the showThanks for listening! A new episode drops every Friday. Like, share, subscribe, and/or sponsor to help support the continuation of the show. You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and all your favorite podcast players.

Giulia Negri"Montagn. Istruzioni per l'uso"Laterza Editoriwww.laterza.itQuanto odiate il «manca poco» che tutti, prima o poi, abbiamo sentito mentre siamo allo stremo delle forze? Cosa dareste per non aprire una mappa dei sentieri che sembra più complicata di quella del tesoro? Avete sobbalzato anche voi per quel fruscio nel prato, proprio lì, a due passi? Questa è la guida per tutti noi che arranchiamo sulle salite, non siamo ‘veri montanari', ma non rinunceremo mai al raggio verde che solo le montagne sanno darci.C'è un momento preciso, quando si cammina in montagna, in cui tutto si fa silenzioso. È quell'attimo in cui ti fermi a prendere fiato, il vento smette per un istante di soffiare, ti guardi attorno, osservi la meraviglia e ti rendi conto di quanto sei piccolo. È il momento per il quale tutti quanti noi arranchiamo sui sentieri e vaghiamo per i boschi, ci sorprendiamo di fronte alle cascate o scrutiamo i crinali alla ricerca di stambecchi e marmotte. Ma la montagna non è un luogo di vacanza come tutti gli altri, non è un luna park, bisogna accettare l'esistenza di pericoli e pianificare tutto, anche la rinuncia. Allora è importante sapere come preparare uno zaino, come leggere una carta, quali strumenti tecnologici sono utili e quali no. E poi ci sono gli incontri con gli animali: dalle mucche fino alle ‘fobie striscianti'. Impareremo cos'è un ‘parrucchiere di chiome' e a guardare con occhi nuovi fiori e funghi. Il tutto in compagnia di Giulia che, tra una chiacchiera e una battuta, dà buoni consigli, più di un grillo parlante. E se lo può ben permettere visto che per riuscire a dare buoni consigli bisogna aver sbagliato di più! Insomma, una guida piacevole e divertente per tutti coloro che cercano uno scatto di fantasia e di immaginazione per uscire dai sentieri più battuti, dai panorami ‘instagrammabili' e dagli eventi ‘esclusivi' a 3000 metri.Giulia Negri, fisica di formazione, è giornalista e divulgatrice scientifica. Ha conseguito un Master in Comunicazione della scienza presso la SISSA di Trieste e ha frequentato la Erice International School of Science Journalism. Collabora come freelance con “la Repubblica”, “Le Scienze”, “Il Tascabile” e “Wired”. Ha lavorato nel gruppo di Outreach di ATLAS al CERN, nell'organizzazione eventi scientifici, nell'editoria scolastica e come social media manager.Da sempre grande amante della montagna, nel 2018 ha finalmente realizzato il sogno di trasferirvisi a tempo pieno, diventando anche maestra di sci.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarewww.ilpostodelleparole.itDiventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.

Few writers have captured the wonder of science through storytelling as powerfully as Dava Sobel. In this episode, we celebrate her remarkable career and her recent honor as the recipient of The Planetary Society’s 2025 Cosmos Award for Outstanding Public Presentation of Science. Mat Kaplan, senior communications advisor at The Planetary Society, sits down with Sobel for a conversation about the human lives behind great scientific discoveries, from Galileo and Copernicus to the women of the Harvard Observatory and Marie Curie’s lab. Later in the show, Jack Kiraly, our director of government relations, joins us with an encouraging update on our public advocacy campaign to save NASA science. And don’t miss What’s Up with Bruce Betts, where we reflect on the role of science communicators and share a fresh Random Space Fact. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2025-cosmos-awardSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rethinkingwellness.substack.comScience and parenting journalist Melinda Wenner Moyer returns to discuss the importance of self-compassion and how to practice it, why conveying a growth mindset is much more helpful to kids than giving compliments about fixed qualities, misconceptions about resilience (and what the science really says), the difference between trauma and healthy distress, and her new book, HELLO, CRUEL WORLD: Science-Based Strategies for Raising Terrific Kids in Terrifying Times. Behind the paywall, we get into the evidence on how detrimental academic pressure is to kids, how to support and challenge children who are insatiably curious without making them feel pressured, how to teach kids media literacy and critical thinking skills, how to navigate screen time and social media with kids, and more.Paid subscribers can hear the full interview, and the first half is available to all listeners. To upgrade to paid, go to rethinkingwellness.substack.com.Melinda Wenner Moyer is an award-winning science journalist whose work explores the intersection of science and everyday life. She's known for her deep dives into subjects that have both scientific and societal implications, often addressing issues that are relevant to parents and families. Her writing often challenges popular beliefs and provides readers with a clearer, more informed understanding of issues in child development, parenting, and the social sciences.Moyer is a contributing editor at Scientific American magazine and a regular contributor — and former columnist — at The New York Times. Her first book, How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes, was published in July 2021 and won a gold medal in the 2022 Living Now Book Awards. Her second book, Hello Cruel World!: Science-Based Strategies for Raising Terrific Kids in Terrifying Times, was published on May 27, 2025.Moyer was the recipient of the 2022 Excellence in Science Journalism award from The Society for Personality and Social Psychology and the 2019 Bricker Award for Science Writing in Medicine. She has a master's in Science, Health & Environmental Reporting from NYU and a background in cell and molecular biology. She lives in New York's Hudson Valley. Learn more and subscribe to her Substack at melindawmoyer.substack.com.If you like this conversation, subscribe to hear lots more like it!Support the podcast by becoming a paid subscriber, and unlock great perks like extended interviews, subscriber-only Q&As, full access to our archives, commenting privileges and subscriber threads where you can connect with other listeners, and more. Learn more and sign up at rethinkingwellness.substack.com.Christy's second book, The Wellness Trap, is available wherever books are sold! Order it here, or ask for it in your favorite local bookstore.If you're looking to make peace with food and break free from diet and wellness culture, come check out Christy's Intuitive Eating Fundamentals online course.Contains affiliate links to Bookshop.org, where I earn a small commission for any purchases made.

In this episode, Marcel speaks with Dr. Martina Preiner, who leads the Geochemical Protoenzymes group at the MPI for Terrestrial Microbiology in Marburg. In this episode, they discuss Dr. Preiner's unique career journey - from studying chemistry to working in science journalism, before returning to academia to investigate the origins of life.Learn more about Dr. Martina Preiner's work at:https://www.mpi-marburg.mpg.de/martina-preinerRemember to follow us on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/offspringmagazine_thepodcastLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/offspring-magazine-the-podcastYouTube: https://youtube.com/c/MaxPlanckPhDnetFor feedback, comments, or suggestions, contact us at offspring.podcasts@phdnet.mpg.de. Check out our Offspring Blog for more content: https://www.phdnet.mpg.de/outreach/offspring-blogIntro & Outro music composed by Srinath Ramkumar: https://twitter.com/srinathramkumarPre-Intro jingle composed by Gustavo Carrizo: https://www.instagram.com/carrizo.gusSee you soon!

Emily is a science writer, AuDHDer, and ND-affirming coach.They share online about neurodivergence topics and accuracy in science journalism as The Neurodivergent Well.In this episode, we talk about best practices as a consumer of science info online, especially via social media. If you don't have time or capacity to read journal articles, what CAN you do?Emily shares multiple approaches to being a better online citizen when we take in and share information.There's also a lovely bit about the complexity of identity, and whether the labels we use are accurate and useful.p.s. Emily has a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science, and over 10 years professional experience in writing and editingFind Emily online: The Neurodivergent Well websiteMedium writingInstagram @the.neurodivergent.wellTikTok @the.neurodivergent.well (posting this Jan 18th so we'll see...)Mentioned in the episode: The small Case Western study that found a 42% increase in resting info rate in autistic brains (with 19 children)An article about the DSM disorders disappearing in statistical clustering of psych symptomsExperimenting Your Way to an Extraordinary Life (course)Resources:Transcript DocEmail NewsletterLike Your Brain community space Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Um alles über diese Episode zu erfahren, besuchen Sie die ShownotesSciComm PalaverWissenschaftskommunikation: Warum brauchen wir sie? Was will sie erreichen? Wie wird sie erfolgreich – und was kann sie am Erfolg hindern? Gespräche mit Akteurinnen und Akteuren. Idee / Produktion / Host: Sabine Gysi.

Guest host Syd Smith is joined by Bob McDonald, science journalist, author of Just Say Yes.

Lynne Peeples is a freelance science journalist, specialising in the environment, public health and medicine. She holds a M.S. in Biostatistics from Harvard and an M.A. in Science Journalism from New York University. Her writing has appeared in Huffington Post, Nature, Scientific American and The Atlantic, amongst others. A 2020-2021 MIT Knight Science Journalism fellow and a finalist for the 2018 National Association of Science Writers long-form reporting award, on this episode of Little Atoms she talks to Neil Denny about her new book The Inner Clock: Living in Sync With Our Circadian Rhythms. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tom Chivers is a journalist who writes a lot about science and applied statistics. We talk about his new book on Bayesian statistics, the biography of Thomas Bayes, the history of probability theory, how Bayes can help with the replication crisis, how Tom became a journalist, and much more.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith.Support the show: https://geni.us/bjks-patreonTimestamps0:00:00: Tom's book about Bayes & Bayesian statistics relates to many of my previous episodes and much of my own research0:03:12: A brief biography of Thomas Bayes (about whom very little is known)0:11:00: The history of probability theory 0:36:23: Bayesian songs0:43:17: Bayes & the replication crisis0:57:27: How Tom got into science journalism1:08:32: A book or paper more people should read1:10:05: Something Tom wishes he'd learnt sooner1:14:36: Advice for PhD students/postdocs/people in a transition periodPodcast linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-podTwitter: https://geni.us/bjks-pod-twtTom's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/chivers-webTwitter: https://geni.us/chivers-twtPodcast: https://geni.us/chivers-podBen's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/bjks-scholarTwitter: https://geni.us/bjks-twtReferences and linksEpisode with Stuart Ritchie: https://geni.us/bjks-ritchieScott Alexander: https://www.astralcodexten.com/Bayes (1731). Divine benevolence, or an attempt to prove that the principal end of the divine providence and government is the happiness of his creatures. Being an answer to a pamphlet entitled Divine Rectitude or an inquiry concerning the moral perfections of the deity with a refutation of the notions therein advanced concerning beauty and order, the reason of punishment and the necessity of a state of trial antecedent to perfect happiness.Bayes (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.Bellhouse (2004). The Reverend Thomas Bayes, FRS: a biography to celebrate the tercentenary of his birth. Project Euclid.Bem (2011). Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of personality and social psychology.Chivers (2024). Everything is Predictable: How Bayesian Statistics Explain Our World.Chivers & Chivers (2021). How to read numbers: A guide to statistics in the news (and knowing when to trust them).Chivers (2019). The Rationalist's Guide to the Galaxy: Superintelligent AI and the Geeks Who Are Trying to Save Humanity's Future.Clarke [not Black, as Tom said] (2020). Piranesi.Goldacre (2009). Bad science.Goldacre (2014). Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients.Simmons, Nelson & Simonsohn (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science.

This week we had a fabulous conversation with multi-award winning science journalist Dr Jackson Ryan. Jackson is a former molecular biologist and current freelance science journalist with a focus on longform and narrative non-fiction science writing. He served as the Science Editor at CNET.com between 2018 and 2023 and was the 2022 winner of the Eureka Prize for Science Journalism. In 2024, he is co-editing the Best Australian Science Writing anthology -- and you should buy it! His longform writing has appeared in The Guardian, The Saturday Paper, The Monthly and Nature.  You can follow Jackson and learn more about his work here: https://www.jacksonwryan.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacksonryanscience https://x.com/dctrjack https://sjaa.org.au (Jackson is President of the Science Journalists Association of Australia) https://www.linkedin.com/company/science-journalists-association-of-australia You can read Jackson's Antarctica stories here: https://linktr.ee/dctrj 

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rethinkingwellness.substack.comScience and parenting journalist Melinda Wenner Moyer joins us to discuss the real risks of social media and smartphones for kids (and all of us), what the popular book THE ANXIOUS GENERATION gets wrong about the science on teens and technology, the similarities in the discourse about tech and “ultraprocessed” food, diet culture in the parenting space, how to raise kids to have a healthy relationship with technology and smartphones, and more.Paid subscribers can hear the full interview, and the first half is available to all listeners. To upgrade to paid, go to rethinkingwellness.substack.com. Melinda Wenner Moyer is a science, health and parenting journalist and is a regular contributor — and former columnist — at The New York Times. She writes the parenting Substack Is My Kid the Asshole?, which has more than 24,000 subscribers from 159 countries. Her first book, How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes, has been published in 13 languages and won a gold medal in the 2022 Living Now Book Awards. Her second book, Hello Cruel World: Science-Based Strategies for Raising Terrific Kids in Terrifying Times, will be published in the summer of 2025. Melinda was the recipient of the 2022 Excellence in Science Journalism award from The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2019 Bricker Award for Science Writing in Medicine, and her work was featured in the 2020 Best American Science and Nature Writing anthology. She has taught science journalism at NYU's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute and the CUNY's Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. She has a master's degree in Science, Health & Environmental Reporting from NYU and a background in cell and molecular biology. She lives in New York's Hudson Valley with her husband, two children, and her dog.If you like this conversation, subscribe to hear lots more like it! Support the podcast by becoming a paid subscriber, and unlock great perks like extended interviews, subscriber-only Q&As, full access to our archives, commenting privileges and subscriber threads where you can connect with other listeners, and more. Learn more and sign up at rethinkingwellness.substack.com.Christy's second book, The Wellness Trap, is available wherever books are sold! Order it here, or ask for it in your favorite local bookstore.If you're looking to make peace with food and break free from diet and wellness culture, come check out Christy's Intuitive Eating Fundamentals online course.

The long wait is OVER! Part 2 of WHY ARE WE SO OBSESSED WITH FAME discussing one of our generations favorite topics: FAME! Today I bring you Dr. Nazli Sanyuva, an USC's professor, to discuss the issue from an academic perfective and let me tell you... IT'S AMAZING!  Nazli Senyuva Offringa is a women's health communication expert, a health and science journalist, and a public health figure in Turkey. She received her PhD in communication from USC's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism in 2020. Since then, she has been involved with multiple educational platforms to inform the public on the nature of the ongoing COVID pandemic, maternal decision-making, and infant health, and has been a frequent expert guest on CNN Turkey and many other news outlets.  As a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation fellow, Offringa received her MA in Health and Science Journalism from Columbia Journalism School in 2014. She received her BA in Economics and Global Health and Health Policy from Princeton University in 2012. She has worked in health TV as a medical researcher and received an Emmy Recognition for her work in 2013. She is also the co-founder of the academic mentorship initiative, Senyuva Prep. Offringa is currently a lecturer at the University of Southern California, where she is teaching upper-level undergraduate classes in health communication and celebrity studies. This is PART 1 because this chat is so complex I could seriously do a whole season just on FAME and maybe we will! 

SEASON 3 IS HERE!  I am so proud to share our 60th episode discussing one of our generations favorite topics: FAME! Today I bring you Dr. Nazli Sanyuva, an USC's professor, to discuss the issue from an academic perfective and let me tell you... IT'S AMAZING!  Nazli Senyuva Offringa is a women's health communication expert, a health and science journalist, and a public health figure in Turkey. She received her PhD in communication from USC's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism in 2020. Since then, she has been involved with multiple educational platforms to inform the public on the nature of the ongoing COVID pandemic, maternal decision-making, and infant health, and has been a frequent expert guest on CNN Turkey and many other news outlets.  As a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation fellow, Offringa received her MA in Health and Science Journalism from Columbia Journalism School in 2014. She received her BA in Economics and Global Health and Health Policy from Princeton University in 2012. She has worked in health TV as a medical researcher and received an Emmy Recognition for her work in 2013. She is also the co-founder of the academic mentorship initiative, Senyuva Prep. Offringa is currently a lecturer at the University of Southern California, where she is teaching upper-level undergraduate classes in health communication and celebrity studies. This is PART 1 because this chat is so complex I could seriously do a whole season just on FAME and maybe we will!    You can follow DR. Naz on IG HERE!

Astronomer Scott Miller (Maysville Community & Technical College) tells us what we can see in the night sky in April, and how to view the total solar eclipse on April 8th. Then, hear a recent interview by the 'Union of Concerned Scientists' with journalism professor Jesse Holland (George Washington University) about the past, present and future of science journalism. Here are the websites about the eclipse: https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024 and https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/usa. Here is the full 'Union of Concerned Scientists' podcast of March 20, 2024 with Jesse Holland: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/what-we-need-make-democracy-work. Here is how you can donate to Forward Radio: https://secure.givelively.org/donate/wfmp-low-power-radio/forward-radio-s-7th-anniversary-pledge-drive. ‘Bench Talk: The Week in Science' is a weekly program that airs on WFMP Louisville ‘Forward Radio' 106.5 FM (forwardradio.org) every Monday at 7:30 pm, Tuesday at 11:30 am, and Wednesday at 7:30 am. Visit our Facebook page for links to the articles discussed in this episode: https://www.facebook.com/pg/BenchTalkRadio/posts/?ref=page_internal

Have you ever looked up at the moon in the night sky and wondered why it's there, how it was formed and  what effect it has had on us humans and animals down on Earth?Here to answer those questions and many more I'm joined by Rebecca Boyle. Rebecca is an award winning science journalist contributing to Scientific American, The New York Times and many other publications. She is author of the book, Our Moon: A Human History. How Earth's Celestial Companion Transformed the Planet, Guided Evolution, and Made Us Who We Are.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Our-Moon-Celestial-Companion-Transformed/dp/1529342783Rebecca regales us with tales of the Moon's enigmatic origins and its silent yet profound influences on our planet—from the length of our days to the evolution of terrestrial life. Her book paints a stark portrait of the Moon's desolate beauty, and during our talk, she brings that imagery to life, reflecting on how this celestial body is a cornerstone of life as we know it.The dance between Earth and its Moon is a ballet of celestial mechanics and evolutionary impulses, one that Rebecca eloquently elucidates. She shares how the Moon's elliptical orbit and slow retreat from Earth have vast repercussions, from tidal forces that may have nudged vertebrates onto land to the synchronisation challenges between lunar and solar calendars that have fascinated human cultures for millennia. Our conversation wades through the interplay of light and time, considering how this relationship might even sway the rhythms of our own biology, affecting everything from plant behavior to human health.Our lunar odyssey concludes by casting an eye toward the future, questioning the implications of a Moon-less Earth and the current pulse of space exploration. As Rebecca and I discuss, space agencies are reigniting their lunar ambitions with programs like Artemis and international moon landings, paving the way for potential lunar tourism and the utilisation of Moon resources like water and helium-3. Yet, as we gaze ahead, we're mindful of the hurdles—environmental challenges like abrasive moon dust and the untapped mysteries of the Moon's far side. Join us to unravel these lunar enigmas and discover why our connection to the Moon is more than just a tale of tides and time, but a narrative deeply interwoven with the essence of our humanity.Links:https://rebeccaboyle.com/https://www.instagram.com/by.rebecca.boyle/https://www.undercurrentstories.com/https://www.instagram.com/undercurrentstorieswww.undercurrentstories.com

In 2023, a flood of science journalists lost their jobs. At the same time, public trust in science continues to decline.Last year was a tough one for science journalism. National Geographic laid off all of its staff reporters, and Wired laid off 20 people. And the most recent blow came in November, when Popular Science announced it would stop publishing its magazine after a 151-year run, and laid off the majority of its staff.Beyond talented journalists losing their jobs, many people seem to be losing trust in science in general. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that only 57% of Americans think science has a mostly positive effect on society, down considerably since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.Is the waning trust in science reflected in the shrinking of science journalism?Ira talks about the current state of science journalism with Deborah Blum, science journalist, author, publisher of Undark magazine, and director of the Knight Science Journalism Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Sabrina Imbler, author and science reporter for Defector.Transcripts for each segment will be available the week after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. To stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

From a global pandemic to an ongoing climate crisis, science journalism has become a staple in our lives. But the threat and spread of misinformation has created a gap between the public and scientists. So how can science and journalism work in conjunction to mend this divide? This episode we speak with Amorina Kingdon about her work and the challenges she's faced as a science writer and journalist. Listen to the Best of the WWEST on Spotify, Apple, Google, Amazon, iHeart, Gaana, and Castbox Visit wwest-cwse.ca to learn more about WWEST and to listen to other available episodes.

At this point, we all know that biophilia literally means the love of nature, right? But have you ever stopped to consider its opposite, biophobia? If you're a regular listener of this podcast, we'd be willing to bet you haven't - and to be honest, we hadn't either until we met today's guest, science journalist Emily Harwitz. Emily's recent article, ‘Beware Creeping Biophobia' was picked up by multiple outlets like The Atlantic, The Tyee, and Haikai due to its insightful breakdown of the cycle that begins when humans become irrevocably disconnected from the natural world. Basically, disconnection leads to fear, which leads to outright rejection and even destruction. We were thrilled to catch up with Emily to break down the cycle of biophobia, how we can convert the biophobic to the biophilic, and we also dive into the reasons why humans are drawn to collecting rare species. Show NotesBeware Creeping Biophobia (Haikai Magazine)Humans Fondness for the Odd and Rare Make Us Particularly Overwhelming Predators (Haikai Magazine)I'll Go If You Go Podcast Emily Harwitz WebsiteEmily Harwitz Instagram Jackson Wild Summit - 2023 Media Lab FellowsKey Words: Biophobia, Biophilia, Nature, Outdoors, Journalism, Science Journalism, Ecosystem, Environment, Wildlife, Wildlife Restoration

In this episode, Melinda Wenner Moyer joins me to talk about her book, and a range of topics around bullying, raising kids that aren't selfish, and how to help our kids develop self esteem. We talk about: [4:40] How Melinda and I met, and an introduction to her book [7:40] The most surprising thing she learned while researching for her book [12:45] Bullying and the parents of kids who bully [13:50] Increasing our kids' theory of mind skills [17:30] Raising kids that aren't selfish [19:50] Leaning into conversations with your kids that you don't want to have [22:10] The message we send when we don't talk about race and gender [33:00] Can your child develop narcissism by bolstering their self-esteem too much? [36:20] How kids are affected by pressure applied by parents [40:35] Why parents care more about hitting milestones than their child's happiness [44:00] Advice she would give to her younger parent self Melinda Wenner Moyer is a science journalist based in Cold Spring, New York. She's a regular contributor to The New York Times, a contributing editor at Scientific American magazine, and a faculty member in the Science, Health & Environmental Reporting program at NYU's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. Her first book, How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes, was published in July 2021 and won a gold medal in the 2022 Living Now Book Awards.   Melinda was the recipient of the 2022 Excellence in Science Journalism award from The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2019 Bricker Award for Science Writing in Medicine, and her work was featured in the 2020 Best American Science and Nature Writing anthology.    Resources mentioned in this episode: Free ‘How to Stop Yelling' Course: www.sarahrosensweet.com/yelling  Join us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/peacefulparenting  Newsletter: www.sarahrosensweet.com/newsletter Connect with Melinda LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/melindawennermoyer/  Instagram: www.instagram.com/melindawmoyer  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/melindawennermoyer  www.melindawmoyer.substack.com  www.melindawennermoyer.com      Connect with Sarah Rosensweet   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sarahrosensweet/  Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/peacefulparentingfreegroup Website: https://www.sarahrosensweet.com  Book a short consult or coaching session call: https://book-with-sarah-rosensweet.as.me/schedule.php   

The assignments students do in STS modules today are nothing like what they used to be. These days, they build portfolios with all sorts of things: short writing, long writing, posters, blogs, in-class presentations. Add to these, projects like podcasts, film clips, campaign strategies, briefing papers, debates, and full-on project proposals. Research of different kinds. They all require hard work, creativity, and rising to the challenge. We diversify our curriculum because we know the future holds work as varied as we do ourselves each day. We want our students skilled up, practiced, and ready to go. Today's episode samples from this year's student-made podcasts. You'll hear projects from our undergraduate science journalism module, run by Dr Jean-Baptiste Gouyon. The assignment is straightforward: create a three-minute news feature about a recent piece of research at UCL. The piece must be suitable for use on as a news segment for radio or podcast. Students start with a recent press release, and they go from there. The piece must include a short interview segment with a researcher. They have a tight deadline, and they have to work pretty much with the tools they have through a laptop and their phone. This is real world work and pace as a freelance journalist. For you, I've brought together eight of the ones I like a lot. They're varied, and they deliver the assignment is different ways. We'll take a quick break in the middle, but I want to leave the students to deliver their work as they presented it. Links to all the detail are in the show notes. The whole syllabus for HPSC0107 Science Journalism: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/sites/sts/files/hpsc0107-science_journalism-syllabus_2022-23.pdf Tracks TRACK 1. People Over 50 Often Sleep Better | Lydia Yallop TRACK 2. Natural Language Modelled and Printed in 3D | Daphne Sarkany TRACK 3. Link Between Daily Active Movement and Better Cognition in Mid-life | Emile Stuglyte TRACK 4. We're Ignoring Impact of Long Covid | Mandy Huynh TRACK 5. Importance of Breastmilk Bacteria for Healthy Gut in Babies | Omar Al Hashimi TRACK 6. Time in Nature Can Improve Wellbeing | Isobel Hutt TRACK 7. Fast-lived Invasive Species Pose Greatest Challenge | Federico Citterich TRACK 8. Doctors of the Earth: Seismologists Sense the Earth's Pulse | Andrea Lekare Details about each track are available on the episode page: https://profjoecain.net/27-top-stories-in-science-journalism-from-sts-students-wearests Host Professor Joe Cain, UCL Professor of History and Philosophy of Biology https://ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/ Music credits Intro and Exit music “Rollin At 5,” by Kevin MacLeod https://filmmusic.io/song/5000-rollin-at-5 “Silly Intro,” by Alexander Nakarada https://filmmusic.io/song/4786-silly-intro Both are available on the website: filmmusic.IO Music in intervals is a loop created in GarageBand. Podcast information WeAreSTS is a production of the Department of Science and Technology Studies (STS) at University College London (UCL). To find out more, or to leave feedback about the show: https://ucl.ac.uk/sts/podcast

Ryan speaks with Melinda Moyer about how the death of her family dog became an opportunity to teach her children about emotions, why feelings of powerlessness led her to write her best-selling book How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes, why encouraging curiosity is a fantastic way to help kids grow up with positive outlooks on life, and more.Melinda Moyer is a journalist and author whose work focuses on parenting, science, and medicine. She is a contributing editor at Scientific American magazine and a regular contributor at The New York Times, as well as a faculty member in the Science, Health & Environmental Reporting program at NYU's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. Her first book, How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes, was published in July 2021 and won a gold medal in the 2022 Living Now Book Awards. Melinda's many accolades include the 2022 Excellence in Science Journalism award from The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2019 Bricker Award for Science Writing in Medicine, and first place prizes in the Awards for Excellence in Health Care Journalism. Her work can be found at melindawennermoyer.com and on Twitter @lindy2350 and Instagram @melindawmoyer.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

We live in the information age. The quality of the information we receive determines the quality of our decisions and the effectiveness of our actions. It is also no secret that money holds influence, and the methods through which we obtain information, as well as the economic dynamics of the building science and construction industry, are undergoing constant change.We invite you to join us in exploring the significance of Building Science Journalism in today's world. Our conversation features two accomplished, knowledgeable, and profound authors who have dedicated themselves to this field: Brian Pontililo and Aaron Fagan. Along the way, we will delve into the evolving role of bloggers and social media influencers within the AEC industry. We will also acknowledge the fact that manufacturers now possess multiple avenues to convey their public relations and marketing messages to their target audiences.Throughout our discussion, we will highlight the value of journalism, storytelling, and the adherence to journalistic standards, such as fact-checking. We encourage you to participate in this captivating dialogue and, perhaps, gain a fresh perspective that will enable you to engage more meaningfully with your favorite building science and construction channels.———-Brian PontililoBrian Pontolilo has spent the better part of the last 20 years as a journalist, writer, and editor covering residential design and construction at Fine Homebuilding magazine and GreenBuildingAdvisor.com. Brian has a degree in professional writing, worked for a short time at local newspapers, and has worked in landscape construction, as a painter, and as a carpenter before coming to the Taunton Press, and during the three breaks he has taken from office life. On his current hiatus from full-time employment, Brian is designing and building what he hopes will be a pretty good house in northwest Connecticut.Aaron FaganFormer associate editor for Fine Homebuilding, Aaron has written and edited for a disparate list of publications, including The Economist, Penthouse, and Scientific American. He has also worked as a welder in a window factory, as a screw-machine operator, and as a remodel/repair carpenter. Educated at Hampshire College and Syracuse University, Aaron is the author of three poetry collections: Garage, Echo Train, and A Better Place is Hard to Find.

Journalist, News Analyst, Anchor, Political Scientist, Philosopher Lover. Twitter: https://twitter.com/SyedMuzammilOFL?s=20 Facebook: https://web.facebook.com/SyedMuzammilOfficial Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@syedmuzammilofficial7067 00:00 Introduction or Lack thereof 00:12 Educational Background 01:31 The Role of Institutional Education (Chomsky) 02:35 How to remain a student in this educational system? 03:39 Thinkers are born not furnished. 06:36 Hitler and Nietzsche, Anti Semitism, Marxism. 11:54 'I don't follow Nietzsche thats not the point' 13:54 Problem with ultimate solutions. 17:50 The theory of Everything Futile Endeavour? 23:36 The benefit of Utopian Ideals and Practicality of current mediums and Politics 27:13 The role of propaganda 33:48 Skepticism and Curiosity 36:03 The rise of Celebrity politicians and entertainers. 39:49 How to keep journalistic integrity 43:51 Combating Right Wing Radicalism. 48:05 Fighting Defeatism and Nihilism 51:00 The unsuitable Truth. 54:26 Is morality Innate? 01:01:53 How to create a Democratic individualistic Society. 01:05:21 Why Bad News Spreads more than Good News. 01:07:21 The TV News Casting pitfalls. 01:17:06 George Carlin and Syed Muzammil Shah Life Parallel 01:18:32 Resistance by TV Channel 01:20:06 Machiavellian Tactics 01:23:15 Nation State and the Pashtun Movement 01:25:53 Pan-islamism 01:29:04 Israel-Palestine Conflict, Kashmir-Pakistan India Conflict 01:33:06 How china is treating muslims 01:35:20 A glimmer of hope

Melinda Wenner Moyer is a science journalist and contributing editor at Scientific American magazine. Recently, Melinda received the Excellence in Science Journalism award from The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2019 Bricker Award for Science Writing in Medicine, and her work was featured in the 2020 Best American Science and Nature Writing anthology. But that's only recently. She's been writing about science for major outlets for years and doing it really, really well. In 2021, she released her first book—How to Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes, which is a great parenting book that actually cares about evidence from behavioral science.We talk about how she got started and her new book, but we also do a deep dive on a 2017 feature article she wrote for Scientific American about whether legal access to guns actually deters crime and makes people safer ("More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows"). It's a really great example of what science journalism can be, and I wanted to know every step of how something like that gets written.You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Science journalist and author, Melinda Wenner Moyer joins us to talk about her first book, How To Raise Kids Who Aren't Assholes. Her work was published in July 2021 and won a gold medal in the 2022 Living Now Book Awards. Melinda is also a regular contributor to The New York Times, a contributing editor at Scientific American magazine, and a faculty member in the Science, Health & Environmental Reporting program at NYU's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She was the recipient of the 2022 Excellence in Science Journalism award from The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the 2019 Bricker Award for Science Writing in Medicine, and her work was featured in the 2020 Best American Science and Nature Writing anthology. Tune in on Wednesday, May 17 @ 6pm EST!

Arjit Jere, is a biologist, science communicator, and popular science writer based in India. Arjit has written about the lifecycle of antlions, competitor behavior in hummingbirds, climate change, and the critically endangered Amboli toad that's found only in the mountains of Western India.I met Arjit during the Science Journalism Forum, a global gathering of science journalists, communicators, and students. The forum is a virtual event, and as you know, virtual events make it possible to learn from people you would never meet otherwise. Like Arjit!  In this episode, we discuss Arjit's experiences as a science journalist and what he would like to write about next.Let's join the conversation. CLICK HERE to engage with the transcript for this episode.What do you think of this format? How does it help you relate to the guest and their work?Please share your thoughts here (https://talaterra.com/contact). LINKSArjit Jere on LinkedInArjit's blog, Nature and FootballSaevus MagazineRoundGlass SustainDr.Pankaj Koparde, Chatur Ullu Evolutionary Ecology Lab, MIT World Peace University, PuneMaharashtra Institute of Technology (MIT) World Peace UniversityCentre for Environmental Education, Pune Articles:A. Jere, Global warming and climate change - Current scenario. Biotechnology (2013) View Article A. Jere, Circle of Life, Saevus. December 2017 - February 2018, p. 66 (2017) View ArticleA. Jere, Hummingbirds and their hidden daggers. Manthan, Volume 2.2, 3 (2020) View articleA. Jere, Meet the Tiger Toad. Youth for Nature Magazine (2022). Accessed 11 Jan 2023. https://yfnmagazine.wordpress.com/2022/10/12/meet-the-tiger-toad 

Today, Debbie talks to Jane Brody, the renowned New York Times columnist who until last year wrote the popular weekly Personal Health column. In this episode, she reflects on her 57-year career at the Times. They talk about how she moved from biochemistry to journalism and how she got hired by the Times at age 24.Instead of wilting under discouraging words from the editor who was interviewing her for a job, she responded, "Mr. Rosenthal, if I didn't think I could do this job, I wouldn't be here." Abe Rosenthal was the managing editor and later the legendary executive editor of The New York Times. Jane applied her no-nonsense style to reporting, writing with a distinctive mix of personal anecdotes, interviews with experts and scientific fact. She started the Personal Health column in 1976 (right when Debbie was starting work as a reporter). She  invented the topic of personal health with the goal of teaching readers how to lead better, healthier lives. The column covered everything from common diseases to cancers to death and dying, as well as wellness, exercise, and nutrition.Jane talks about what it was like to be a woman in an almost all-male newsroom and how squeamish editors wouldn't let her use the words sexual intercourse or penis. She changed that. She also tells us why she decided to retire at age 80 and what her new retired life looks like. Debbie hopes you'll enjoy listening to this episode as much as she did recording it. Jane Brody does not disappoint on the topic of making the most of growing older. Mentioned in this episode or useful:Jane on WikipediaJane's WebsiteJane's NYT pageJane's books on AmazonJane Brody and Dr. Anthony Fauci on Staying Fit and Focused at 80 (Tara Parker-Pope, The New York Times, May 20, 2021) Articles by Jane BrodyPersonal Health; With more help available for impotence, few men seek it (The New York Times, Aug. 2, 1995)Surgical Implants Correct Impotence (The New York Times, June 12, 1979)Female Orgasmic Theory Challenged (The New York Times, September 21, 1972)Farewell column: Farewell, Readers, It's Been a Remarkable Ride (The New York Times, Feb. 21, 2022)Column about her husband's death: When the Only Hope Is a Peaceful Ending (The New York Times, March 15, 2010)Column about her 80th birthday: A Jane Brody Birthday Milestone: 80! (The New York Times, May 17, 2021) Articles about Jane:Thanks, Jane Brody, for Nudging Us to Be Better (Tara Parker-Pope, The New York Times, Feb. 24, 2022)After Decades as the Nation's Leading Health Columnist, Jane Brody Retires (Cornell Alumni Magazine, 2022) Mentioned writers and editors:Human Sexual Response by Masters and Johnson  (first published in 1966)Walter SullivanClifton Daniel, a Managing Editor Who Set a Writerly, Courtly Tone In Shaping The Times, Dies at 87 (The New York Times, Feb. 22, 2000) Get the inside skinny on every episode of [B]OLDER:Subscribe to Debbie's newsletter for the inside story about every episode. You will also get her 34-page writing guide: https://bitly.com/debbie-free-guide. Request from Debbie:If you've been enjoying the podcast, please take a moment to leave a short review on Apple Podcasts. It really makes a difference in attracting new listeners.  Connect with Debbie:debbieweil.com[B]OLDER podcastEmail: thebolderpodcast@gmail.comBlog: Gap Year After SixtyFacebook: @debbieweilInstagram: @debbieweilLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/debbieweilTwitter: @debbieweil Our Media Partners:CoGenerate (formerly Encore.org)MEA and with thanks to Chip ConleyNext For Me (former media partner and in memory of Jeff Tidwell) How to Support this podcast:Leave a review on Apple PodcastsSubscribe via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify Credits:Host: Debbie WeilProducer: Far Out MediaMusic: Lakeside Path by Duck Lake

George Szpiro is an Israeli-Swiss applied mathematician and journalist who made a name for himself as the author of popular mathematical essays and books.

In this episode of Science Journal, we spoke to Christina Paschyn, professor of health and science journalism at Northwestern University in Qatar, and professor Scheherazade Safla-Gafoor about science journalism, the training that goes behind it, and the challenges that science journalists face. Tune in to hear about harmful clickbait science articles and the importance of extensive research and peer-reviewed articles in science journalism. 

Ingrid Espinosa is a science communicator and researcher. She recently completed her masters program in science communication at the Imperial College London. We talked about pursuing graduate studies abroad, the roots of science journalism in the Philippines, important lessons about Philippine science journalism history, lessons learned as an MsC student, advice for aspiring science communicators, and more. How to contact Ingrid: Twitter: @ingridmespi Email: cingridmespi@protonmail.com

                                                              Ellen Ruppel Shell tells us why you "Should rise above your assumptions", why we  should "Question received wisdom"  and " Don't take business matters personally " hosted by Duff Watkins. About Ellen Ruppel Shell Ellen Ruppel Shell is an author, investigative journalist and Prof. of Journalism at Boston University  where she co-directs the Graduate Program in Science Journalism. She conducts research, teaches, and writes on issues relating to science and economic policy and social justice. Prof. Ruppel Shell is the author of hundreds of published articles, reviews and essays. She's a long-time contributing editor for The Atlantic, writes on issues of science, social justice, economics and public policy for Science, Scientific American, the New York Times opinion and book pages, The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Discover, The New York Times Magazine, The Boston Globe and the Washington Post. She has served as an editor for a wide range of national publications and for public broadcasting and is sought frequently as a commentator on issues of science and the press. Prof. Ruppel Shell has authored four books translated into more than a dozen languages, The Job: Work and Its Future in a Time of Radical Change (Crown, October, 2018); Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture (Penguin, 2009), The Hungry Gene (Grove, 2002), and A Child's Place (Little Brown, 1992). Prof. Ruppel Shell has been a Vannevar Bush Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Fellow in Occupational Health and Safety at Harvard University Medical School. She lectures widely on topics in science communication and public policy, as well as economic and social justice. She has served both as a Bush Fellow at MIT and as a Fellow in Occupational Health and Safety at Harvard University. Episode Notes Lesson 1: Trust yourself (but not too much) 05:09 Lesson 2: Don't take business matters personally. 08:14 Lesson 3: Demand evidence and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.12:23 Lesson 4: Question received wisdom. 19:01 Lesson 5: Rise above your assumptions.27:39 Lesson 6: Be self-confidant enough to give others the benefit of the doubt.31:25 Lesson 7: Feelings trump facts in many matters, “rational” can be overrated.24:14 Lesson 8: You're bored because you're not paying attention. 37:10 Lesson 9: Don't mistake hurt and guilt for anger. 42:22 Lesson 10: Empathy is not compassion. 45:56

Dr Norman Swan is a multi-award winning broadcaster, journalist and commentator. He is the host and creator of the Health Report, on ABC Radio National. He is a guest reporter on Four Corners, a regular panelist on ABC Television's The Drum and was medical host of Channel 10's Biggest Loser for six seasons. He has won numerous awards for his journalism and broadcasting, including Australian Radio Producer of the Year, three Walkley National Awards for Australian journalism and Australia's top prize for Science Journalism – the Michael Daly Award – twice. He was awarded the Medal of the Australian Academy of Science, an honour that had only been given three times. Here is a link to Norman's latest book - So You want To Live Younger Longer?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Early on in his coverage of COVID, journalist Ed Yong realized it was more than just a science story — it was an omni-crisis. His journalism focuses on exposing the cracks in society exacerbated by the pandemic. He delivered this lecture as part of the Lind Initiative Future of the Media series at the University of British Columbia in April 2022.

An Example from Science Journalism in Current Times Joe Whittaker has an MSc Nutritional Therapy, from the University of Worcester. He has published two meta-analyses on the effects of diet on testosterone, and is currently working on another two related research projects for his PhD. He runs a clinic helping people optimize their health and well-being, using nutritional therapy and functional medicine. For more information please see - https://www.joewhittakernutrition.com/ This episode is hosted by Dr. Shawn Baker MD. Find him at https://shawn-baker.com Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction, interest in health and fitness, paleo 03:01 Testosterone and cortisol, men's fertility 05:06 Fatty meat and testosterone 09:34 Cortisol increases and decreases 14:22 Low-fat diets and testosterone 19:42 High-protein, high-carb diets 23:30 Disingenuous journalism 28:15 Dietary trends, men's fertility, women's fertility, agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, processed foods, sugar, refined oils, junk food, endocrine distrupting chemicals 34:21 Whole foods versus processed foods 36:29 Diet versus fertility trends 39:58 Hunter gatherer population fertility rates 41:54 Meat-based diet vs. plant-based diet 46:42 Prostate cancer and testosterone 47:59 Testosterone, exercise, muscle protein synthesis 52:30 Dietary cholesterol and muscle protein synthesis https://revero.com Invest In Revero: https://republic.com/revero Fill Out the Food Reaction Survey: https://www.questionpro.com/t/AUBnjZpQqC Book a Carnivore Coach: https://revero.com/book-a-coach/ Book a Coaching Session: https://revero.com/book-a-coach/ Carnivore Shirts: https://merch.revero.com Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://revero.com/subscribe/ Join the Community: https://revero.com/join/ . ‪#revero #shawnbaker #Carnivorediet #MeatHeals #HealthCreation   #humanfood #AnimalBased #ZeroCarb #DietCoach  #FatAdapted #Carnivore #sugarfree  ‪

Ilya Kolmanovsky is a popular science superstar in Russia. Like so many anti-Putin activists, he's just made the most wrenching decision of his life. 

Join us as we interview Dr. Maya Wei-Haas who works as a science journalist for National Geographic.  Dr. Wei-Haas has a PhD in geoscience, has done top-tier research.  In our discussion, she explains why she decided to pivot and use her extensive background to write interesting articles about our amazing planet.  This was not an easy decision for Dr. Wei-Haas to make as writing did not come naturally - just another obstacle for her to overcome.  Sit back and listen to this intriguing discussion about Earth science, writing, and life.Dr. Maya Wei-Haas has an impressive CV:  See below.  She has a PhD in Geoscience, but now works as a science journalist for National Geographic.  Science Journalist for National Geographic - particular affection for Rocks and Reactions, Assistant Editor - Smithsonian MagazineAmerican Academy for the Advancement of Science Fellow in 2015PhD in Earth Science from Ohio State UniversityASCE Excellence in Journalism Award 2021AGU's Perlman Award for Excellence in Science Journalism (2020)National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow (2010-2015)——————————————————Instagram: @planetgeocastTwitter: @planetgeocastFacebook: @planetgeocastEmail: planetgeocast@gmail.comWebsite: www.planetgeocast.com 

Award-winning investigative journalist and three-time Pulitzer Prize finalist David Heath talks about the process of researching and writing, and some of the key stories and scientists featured in, his new book, Longshot: The Inside Story of the Race for the COVID-19 Vaccine.

On December 31, 2021, The Joe Rogan Experience podcast on Spotify posted an episode with an interview with physician Dr. Robert Malone full of misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccine. This sparked outrage, a letter from a group of medical professionals, scientists and educators to Spotify and a series of creators pulling their content from the platform. Science Vs., a podcast produced by Gimlet Media which is owned by Spotify, decided to take a stand too.Listen to the episodes of Science Vs discussed here: - Misinformation: What Should Our Tech Overlords Do: bit.ly/3u2aaUY- Joe Rogan: The Malone Interview: bit.ly/3tduljk

Dr. Maya Wei-Haas has an impressive CV:  See below.  She has a PhD in Geoscience, but now works as a science journalist for National Geographic.  Dr. Wei-Haas has had to overcome some major obstacles to become a professional journalist.  Join us in this interesting discussion about a recent article on Daylight Saving Time.Science Journalist for National Geographic - particular affection for Rocks and Reactions, Assistant Editor - Smithsonian MagazineAmerican Academy for the Advancement of Science Fellow in 2015PhD in Earth Science from Ohio State UniversityASCE Excellence in Journalism Award 2021AGU's Perlman Award for Excellence in Science Journalism (2020)National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow (2010-2015)——————————————————Instagram: @planetgeocastTwitter: @planetgeocastFacebook: @planetgeocastEmail: planetgeocast@gmail.comWebsite: https://planetgeocast.buzzsprout.com/ 

Rasheda Mayner is my big sister, a Certified Project Manager and Certified Scrum Master in the cybersecurity industry. She graduated from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) (HBCU) with a Bachelor of Science Journalism, Public Relations. Known as a lifetime learner who loves to bake, travel, and interior decorating, she shares 3 tips for entering the tech industry. In this season six episode opener, we talk about her job history, being a part of the Atlanta Crimes (Monster) Podcast, hosting events like Book Clubs, and spearheading our family reunion, as well as Being a Black Women in Tech since 1999. Her first Remote job Why she Loves the Tech Industry Where she wants to Travel to next  What she wants her legacy to be Connect with her on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rashedamayner/ Send her an email at rzmayner@yahoo.com Listen to a previous episode featuring our father: https://bit.ly/3IJJ9Mf Listen to more episodes for free on your favorite streaming platform: Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2NYapeh Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2TdAZ87 iHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/33gUj9j Pandora: https://pdora.co/2PLMUXo TuneIn: http://bit.ly/2RKrnjU Google Podcasts: https://bit.ly/2JUqGzA Amazon Podcasts: https://amzn.to/3ceqWql Stitcher: http://bit.ly/2XrAd6V

Should we trust social science research? What is the open science movement? What is the "file drawer" effect? How can common sense help social science dig itself out of the replicability crisis? Is social science in the West too focused on interventions for individuals? How useful is the Implicit Association Test? How useful is the concept of "grit"? How should journalists communicate confidence or skepticism about scientific results? What incentive structures stand in the way of honestly and openly critiquing scientific methods or findings?Jesse Singal is a contributing writer at New York Magazine and cohost of the podcast Blocked and Reported. He is also the author of The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills, which came out April 6, 2021, and which you can order here. You can read more of his work at jessesingal.substack.com.Further reading:"Want to End Bullying? Get the Popular Students to Help" by Jesse Singal[Read more]

How do you judge quality articles and information? Join the guys as they get insights from science journalist Kara Marker (Credle). From legitimate writers' credentials to the temptations of composing click bait, plenty gets discussed. Also tune in for quick analysis of a new study on how low-carb diets may help maintain metabolic rate after dieting. Finally, huge thanks to strong supporters like these - Jacob, Michael, Jacob2, Jacob3, and Isaac. You are appreciated! https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id308382038 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z0G3cnDGEo

A government climate change report was released last week and summarily dismissed...by the government. It was a worrying development, to be sure — but it was also only the latest chapter in the long history of scientists' unheeded warnings. Back in 1988, Andrew Revkin started covering global warming, beginning with a cover piece for Discover Magazine (and later for The New York Times). Last summer, he spoke with Brooke about the lessons he's learned in thirty years of coverage — and what they mean for how humankind might be able to navigate a much warmer future.  Revkin's piece on thirty years of climate change reporting was in the July issue of National Geographic. He is also the co-author of Weather: An Illustrated History: From Cloud Atlases to Climate Change. He is now Strategic Adviser for Environmental and Science Journalism at the National Geographic Society. On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.