Podcasts about scientists

Where would this mysterious Planet X be found? What makes finding a planet so hard? Is Planet X even a planet? Have you started your FREE TRIAL of Who Smarted?+ for AD FREE listening, an EXTRA episode every week & bonus content? Sign up right in the Apple app, or directly at WhoSmarted.com and find out why more than 1,000 families are LOVING their subscription! Get official Who Smarted? Merch: tee-shirts, mugs, hoodies and more, at Who Smarted?

What's going on in teens' heads? Scientists working on a country-wide study following thousands of young people have spent the last decade trying to answer that question. Guests: Raul Gonzalez Jr., psychology professor at Florida International University This series was made possible by support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. For show transcripts, go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vox.com/unxtranscripts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ For more, go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vox.com/unexplainable⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ And please email us! ⁠⁠⁠⁠unexplainable@vox.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ We read every email. Support Unexplainable (and get ad-free episodes) by becoming a Vox Member today: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vox.com/members⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Thank you! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Canadian journalist Nora Loreto reads the latest headlines for Monday, December 8, 2025.TRNN has partnered with Loreto to syndicate and share her daily news digest with our audience. Tune in every morning to the TRNN podcast feed to hear the latest important news stories from Canada and worldwide.Find more headlines from Nora at Sandy & Nora Talk Politics podcast feed.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-news-podcast--2952221/support.Help us continue producing radically independent news and in-depth analysis by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Follow us on:Bluesky: @therealnews.comFacebook: The Real News NetworkTwitter: @TheRealNewsYouTube: @therealnewsInstagram: @therealnewsnetworkBecome a member and join the Supporters Club for The Real News Podcast today!

A lot of adults feel they've lost touch with the ability to get messy… and also just mess up. Scientists call that childlike, everyday experimentation, “prosaic creativity.” And it's more accessible—even as adults—than many tend to think.

China's monumental effort to plant nearly 200 billion trees since the 1970s is now facing a critical test. Scientists have discovered that these vast new forests, a cornerstone of the fight against climate change, are severely impacting water resources. This urgent challenge has spurred the country to lead a global shift toward "water-smart forestry," adapting its strategy for a world where every drop counts. On the show: Steve, Fei Fei & Yushan

On this week's episode we are joined by Tony Wilson from Framework. We talk about the history of Metroid, and then later we talk a little bit about Metroid Prime 4   QOTW: What is a Metroid Memory that you have? 

UT Health San Antonio researchers have teased out why some lipids spike in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease and what that may mean for cognitive function, revealing a new target for potential treatments.

What if you could travel back in time… and not break the universe? Scientists may have just cracked one of the biggest mysteries in physics — the time travel paradox. In this video, we'll explore how Germain Tobar, a physics student from the University of Queensland, ran the numbers and found a way that time travel might actually work — without any messy paradoxes. Discover how space-time could self-correct and allow freedom of action without destroying causality. Sci-fi fans, physics lovers, and curious minds — you won't want to miss this mind-bending discovery! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Imagine sending something from one place to another instantly—like magic, but real! Oxford scientists have just pulled off teleportation for the first time, and it could change the way we see science forever. Watch to discover how it works, what they actually teleported, and what this could mean for the future of technology. You won't believe the possibilities! Don't miss this mind-blowing breakthrough that feels straight out of sci-fi. Click now and step into the future with teleportation! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Imagine getting a tattoo… that can track your health, location, or identity — and you don't even need a device. Sounds like sci-fi? It's real. Scientists have developed futuristic electronic tattoos that use special ink to monitor your body in real-time — from heart rate to hydration — and even transmit data without chips or batteries. But here's the catch… could this breakthrough be the future of medicine? Or is it a step too close to surveillance under your skin? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Scientists never cease to surprise us with their inventions. Some of them look straight like from a sci-fi movie. But making these fantastic things is possible, they've already done it! Robotics exoskeletons that will make you 20 times stronger, a huge submarine that can stay underwater for 4 weeks. Or an ultra hot torch that slices through steel. Here're 17 cool things that prove the future has already arrived. Have you ever wanted to find yourself right inside a sci-fi video? Here's your chance! Advanced technology, innovations and futuristic objects - all of these things can't but amaze anyone! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Every year, a spectacular display of fireballs rises from the Mekong River in Thailand and Laos at the end of Buddhist Lent. They appear like clockwork—and defy logic. Scientists and skeptics point to natural explanations such as combustible gases or a hoax. But locals will tell you they are produced by the mythical Naga serpent…For a full list of sources, please visit: sosupernaturalpodcast.com/mystical-naga-fireballsSo Supernatural is an Audiochuck and Crime House production. Find us on social!Instagram: @sosupernatualpodTwitter: @_sosupernaturalFacebook: /sosupernaturalpod Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In today's culture I feel we have conflated beliefs with facts. I view us as a culture at war with our perspectives. We are seldom arguing about literal facts. Look at the news headlines, social media, and any reporting entity and you find great polarization and emotion around issues. And what is generally being debated is again, not fact, but belief. Belief we grow to thinking is actually fact, even when it can't be. Why? My guest cites how we so often attach our beliefs to our identity. Then if the belief is questioned, your very identity is being questioned. Think about this. Have you ever heard someone say, “I tend to vote for Democrats, I align with a Catholic faith, I eat vegan, and I run a lot for exercise.” No. Listen to how we say it; “I'm a democrat, I'm a Catholic, I'm a vegan, and I'm a runner.” I am. It's not my belief, it's who I am. So let's talk about what this is doing to us. My guest is cognitive scientist Andy Norman. Or let me rephrase that. My guest is Andy Norman who works as lot in cognitive science. Andy is an award-winning author of Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think. His research is on the emerging science of mental immunity as the antidote to disinformation, propaganda, hate, and division. Andy strives to help people develop immunity to bad ideas. As you'll hear, my focus is really on the harm we do to ourselves and others when we are so rigid in our beliefs we won't consider anyone who differs. As I already mentioned, Andy showcases how many, if not most of our beliefs, are more tied to our self-image than truth, and how this hurts us and everyone else. It's ok to have strong beliefs, but if you feel strong in them and it's not just to support your personal bias, then wouldn't you be strong enough to allow someone to explain their differing beliefs and actually seek to understand them? My interest is around connection and peace instead of the conflict we continually see in our culture. Andy directs the Humanism Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University and you can find him at andynorman.org. Sign up for your $1/month trial period at shopify.com/kevin Go to shipstation.com and use code KEVIN to start your free trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Leave an Amazon Rating or Review for my New York Times Bestselling book, Make Money Easy!Check out the full episode: https://greatness.lnk.to/1856"Our body's tissues get littered with these senescent cells spewing out inflammation" - Dr. Michael GregerDr. Michael Greger walks through one of the most fascinating discoveries in aging research: your cells are supposed to divide about 50 times, then release inflammatory signals so your immune system can clear them out. It's a brilliant protective mechanism against cancer. But here's what's quietly sabotaging your health: as you age, your immune system starts losing its ability to remove these cells. They pile up in your tissues, pumping out inflammation day after day, which is why your blood markers for inflammation climb with every passing year. Scientists call it "inflammaging." These zombie cells are literally sitting in your body right now, actively contributing to the chronic inflammation driving disease and aging.The game-changer? Scientists tested dozens of drugs to clear these cells, but they had brutal side effects. Then they found three compounds in everyday foods that actually work: fisetin in strawberries, quercetin in red onions, and piperlongumine in long pepper. Dr. Greger shares the research showing people experiencing measurable benefits from eating as little as a teaspoon of chopped onions or a handful of fresh strawberries daily. He explains exactly why red onions beat white onions, why he personally switched from blackberries to strawberries despite their lower antioxidant content, and where to find long pepper to add to your diet. This isn't about taking another supplement or following a restrictive protocol. It's about understanding what's actually aging your body at the cellular level and using specific, accessible foods to fight back.Sign up for the Greatness newsletter: http://www.greatness.com/newsletter Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Scientists are shedding light on the strange, car-sized, armoured fish that lived 360 million years ago in what is now Cleveland. Plus: The cosmic collider that gave us our moon came from our own solar system, soccer fanatics' brains are wired differently than regular fans, industrial chemicals are hurting our microbiome, and scientists are using our brains to build a better computer.

For radio astronomers, there’s some good news and some bad news. On the good side, a pilot project with SpaceX has devised a way to reduce the radio interference produced by satellites. On the bad side, the satellites can produce accidental interference. Radio telescopes tell us things about the universe that we can’t get any other way. But the telescopes are extremely sensitive. Transmissions from an orbiting satellite are like bright headlights – they overpower the subtle signals of astronomical objects. There are more than 15,000 satellites in orbit today – a five-fold increase in just six years. And the total could balloon to a hundred thousand by the next decade. Astronomers worked with SpaceX to reduce interference from its Starlink satellites. The groups combined the observing schedule of a telescope with the Starlink control system. Satellites passing over the telescope were instructed to turn away – aiming the headlights in a different direction. And there are plans to extend the scheme to other telescopes. On the other hand, a recent study found that tiny radio signals emitted by a satellite’s electronics can also be a problem. Scientists looked at 76 million radio images made by a telescope in Australia. They found that Starlink satellites interfered with up to 30 percent of the pictures. So future satellites may need extra shielding to keep them from blinding astronomy’s radio eyes. Script by Damond Benningfield

4pm: Video Guest – Glen Morgan – We the Governed // DOJ sues Washington Secretary of State over access to full voter registration list // Seattle office rents plunge faster than any U.S. city as vacancies hit record highs // Office-to-Residential Conversions Are Booming and New York Is the Epicenter // Could this solve many of Seattle’s issues? // Scientists Are Trying to Fix the Worst Sound in the World: the Dentist’s Drill

Brought to you by TogetherLetters & Edgewise!In this episode: Google cracked Apple's AirDrop and is adding it to Pixel phonesKohler Can Access Data and Pictures from Toilet Camera It Describes as “End-to-End Encrypted”Tesla is recalling over 10,000 Powerwall 2 batteries due to burn risksPreserving code that shaped generations: Zork I, II, and III go Open SourceNotebookLM's killer new feature just made PowerPoint obsolete (and Canva too)Scientists create new bullet-proof fiber that is stronger and thinner than KevlarAmazon Rushes Out Latest AI Chip to Take On Nvidia, GoogleMKBHD is taking down his wallpaper appAll The HBO Max Shows That May Come To Netflix After Its Wild WB Purchase Code suggests that OpenAI may be close to introducing ads for ChatGPTOpenAI is under pressure as Google, Anthropic gain groundClaude for NonprofitsElon Musk says AI will end America's debt crisis within 3 yearsX Just Accidentally Exposed A Vast Covert Influence Network Targeting AmericansInternet Providers Can Monitor Their Own Cybersecurity Standards, Says Trump's FCCWeird and Wacky:

This podcast is sponsored by Aura Frames. Get $35 off the Carver Mat at https://on.auraframes.com/SCIENTIST with code SCIENTIST.Shop our favorite pajamas at https://skims.com/. Be sure to let them know we sent you by selecting "podcast" in the dropdown menu following checkout. __Happy three years to N4E! Jess and Caroline reflect about their time as podcast co-hosts, and then dive into a couple complaints about, well, talking to each other on the internet. They discuss the difference between in-person conversations and online ones, activism on the internet, and they do a little follow-up on some of their hottest takes that got them in the throes of internet anger. Then, they launch into a few listener-submitted questions! They discuss everything from nasty sex questions to celebrity crushes to what they judge people about to guilty pleasures. They end with a little love fest about all they've accomplished together and offer a few kisses, just for you. This episode was produced by our prince, Abi Newhouse (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@abinewhouse⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠__Share with a friend!Follow, rate, and review on your favorite podcasting app!Subscribe on YOUTUBE for full episode video:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/@Not4EveryonePod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Plus follow us on INSTAGRAM for more:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@not4everyonepod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@thegoodsitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@jzdebakey⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠You can DM us there or submit topics for an upcoming episode to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠not4everyonepod@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.And don't forget about our APPAREL:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠nfepodapparel.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠__Intro Music: “Doja Dance” by PALA__DISCLAIMER: All opinions are our own. We are not therapists or health professionals, or professional of any kind, really. Please see your own professional or counselor for professional support. Do your research and be safe!

Hosted by Chris Beckett & Shane Ludtke, two amateur astronomers in Saskatchewan. actualastronomy@gmail.com - Dec 3-4 – Moon 0.8° N of Pleiades (Occults stars in Virginia) Carbon Star U Lyr best tonight - Dec 4 – Full Moon in Taurus - Dec 7 – Jupiter 4° South of Moon Mercury Greatest Elongation 21° from Sun in morning Sky Endymion sunset rays visible on Moon - Dec 7-8 Moon and M44 - Dec 8 – 16 Psyche at Opposition 9.4 magnitude Asteroid 16 Psyche is a large, metal-rich asteroid, thought to be the exposed core of a protoplanet, located between Mars and Jupiter. It is composed of a high concentration of nickel and iron and is estimated to be worth an astronomical amount of metal. Scientists are studying it to learn more about the formation of Earth's core and other rocky planets, and a NASA mission is currently underway to explore it. - Dec 10 – Moon Occults Regulus 2am - Dec 13 – Geminid Meteor Shower – up to 150 ZHR on morning of the 14th. - Dec 21 – Ursid meteor Shower – 10 zhr - Dec 22 Moon Occults Pluto at 4pm EST - Dec 23 Carbon Star Z Psc best tonight - Dec 24 Comet 24P Schaumasse visible tonight Marie called it again…we have yet another bright comet…8.5 magnitude by mid month, moon leaves sky on 11/12th - Dec 25  Saturn Ring Tilt -0.76 - Dec 26 – Lunar X near crater Werner visible - Dec 27 — Saturn, Neptune and Moon congregate in evening sky. Lunar Straight Wall visible - Dec 29 – Jeweled Handle Visible On Moon - Dec 31 – Moon 0.9° N of Pleiades Carbon Star T Lyn best tonight   We've added a new way to donate to 365 Days of Astronomy to support editing, hosting, and production costs.  Just visit: https://www.patreon.com/365DaysOfAstronomy and donate as much as you can! Share the podcast with your friends and send the Patreon link to them too!  Every bit helps! Thank you! ------------------------------------ Do go visit http://www.redbubble.com/people/CosmoQuestX/shop for cool Astronomy Cast and CosmoQuest t-shirts, coffee mugs and other awesomeness! http://cosmoquest.org/Donate This show is made possible through your donations.  Thank you! (Haven't donated? It's not too late! Just click!) ------------------------------------ The 365 Days of Astronomy Podcast is produced by the Planetary Science Institute. http://www.psi.edu Visit us on the web at 365DaysOfAstronomy.org or email us at info@365DaysOfAstronomy.org.

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

In this episode of the Sexy Ageing podcast, host Tracy Minnoch-Nuku speaks with cognitive neuroscientist Therese Huston about brain health, particularly in relation to aging and hormonal changes during perimenopause. They discuss the impact of memory changes, the role of the prefrontal cortex, and the effects of stress and multitasking on cognitive function. Therese shares strategies for enhancing brain health, including mindfulness meditation, physical activity, and nutrition, while also addressing the importance of sleep and glymphatic clearance. The conversation emphasizes hope and actionable steps for maintaining cognitive function as we age.SEXY AGEING RESOURCESSexy Ageing Fitness and Lifestyle APPBOOK ME for a Menopause Workshop Book: My Menopause MemoirDownload your FREE Menopause Symptom Tracker HERE GOGOOD PROTEIN: 15% DISCOUNT CONNECT WITH ME ON SOCIALS Instagram TikTok LINKEDIN

On this episode we have on Kaylee and Mikey from the kids band Bug Friend.They recently released an album called Alphabops where they made a song for every letter of the alphabet in all styles of music!  You can find it anywhere you stream music.This interview was really fun, Kaylee and Mikey have a very similar sense of humor as I do and it was really easy to talk to them.  We talked about having 2 kids, mini van decisions, being considered a geriatric parent, getting married during COVD, Kaylee's job as an event planner, the story of Kaylee performing all of Tapestry by Carol King as a concert and the difference between performing kids music and other music.Send us a textSupport the showFollow us on Facebook and Instagram @theimperfectdadspodcast . Look for new episodes of The Imperfect Dads Podcast every Monday.

Scientists just made an incredible discovery in Antarctica—they found Pine Island amber, a super rare type of fossilized tree resin! This amber is millions of years old and could hold clues about ancient ecosystems that once thrived on the frozen continent. Imagine finding tiny prehistoric insects or pollen trapped inside, perfectly preserved from a time when Antarctica was much warmer. This discovery could rewrite what we know about Earth's climate history and how plants and animals adapted to extreme changes. Scientists are now carefully studying the amber to uncover its secrets. Who knows what mysteries could be hiding inside? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this two-part patreon only series about a 24 year old plant scientist named Michael whose life is turned upside down by a strange series of paranormal events and a chance encounter with a mysterious Italian-American man named Rafael. I am putting out an extra-long preview for all of you in hopes of luring you behind the paywall. If you like what you hear, both episodes are out this week! Listen at www.patreon.com/otherworld To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Amy Richmond, CSB, from Boston, Massachusetts, USAFor more inspiring ideas from The First Church of Christ, Scientist, be sure to check out our audio landing page at christianscience.com/audio.

In this newscast: With major cruise tourism developments on the horizon in the capital city, the City and Borough of Juneau is resurrecting a task force to look at whether its current approach to managing tourism is working; Eaglecrest Ski Area is slated to open for its 50th season this Saturday, and KTOO's Mike Lane sat down with Craig Cimmons, the general manager of the city-owned ski area, to talk about the season ahead; A portion of the lucrative Bristol Bay red king crab harvest nearly went to waste this season. A catcher processor that was set to take the crab was forced to shut down, leaving a good chunk of the catch to spoil in fishermen's tanks. But  the City of Unalaska stepped in to take those crab deliveries; An entangled whale was found dead near Kodiak earlier this month. Scientists believe it was caught in some kind of old fishing gear. It's at least the 13th dead humpback reported around the archipelago this year. 

About 70,000 years ago, there was a huge piece of land off the coast of Australia that could have supported around half a million people. This land connected modern-day Indonesia to Australia and was part of the North-West Australian Shelf. It used to be part of a bigger landmass called Sahul, which linked Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania into one continent. Today, scientists are mapping this lost "Atlantis" to learn more about it. It's fascinating to think about this ancient world that once existed! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this interview, Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD, Inventor of Email, Scientist, Engineer and Candidate for President, Talks about Flaxseeds on Colon Health: A Whole Systems Approach

Welcome back to Build Your Bible Habit, your audio Proverbs series! Scientists disagree about how long it takes to build a good habit, with estimates ranging from 21 days to months! What that really means is this: they don't know the answer. God knows this: If we continue to read and eventually study His Word, applying what we learn as we grow, we will be transformed and improved habits will follow. God's key tool of transformation is missing when we're not in His Word. You renew your mind through the renewing power of the Bible. If you are tired of making messes in your life and dealing with the cleanup, it's time for change. Building your Bible habit will help! "For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." (Proverbs 2:6) Books, Bible Studies, and more in the Shop at Keep the Heart Apply: Living What We Learn--31-Day Devotional by Francie Taylor BIBLE STUDY GROUPS: ICU: In Christ Unconditionally-Heart Conditions NEW: Seaside Treasures Framed Shell Art NEW: Hope Endures: A Biography of Faith by Jennifer Arrington NEW: The Counting Tree by Jennifer Arrington From Overwhelmed to Overcomer by Natalie Raynes Blanton Herbs for the Heart: A Study of James by Kathy Ashley Follow Keep the Heart on Instagram Like Keep the Heart on Facebook  

Scientists discover hidden wolf DNA in most dogs Save on the perfect Holiday gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carver Mat frames - named #1 by Wirecutter -  by using promo code COOLSTUFF at checkout. Contact the Show: coolstuffdailypodcast@gmamil.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Scientists are expanding their toolkits to help reefs bounce back as ocean's get warmer.Read more about the project here  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Group Therapy Chatter rolls with Claude, David, Jamie, and Torie.  Torie pitches Rob Dundon's wonderful cause in honor of his mother Cathy  (go to: alt.org/goto/CathysLegacy/2025.  The gang makes holiday gift recommendations.  Scientist in Residence at the School of Art Institute in Chicago Eugenia Cheng zooms in to share "Unequal — The Math of When Things Do and Don't Add Up," It's about so much more than numbers and certainty.  It's about nuance and perspective and understanding.  

Scientists have been searching for dark matter for decades. They haven’t found it – every experiment they’ve devised has come up empty. But they haven’t given up. Among other ideas, they’re thinking about ways to use moons, planets, and stars as detectors. Dark matter appears to make up about 85 percent of all the matter in the universe. We know it’s there because its gravity pulls on the visible stars and galaxies around it. Dark matter may consist of a type of particle that almost never interacts with normal matter. But it should interact just enough to reveal its nature. Experiments here on Earth haven’t seen any such interactions. So some scientists recommend using astronomical objects instead of lab experiments. Blobs of dark matter might enfold a binary star system. The dark matter’s gravity could pull the two stars away from each other. And dark matter might clump together to make a special kind of star. Both of those might be detectable with current telescopes. Smaller blobs might slam into an icy moon, creating a special kind of crater. Such craters could be visible on Ganymede, the largest moon of Jupiter. Two missions on their way to Jupiter might be able to see them. And dark matter might fall into the center of a planet and hang around. If enough builds up, it could heat the planet’s interior. So by studying many planets in other star systems, we might see some that are unusually warm – heated up by encounters with dark matter. Script by Damond Benningfield

http://www.grantdvenerablephd.com/ Listen to us live on mytuner-radio, onlineradiobox, fmradiofree.com and streema.com (the simpleradio app)https://onlineradiobox.com/search?cs=us.pbnnetwork1&q=podcast%20business%20news%20network&c=ushttps://mytuner-radio.com/search/?q=business+news+networkhttps://www.fmradiofree.com/search?q=professional+podcast+networkhttps://streema.com/radios/search/?q=podcast+business+news+network

We'll be back with a new episode next week. In the meantime… here is a replay of one our favorite Ten Year Town stories. Stephen Wilson Jr. is a country singer and songwriter originally from Southern Indiana. He is signed to Big Loud Records and has toured with HARDY, Brothers Osborne and more. Stephen's debut album “Son of Dad” was released in September 2023 to critical acclaim. In addition to his success as an artist, Stephen has had cuts as a writer with Old Dominion, Brothers Osborne, Caitlyn Smith and others. In this episode we discuss Stephen's journey from rural Indiana to middle Tennessee, his previous career as a scientist, his career change to songwriter, and the inspiration behind his record.New Episodes every Tuesday.Find the host Troy Cartwright on Twitter, Instagram. Social Channels for Ten Year Town:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTwitterTikTokThis podcast was produced by Ben VanMaarth. Intro and Outro music for this episode was composed by Troy Cartwright, Monty Criswell, and Derek George. It is called "Same" and you can listen to it in it's entirety here. Additional music for this episode was composed by Thomas Ventura. Artwork design by Brad Vetter. Creative Direction by Mary Lucille Noah.

EPISODE SHOW-NOTESFor decades, we knew plastic was a problem. Scientists published papers. Environmentalists raised alarms. But knowing and seeing are two very different things. In 2015, a sea turtle with a plastic straw lodged in its nostril changed everything. That eight-minute video of agony went viral with over 110 million views, and suddenly plastic pollution wasn't just data—it was undeniable suffering you couldn't scroll past.This episode explores the moments when plastic's invisibility shattered. We trace how a crisis that lived in the background noise of modern life suddenly demanded our attention—when beaches became landfills, when ocean gyres the size of Texas appeared on satellite images, when the very convenience we celebrated revealed its true cost in blood and tears.You'll discover the turning points that transformed public consciousness, the images and stories that broke through decades of complacency, and why visibility alone hasn't been enough to solve the crisis. Because once the world woke up, we faced an uncomfortable truth: we'd built an entire civilization on a material we use once and can never get rid of.A Call to Act: The World's Most Comprehensive Database of Eco-Solutions.                Hundreds of Eco-Organizations, Eco-Activities, and Eco-Actions you can take today.Trumping Trump: A new survival guide for maintaining focus and sanity while avoiding outrage fatigue. TT is a database of 300+ strong organizations, many with local chapters in your area, united together to fight against the insanity spewing out of 'The Whiter House' that is going to be with us for years.A Collection of Dozens of Organization Unite in Fighting Plastic WasteBecause real change happens through sustained action, not endless reaction.

De ontdekking van tryptofaan op een ander hemellichaam dwingt ons na te denken over de geschiedenis van leven op onze aarde.Scientists found tryptophan, the ‘sleepy' amino acid, in an asteroid. Here's what it means:https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/27/science/tryptophan-asteroid-bennu-nasa-samplePrebiotic organic compounds in samples of asteroid Bennu indicate heterogeneous aqueous alteration:https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2512461122Hayabusa 2:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayabusa2OSIRIS-REx:https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSIRIS-RExTryptofaan:https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/TryptofaanNucleobase:https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/NucleobaseNucleobase synthesis in interstellar ices:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/S41467-019-12404-1.pdfCould nucleobases form in the ISM? A theoretical study in the horsehead nebula:https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.03963De Zimmerman en Space podcast is gelicenseerd onder een Creative Commons CC0 1.0 licentie.http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0

The Amazon is often described as an ecosystem under dire threat due to climate change and deliberate deforestation. Yet there is still considerable hope that these threats can be mitigated.  In the face of these threats, indigenous conservationists are attempting to strike a balance between tradition and preserving Amazonia.  Meanwhile, two river journeys more than 100 years apart – one by a contemporary National Geographic reporter and another by “The Lewis and Clark of Brazil”— draw attention to the beauty and diversity of one of the world's most important ecosystems. Guests: Cynthia Gorney – Contributing writer at the National Geographic Society, former bureau chief for South America at The Washington Post Larry Rohter – Reporter and correspondent in Rio de Janeiro for fourteen years for Newsweek and as The New York Times bureau chief. Author of Into the Amazon: The Life of Cândido Rondon, Trailblazing Explorer, Scientist, Statesman, and Conservationist João Campos-Silva – Brazilian researcher and conservationist, and cofounder of Instituto Jura, a conservation organization.  His work, along with that of other conservationists, is featured in the National Geographic issue devoted to the Amazon. Featuring music by Dewey Dellay and Jun Miyake Big Picture Science is part of the Airwave Media podcast network. Please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com to inquire about advertising on Big Picture Science. You can get early access to ad-free versions of every episode by joining us on Patreon. Thanks for your support! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Scientists have almost cracked the secret language of animals. Here's what they've learned. Save on the perfect Holiday gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carver Mat frames - named #1 by Wirecutter -  by using promo code COOLSTUFF at checkout. Contact the Show: coolstuffdailypodcast@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is our weekly compilation of science news.00:00 - Huge Gravity Anomaly Near Africa5:33 - Scientists may have detected dark matter.11:05 - Why Doesn't Anyone Monitor AI Consciousness?16:49 - Small Nuclear Reactors are Coming --- Against All Odds

A month ago, Hurricane Melissa hit Jamaica as a category five— one of the strongest storms ever to make landfall in the Atlantic. Scientists agree that Melissa was made stronger by climate change. We meet some Jamaicans that are wondering how to rebuild smarter for the possibility that another powerful storm may hit in the future.   Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Scientists have discovered our brain organizes itself differently based on different life stages, with some stages working more efficiently than others. A new study from the University of Cambridge identified five main brain "eras" - child, adolescent, adult, early ageing, and late ageing. We speak with the lead author of the study to find out more about these stages and what this research might mean for mental health and dementia research.

There is a lot of online talk about the growing scourge of AI-generated content and how it's affecting our digital lives, both in and out of the classroom. Though many of us are absolutely confident we can quickly spot AI slop when we see it, this discussion revealed that a genuine understanding of creativity in the age of AI is required and rare. Listen to this robust discussion on how AI Slop is affecting educators, students, and creativity in teaching. Follow on Twitter: @CFKurban @hcrompton @lkolb @punyamishra @jonHarper70bd @bamradionetwork See Related Resources: Here: https://www.bamradionetwork.com/track/how-ai-slop-is-affecting-students-educators-and-the-craft-of-teaching-creativity/ A Tool That's Crushing Creativity | SAMR | The SETI Framework | TPACK | Triple-E | The GenAI-U Framework | Bringing Out Individual Talents in Children | CNN | Google | CBS | Brainwaves Anthology Dr. Punya Mishra (punyamishra.com) is the Associate Dean of Scholarship and Innovation at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. He has an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering, two Master's degrees in Visual Communication and Mass Communications, and a Ph.D. in Educational psychology. He co-developed the TPACK framework, described as “the most significant advancement in technology integration in the past 25 years.” Dr. Caroline Fell Kurban is the advisor to the Rector at MEF University. She was the founding Director of the Center of Research and Best Practices for Learning and Teaching (CELT) at MEF University and teaches in the Faculty of Education. She holds a BSc in Geology, an MSc in TESOL, an MA in Technology and Learning Design, and a PhD in Applied Linguistics. Fell Kurban is currently the head of the Global Terminology Project and the creator of the GenAI-U technology integration framework. Dr. Liz Kolb is a clinical professor at the University of Michigan and the author of several books, including Cell Phones in the Classroom and Help Your Child Learn with Cell Phones and Web 2.0. Kolb has been a featured and keynote speaker at conferences throughout the U.S. and Canada. She created the Triple E Framework for effective teaching with digital technologies and blogs at cellphonesinlearning.com. Dr. Puentedura is the Founder and President of Hippasus, a consulting practice focusing on transformative applications of information technologies to education. He has implemented these approaches for over thirty years at various K-20 institutions and health and arts organizations. He is the creator of the SAMR model for selecting, using, and evaluating technology in education and has guided multiple projects worldwide. Dr. Helen Crompton is the Executive Director of the Research Institute for Digital Innovation in Learning at ODUGlobal and Professor of Instructional Technology at Old Dominion University. Dr. Crompton earned her Ph.D. in educational technology and mathematics education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel ill. Dr. Crompton is recognized for her outstanding contributions and is on Stanford's esteemed list of the world's Top 2% of Scientists. She is the creator of the SETI framework. She frequently serves as a consultant for various governments and bilateral and multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Bank, on driving meaningful change in educational technology.

Hollywood has made horror movies about transplant recipients inheriting the personalities of their donors for decades — but real transplant patients are reporting the same thing, and scientists can't explain why.SERMON TRANSCRIPT… https://weirddarkness.com/cotu-organtransplantmemoriesWeird Darkness® and Church Of The Undead™ are trademarked. Copyright © 2025.#WeirdDarkness, #HeartTransplant, #CellularMemory, #MedicalMystery, #UnexplainedPhenomena, #TrueStories, #Paranormal, #ScienceCantExplain, #OrganTransplant, #CreepyButTrue

Leave an Amazon Rating or Review for my New York Times Bestselling book, Make Money Easy!Check out the full episode: https://greatness.lnk.to/1853"Each of us is receiving a different broadcast of frequency somewhere in the environment." - Bruce LiptonBruce Lipton was the ultimate skeptic. A cellular biologist who lived entirely in the world of microscopes and petri dishes, he had zero interest in anything spiritual. Then one day, while studying the receptors on cell surfaces, he noticed something that stopped him cold. These receptors are antennas. They're on the outside of the cell, which means they're picking up signals from outside. If every person has a unique set of these "self receptors" and they're reading the environment, then where is the signal actually coming from? That question shattered his entire worldview. He realized we're not contained in our bodies at all. We're broadcasts being received by our cells, like a TV picking up a signal. When the TV breaks, the broadcast doesn't die. It's still there, waiting for another receiver.This isn't mystical thinking dressed up as science. This is a scientist following the evidence to a conclusion he never expected and didn't want to believe. Bruce walks through exactly how he went from pure materialism to understanding that consciousness exists independent of the body, using nothing but cell biology and physics. He explains why letting go of the past isn't just good advice but necessary for tuning into your true signal without interference. And he breaks down why learning to love yourself isn't something you do after you heal - it's the healing itself. What makes this conversation so powerful is watching someone who built his entire identity on provable facts discover that the most profound truth of all has been hiding in plain sight in his own research.Sign up for the Greatness newsletter: http://www.greatness.com/newsletter Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Bizarre News - November 2025 | Paranormal Podcast In this month's Bizarre News, we bring you a collection of cutting-edge scientific discoveries and paranormal mysteries that blur the line between science fiction and reality. We kick things off with the interstellar comet 3I/Atlas, which has sparked intense debate in the scientific community after Harvard physicist Dr. Avi Loeb identified twelve significant anomalies suggesting it might not be a comet at all—but potentially a nuclear-powered alien spacecraft. With NASA pointing fifteen different space missions at this object, including the James Webb Space Telescope, we explore the strange characteristics that have scientists puzzled: unexplained frontal glow instead of a traditional tail, industrial alloy-like composition, and a retrograde trajectory with only a 0.2% probability of occurring naturally. We also dive into groundbreaking warp drive research that suggests faster-than-light travel may actually be theoretically possible, and surprising findings that humans possess "remote touch" abilities previously thought to exist only in animals like sandpipers, allowing us to sense buried objects without direct contact. On the paranormal side, we investigate which state claims the title of most haunted in America—and the answer might surprise you. Using data compiled from over 1.8 million ghost encounter records across social media platforms, books, and paranormal databases, researchers determined that New York takes the crown with its perfect storm of old stone buildings, high population density, and centuries of accumulated energy. We also share a compelling Bigfoot sighting from Pennsylvania's I-80, where a witness observed a tall, dark figure with a slender build gliding effortlessly across four lanes of highway and over a guardrail in a matter of seconds, leaving them with an unforgettable encounter story they'll be sharing for years to come.

The oldest genetic messenger molecules ever recovered reveal exactly what was happening inside an Ice Age mammoth's body when it died.READ or SHARE: https://weirddarkness.com/wooly-mammoth-rna/ WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.#WeirdDarkness, #WoollyMammoth, #AncientRNA, #IceAge, #ScientificDiscovery, #PrehistoricAnimals, #Paleontology, #ExtinctSpecies, #AncientHistory, #ScienceNews

Have you ever fantasized about going back in time to relive a moment — or change it? Maybe you're more interested in traveling to the future where cars fly and the code to immortality has been cracked.If the idea of time travel resonates with you, you're far from alone — particularly during a year of political upheaval. Scientists moved one step closer to understanding time travel, at least hypothetically, this year. Two physicists at the University of Queensland in Australia created a model for studying the phenomenon.We're not there yet. But when it comes to books, movies and TV shows, that's a different story. We've been thinking about hurtling through history for a very, very long time.Why do we return time and time again to stories about time travel? Will it ever become a reality?Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy