Podcasts about sloan foundation

Bob and Jon discuss Bob's role in the history of the development of quantitative finance at Goldman Sachs, including his seminal work with Fischer Black, along with the carry trade liquidity crisis of August 2024 and its similarities to the quant crisis of 2007. They also discuss the case for quantitative investing and its ability to ride out risky environments. They also discuss a risk management approach to climate policy, Bob's E-Z climate carbon pricing model, as well Bob's advocacy for carbon taxes. Recorded on August 9, 2024. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Robert Litterman is the Chairman of the Risk Committee at Kepos Capital LP. Prior to joining Kepos Capital in 2010, Litterman enjoyed a 23-year career at Goldman, Sachs & Co., where he served in research, risk management, investments, and thought leadership roles. While at Goldman, Litterman also spent six years as one of three external advisors to Singapore's Government Investment Corporation (GIC). Bob was named a partner of Goldman Sachs in 1994 and became head of the firm-wide risk function; prior to that role, he was co-head of the Fixed Income Research and Model Development Group with Fischer Black. During his tenure at Goldman, Bob researched and published a number of groundbreaking papers in asset allocation and risk management. He is the co-developer of the Black-Litterman Global Asset Allocation Model, a key tool in investment management, and has co-authored books including The Practice of Risk Management and Modern Investment Management: An Equilibrium Approach (Wiley & Co.). Litterman earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Minnesota and a B.S. in human biology from Stanford University. He is also the inaugural recipient of the S. Donald Sussman Fellowship at MIT's Sloan School of Management and serves on a number of boards, including Commonfund, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, and World Wildlife Fund. He is also currently serving as the chair of the CFTC Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee. Jon Hartley is a Research Associate at the Hoover Institution and an PhD candidate in economics at Stanford University, where he specializes in finance, labor economics, and macroeconomics. He is also currently a research fellow at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Jon is also a member of the Canadian Group of Economists and serves as chair of the Economic Club of Miami. Jon has previously worked at Goldman Sachs Asset Management as well as in various policy roles at the World Bank, the International Monetaty Fund, the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, the US Congress Joint Economic Committee, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the Bank of Canada. Jon has also been a regular economics contributor for National Review Online, Forbes, and the Huffington Post and has contributed to the Wall Street Journal, the  New York Times, USA Today, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, and the Toronto Star among other outlets. Jon has also appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, Bloomberg, and NBC and was named to the 2017 Forbes 30 under 30 Law & Policy list and the 2017 Wharton 40 under 40 list, and was previously a World Economic Forum Global Shaper. ABOUT THE SERIES: Each episode of Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century, a video podcast series and the official podcast of the Hoover Economic Policy Working Group, focuses on getting into the weeds of economics, finance, and public policy on important current topics through one-on-one interviews. Host Jon Hartley asks guests about their main ideas and contributions to academic research and policy. The podcast is titled after Milton Friedman‘s famous 1962 bestselling book Capitalism and Freedom, which after 60 years, remains prescient from its focus on various topics which are now at the forefront of economic debates, such as monetary policy and inflation, fiscal policy, occupational licensing, education vouchers, income share agreements, the distribution of income, and negative income taxes, among many other topics. For more information, visit: capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/

The democratic engine of the United States relies on accurate and reliable data to function. A year-long study of the 13 federal agencies involved in U.S. data collection, including the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the National Center for Education Statistics suggests that the nation's statistics are at risk. The study was produced by the American Statistical Association in partnership with George Mason University and supported by the Sloan Foundation and is the focus of this episode of Stats+Stories. Constance (Connie) Citro is a senior scholar with the Committee on National Statistics and an independent consultant in which capacity she worked on the project that produced A Nation's Data at Risk. She was previously CNSTAT director from 2004-2017 and senior study director from 1986-2003. Citro was an American Statistical Association/National Science Foundation/Census Bureau research fellow and is a fellow of the American Statistical Association and an elected member of the International Statistical Institute. She served as president of the Association of Public Data Users and its representative to the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, edited the Window on Washington column for Chance magazine, and served on the Advisory Committee of the Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology. In 2018, the American Statistical Association established the Links Lecture Award in honor of Citro, Robert Groves, and Fritz Scheuren. She will give the 32nd Morris Hansen Lecture in September 2024. Jonathan Auerbach is an assistant professor in the Department of Statistics at George Mason University. His research covers a wide range of topics at the intersection of statistics and public policy, including urban analytics, open data, and official statistics. His methodological interests include the analysis of longitudinal data, particularly for data science and causal inference. He is the current president of the Washington Statistical Society and the former science policy fellow at the American Statistical Association

Dr. Bill Coplin is an award-winning professor and founder of the undergraduate Policy Studies major at the top ranked Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. As a social innovator, Coplin is committed to transforming high school and college education into a well-rounded experience that promotes professional skill development for real-world application.Throughout his tenure, Coplin has dedicated his 65-year career to education reform across academia and for the public through teaching, advising and consulting. He is the J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence at the Maxwell School and College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University. He advises nearly a million undergraduates and alumni and brings his experience as a consultant for local government agencies to his mentees. In addition, Coplin has received grants from the Sloan Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, and the National Science Foundation in support of his research and educational programs.Coplin started his career as a full-time professor at Wayne State University in 1964, and quickly became Associate Professor three years later to then be tenured the following year in 1968. Prior to becoming a full time-professor at Syracuse University at 36-years-old, Coplin focused on academic research and publications. He has since released 110 books and articles across varying fields from education to geo-political international relations to corporate citizenship such as ‘doing good.' He has written articles on education in USA Today, the Albany Times Union and for Knight-Ridder publications, as well as educational websites for Newsweek magazine and the Wall Street Journal.Websitewww.billcoplin.comSocial Media Informationx.com/thehappyprofwww.linkedin.com/in/billcoplinResources MentionedDetails about Dr. Bill Coplin's bookShow Sponsor – National Association for Primary Education (NAPE) www.nape.org.ukSupport the show at www.educationonfire.com/supportHave you seen our live shows on YouTube? www.EducationOnFire.com/youtubeMentioned in this episode:NAPE Al Kingsley Summit PromoWatch Mark Taylor interview Al Kingsley about 'Creating Digital Strategies for Schools' as part of the Primary Education Summit 2023 - Visions for the Future - presented by National Association for Primary Education (NAPE) https://www.educationonfire.com/creating-digital-strategies-for-schools/

Send us a Text Message.Dr. Michael Platt, Ph.D. ( https://www.drmichaelplatt.com/ ) is the James S. Riepe University Professor, University of Pennsylvania, where he has appointments as Professor of Neuroscience at the Perelman School of Medicine ( https://plattlabs.rocks/our-team/michael-platt ), as Professor of Psychology at the School of Arts and Sciences ( https://psychology.sas.upenn.edu/people/michael-l-platt ), and as Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School ( https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/mplatt/ ), where he works at the fascinating intersection of economics, psychology, and neuroscience. Dr. Platt has a B.A., Biological Anthropology, Yale University, a Ph.D., Biological Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, and did a Post-Doctoral Fellowship, Neuroscience, New York University and is known for asking some of the most challenging questions in 21st century neuroscience—and conceiving innovative ways to find the answers. Dr. Platt's principal questions focus on the biological mechanisms that underlie decision-making in social environments, the grasp of which has broad-scale implications for improving health and welfare in societies worldwide. A former president of the Society for Neuroeconomics, Dr. Platt publishes regularly in top-tier scientific journals and has been featured in prominent TV, radio, print, and online media. With the support of such agencies as the National Institutes of Health, Sloan Foundation, Klingenstein Foundation, McDonnell Foundation, and Department of Defense, he has produced seminal articles that have been collectively cited over 4,000 times. His expertise is sought after outside the realm of academia, as well, leading him to serve in science advisory roles for three major motion pictures and is featured in an upcoming episode of HBO Vice. Dr. Platt also directs the new Wharton Neuroscience Initiative ( WiN - https://neuro.wharton.upenn.edu/ ), a community of faculty, undergraduates, graduate and professional students, and staff interested in connecting brain science and business. Dr. Platt is the former Director of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke, and the founding Co-Director of the Duke Center for Neuroeconomic Studies. He currently serves on the Scientific Advisory Boards of multiple companies, as well as the Yang-Tan Autism Centers at MIT and Harvard and the National Primate Research Centers at Emory and UC Davis, served on the World Economic Forum Global Future Council on Brain Science, served as President of the Society for Neuroeconomics, consulted on The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky, and co-founded the neurotechnology company Cogwear Technologies Inc. ( https://cogweartech.com/ ) His most recent book The Leader's Brain: Enhance Your Leadership, Build Stronger Teams, Make Better Decisions, and Inspire Greater Innovation with Neuroscience is available at all major booksellers. Support the Show.

Guest Yani Bellini Saibene Panelist Richard Littauer Show Notes In this episode of Sustain, host Richard welcomes guest Yani Bellini Saibene from Argentina. Yani, with a rich background in open source community management, shares her journey into the tech and open source world, and highlights her roles as the rOpenSci Community Manager, R-Ladies Project Lead, and Vice President for the Board of Directors for The Carpentries. The discussion dives into the challenges of funding, sustainability of volunteer-based models, and the importance of including diverse voices in open source development. The conversation also explores the economic disparities and cultural differences affecting contributors form the global south and how building strong local communities can empower individuals by providing them with tools, knowledge, and a sense of belonging in the wider world. Press download to hear more! [00:01:47] Yani describes her start as a researcher at INTA while at university, her degree in computer science, and her initial work developing software and teaching scientists to use computing tools. She also details her career progression and her master thesis at INTA. [00:04:49] We hear about the foundation and global expansion of R-Ladies, as Yani emphasizes community strength and the organizers' passion. She discusses the flexibility and inclusivity of the chapters, and the support and resources shared among the community. [00:08:56] Richard questions about the distinct roles and activities between rOpenSci, R-Ladies, and The Carpentries, which appear to have similar goals in teaching R, and Yani explains the different objectives of the three organizations. [00:12:50] Yani lists the funders, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Sloan Foundation, and others. She describes the funding models for R-Ladies and Carpentries and the challenges of sustaining such community-oriented projects. [00:14:52] Richard inquires about the role of the board of directors in establishing post-grant funding. Yani explains The Carpentries' membership model where institutions pay for benefits like workshops and instructor training, she mentions the perks for members, discusses the challenges of maintaining services without sufficient membership or grants, and highlights cultural and financial barriers in Latin America. [00:20:17] Richard is curious about cultural barriers and asks for further insights into overcoming cultural barriers and the limitations of translations. Yani discusses her personal journey with the English language and its importance in coding beyond syntax and shares some data from a recent study that was done, and the paper is called, “The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science,” from PLOS Biology. [00:24:42] Yani discusses additional studies, mentioning the Linux Foundation report on English as a barrier in open source contribution and its influence on perceived expertise. [00:25:55] Richard asks Yani about the point at which translation efforts start to yield benefits for the community and inquires about the visible impacts and dividends from investments in internationalizing materials. Yani cites examples of immediate benefits, and discusses her involvement in translating educational materials, which has supported teaching many Spanish speaking teachers. [00:32:38] Richard raises concerns about the possibility of global exploitation through talent extraction from non-English speaking regions. Yani addresses the issue of local versus international business compensation and the ethical implications for non-profit organizations. [00:36:30] We hear Richard's concerns about how to have conversations about open source contributions and community building in a non-extractive way and he wonders if it's feasible to collectively support open source maintainers financially. Yani explains the concept of three “currencies” in any job: money, heart, and brain. [00:39:16] Yani discusses the champions program at rOpenSci, where stipends were important for participants to allocate time to the tasks and do an excellent job. [00:41:05] Find out where you can follow Yani online. Quotes [00:06:17] “In R-Ladies, you have enough informality and enough expertise to make this a special place to learn.” [00:18:26] “There is little funding for maintaining what you already have.” [00:20:40] “I have to confess that I approached the English language because I loved code.” Spotlight [00:42:26] Richard's spotlight is a book he's reading called, Theodore Rex. [00:43:10] Yani's spotlight is a friend and someone she works with at R-Ladies, Athanasia Mo Mowinckel. Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) podcast@sustainoss.org (mailto:podcast@sustainoss.org) SustainOSS Mastodon (https://mastodon.social/tags/sustainoss) Open Collective-SustainOSS (Contribute) (https://opencollective.com/sustainoss) Richard Littauer Socials (https://www.burntfen.com/2023-05-30/socials) Yani Bellini Saibene GitHub (https://github.com/yabellini) Yani Bellini Saibene Mastodon (https://fosstodon.org/@yabellini) Yani Bellini Saibene Website (https://yabellini.netlify.app/) Yani Bellini Saibene LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/yabellini/) Teaching Tech Together (https://teachtogether.tech/) R-Ladies (https://rladies.org/) The Carpentries (https://carpentries.org/index.html) rOpenSci (https://ropensci.org/) The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science (PLOS Biology) (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184) Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (https://chanzuckerberg.com/) Sloan Foundation (https://sloan.org/) Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel H. Pink (https://www.danpink.com/books/drive/) Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Rex_(book)) Dr. Athanasia Mo Mowinckel (https://drmowinckels.io/) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guest: Yani Bellini Saibene.

S3E5: Elizabeth Hewitt, CIO, Sloan FoundationMoments that Made Her is a podcast where the rare and unique women that hold senior private equity roles share their stories, including the key personal and professional moments that defined their journeys and lessons they learned along the way.Moments that Made Her is a production of the Private Equity Women Investor Network, also known as PEWIN, which is the preeminent organization for senior-level women investment professionals in private equity.PEWIN provides its members with opportunities to network, share ideas, make deep connections with peers, and empower each other to succeed. Our mission is to increase the profile of women in private equity, and members represent institutions with over $3 trillion in assets under management.Moments that Made Her is hosted by Kelly Williams, PEWIN's Founding Chair, and is produced in collaboration with Purple Photo Group.To learn more please visit pewin.org.

Catya McMullen stopped by Playwright's Spotlight during the run of her new play Arrowhead which runs through March 4, 2024. In this episode, we talk about surviving lockdowns as an artist, what makes a good writer, reflecting life on stage, stage plays as love letters. We also discuss what comes after the initial idea, writing from a personal place and putting away the constraints, laughing your way into a deeper conversation and, a new term from me, the New York City Hustle and the benefits of becoming more generous in your theatre community. In addition, Catya shares her editing technique of Scene Tetris, deciphering notes from prescriptive fixes, accountability and keeping motivated, and whether or not you can find any of her rapping/hip hop performances online. Another fun episode I hope you'll enjoy. Catya McMullen is a playwright and comedian. Her short play, MISSED CONNECTION won the 37th Samuel French Off Off Broadway Short Play Festival. She is the author of the comedic hip hop musical LOCKED UP BITCHES and the plays GEORGIA MERTCHING IS DEAD, AGNES, EVERYTHING IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE OKAY, WE PRAY TO ELEPHANTS, ASSHOLES IN GAS STATIONS, RUBBER DUCKS AND SUNSETS, and THE COLLECTIVE. She is a proud alum of the Obie award winning EST/Youngblood and a company member of The Middle Voice Theater Company and was a finalist for the City Theater National Award for Short Playwriting and the Creator of the quarterly variety show WE ARE ANIMALS where she raps under her feminist hip hop alias “Chihuahua Fancy” and has received multiple commissions from the Sloan Foundation. She teaches sketch comedy and playwriting at The People's Improv Theater. Her latest play Arrowhead opened February 9th and runs through March 4th, 2024 at Atwater Village Theater in Los Angeles.To view the video format of this episode, visit -https://youtu.be/qIrJvOJn_Z4Links mentioned in this episode -Tickets to Arrowhead (Closing March 4, 2024) and IAMA Theatre Company -https://www.iamatheatre.com/plays-events/arrowheadSloan Foundation -https://sloan.orgThe Flea Theatre -https://theflea.orgDramatists Play Service (DPS) -https://www.dramatists.comWebsites and socials for Catya McCullen -IG - @mccatyaWebsites and socials for James Elden, PMP, and Playwright's Spotlight -Punk Monkey Productions - www.punkmonkeyproductions.comPLAY Noir -www.playnoir.comPLAY Noir Anthology –www.punkmonkeyproductions.com/contact.htmlJames Elden -X - @jameseldensauerIG - @alakardrakeFB - fb.com/jameseldensauerPunk Monkey Productions and PLAY Noir - X - @punkmonkeyprods    - @playnoirla IG - @punkmonkeyprods       - @playnoir_la FB - fb.com/playnoir        - fb.com/punkmonkeyproductionsPlaywright's Spotlight -X - @wrightlightpod IG - @playwrights_spotlightPlaywriting services through Los Angeles Collegiate Playwrights Festivalwww.losangelescollegiateplaywrightsfestival.com/services.htmlSupport the show

A series of 5000 flowers pressed in the 16th century near Bologna have given scientists an opportunity to see human impacts and the rise of alien species. All while giving us an excuse to touch on what the Columbian exchange actually is... Sources for this episode: Anteric, I., Basic, Z., Vilovic, K., Kolic, K. and Andjelinovic, S. (2014), Which Theory for the Origin of Syphilis is True? Journal of Sexual Medicine 11: 3112-3118. Buldrini, F., Alessandrini, A., Mossetti, U., Muzzi, E., Pezzi, G., Soldano, A. and Nascimbene, J. (2023), Botanical memory: five centuries of floristic changes revealed by a Renaissance herbarium (Ulisse Aldrovandi, 1551-1586). Royal Society Open Science 10(11): 230866. Guerra, F. (1993), The European-American Exchange. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 15: 313-327. Hancock, J. F. (2023), Fifty Years Later- The Legacy of Alfred Crosby's “The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492”. Economic Botany 77(1): 82-102. Harper, K. N., Zuckerman, M. K., Harper, M. L., Kingston, J. D. and Armelagos, G. J. (2011), The Origin and Antiquity of Syphilis Revisited: An Appraisal of Old World Pre-Columbian Evidence for Treponemal Infection. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 54: 99-133. Lees, D., Lopez-Vaamonde, C., Augustin, S., Biodiversity Heritage Library, Field Museum et al. (2009), Cameraria ohridella Deschka & Dimic 1986. Encyclopedia of Life, MacArthur Foundation, Sloan Foundation. Ffhal-02824036. McCook, S. (2011), The neo-Columbian exchange: the second conquest of the Greater Caribbean, 1720-1930. Latin American Research Review: 46(S1): 11-31. Milliken, W., Walker, B. E., Howes, M.-J. R., Forest, F. and Lughadha, E. N. (2021), Plants used traditionally as antimalarials in Latin America: Mining the tree of life for potential new medicines. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 279: 114221. Sanz-Biset, J., Campos-de-la-Cruz, J., Epiquién-Rivera, M. A. and Cañigueral, S. (2009), A first survey on the medicinal plants of the Chazuta valley (Peruvian Amazon). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 122: 333-362. Stefanaki, A., Walter, T. and van Andel, T. (2022), Tracing the introduction history of the tulip that went wild (Tulipa sylvestris) in sixteenth-century Europe. Nature Scientific Reports 12: 9786. Weston, P., the Guardian (2023), ‘Inestimable importance': 500-year-old cache of pressed flowers reveals new secrets (online) (Accessed 17/11/2023).

Telling Powerful Stories that Change the World Nick Bruckman and Ryder Haske, People's Television   – The Sharkpreneur podcast with Seth Greene Episode 929 Nick Bruckman and Ryder Haske   Nicholas Bruckman is the founder and CEO of People's Television, a production studio and creative agency that produces award-winning independent films as well as video storytelling for the world's leading brands. His feature documentary Not Going Quietly, executive produced by Mark and Jay Duplass, premiered at the 2021 SXSW Film Festival where it won the Audience Award and Special Jury Prize, and was nominated for Best Documentary and Best Director of the year at the IDA awards. The film was critically acclaimed and acquired for distribution by Greenwich Entertainment (theatrical), PBS POV (broadcast), Vice World News (international), and Hulu (streaming). He previously produced the narrative feature film Valley of Saints, shot under lockdown in Kashmir, which won the Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival and the Asia Africa Prize at the Dubai Film Festival. His first documentary La Americana broadcast worldwide on networks including National Geographic and Al Jazeera. He has executive produced numerous short films, including Rosa, which won Best Short at the Woodstock Film Festival and was acquired by HBO Max, and Desert Mourning, which premiered at Mountainfilm Telluride. Nick has participated in numerous labs, fellowships, and markets worldwide, including the Rotterdam Producers Lab, the IFP Cannes Producers Fellowship, and the Film Independent Producers Lab. His work has been supported by foundations including the Sloan Foundation, Cinereach, Rooftop Films, and the International Documentary Association. Through People's TV, Nick regularly produces branded films for clients including Airbnb, Greenpeace, Meta, and Dropbox, and works with A-list talent and CEOs. He has shot in over 25 countries around the world, including across Latin America, Europe, and Asia. Ryder Haske has been a partner at People's Television for over 10 years. During his tenure, he directed and produced commercials and ad campaigns for fortune 500 companies, federal agencies, and global foundations. He was a Cinematographer and Executive Producer on the feature documentary Not Going Quietly and has won multiple AAF and Telly awards. Ryder's work has brought him to nearly every state and over 25 countries. Based in Washington, where he oversees the DC office, Ryder's work ranges from mental health awareness to environmental conservation and social justice.   Listen to this informative Sharkpreneur episode with Nick Bruckman and Ryder Haske about telling powerful stories that change the world.   Here are some of the beneficial topics covered on this week's show: - How character driven stories can be the most impactful for an audience. - Why many people don't know that they have a powerful story to tell. - How most people intuitively skip over advertising, which is why you need a compelling story. - Why the storytelling techniques learned in film school, or a creative writing class apply to storytelling in ads. - How you want your story to be so interesting that it will be shared past potential customers.   Connect with Nick and Ryder: Guest Contact Info Twitter @peoplestv Instagram @peoples.tv Facebook facebook.com/pplstv LinkedIn linkedin.com/company/people's-tv   Links Mentioned: peoples.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Guests Chris Baker | Stephen Jacobs Panelists Richard Littauer | Justin Dorfman | Abby Cabunoc Mayes Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain! The podcast where we talk about sustaining open source for the long haul. Today, we are excited to have as our guests, Chris Baker and Stephen Jacobs, who work at RIT (Rochester Institute of Technology). Chris is the Assistant Director for the Open@RIT Program Office, and Stephen is a Professor at RIT and the Founder of Open@RIT. Our conversations today focus on how academia is trying to integrate open source into traditional academic practices, and how OSPO's are creating standards and best practices. Stephen and Chris also discuss how to help students deal with diverse incentives in open source and academia, the importance of role diversity in software development, and Stephen advocates for policy change to recognize the value of open work and to give credit to those who do it. Download this episode to hear more! [00:01:39] Chris fills us in on Open RIT where they're working to build open community and foster collaboration in the open space. [00:03:19] Stephen tells us about RIT having an open source department that teaches open source classes, offers an academic minor, and has an experiential education program. [00:07:50] Abby wonders if OSPO's are creating more career pathways, and Stephen explains they hope to create more opportunities in open source work in the future. [00:10:19] We hear about The Boyer's model of scholarship, and a classification system of four types of scholarship, and Stephen mentions the classic “Einstein Eureka” model being one of many, and he brings up Open Work Definition that RIT and a couple of other collaborators put out. [00:15:06] Stephen talks about The Sloan Foundation and why they're so interested in the research space of open source. [00:17:37] Open@RIT was founded by Stephen, Chris is the Assistant Director, and Mike Nolan is the Associate Director, and we'll hear about their responsibilities. [00:19:03] Chris explains how he's helping students deal with diverse incentives in open source and academia, and Stephen adds there's a need for educating on open science practices. [00:23:45] Stephen believes that policy need to change to recognize the value of open work and to give credit to those who do it. He also discusses the importance of role diversity in software development and how it can lead to more DEIA friendly projects. [00:27:10] What successful alumni came out of the Open@RIT? How about Justin Flory Jenn Kotler, and our very own Django Skorupa. [00:29:29] Chris and Stephen talk about other avenues they're pursuing to help teach open work outside of the university, and the FOSSY conference is mentioned. [00:33:59] Find out where you can learn more about Open work at RIT and where you can follow Chris and Stephen on the web. Quotes [00:04:25] “We became the second university with an OSPO.” [00:19:42] “We're taking students given their backgrounds, whether it be full-stack developers, or graphic design, and using that to produce the structure for open work inside of research.” Spotlight [00:36:49] Justin's spotlight is the 988 Crisis Lifeline. [00:37:23 Abby's spotlight is GitHub + Slack Integration open source project. [00:37:45] Richard's spotlight is getyourshittogether.org and Brain Donor Project. [00:38:28] Stephen's spotlight is Software Freedom Conservancy FOSSY Conf. [00:38:55] Chris's spotlight is the young ladies in rural high schools who are standing up to passive and aggressive sexism. Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) podcast@sustainoss.org (mailto:podcast@sustainoss.org) SustainOSS Mastodon (https://mastodon.social/tags/sustainoss) Richard Littauer Twitter (https://twitter.com/richlitt?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Justin Dorfman Twitter (https://twitter.com/jdorfman?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Abby Cabunoc Mayes Twitter (https://twitter.com/abbycabs?lang=en) Stephen Jacobs LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/itprofjacobs) Stephen Jacobs RIT (https://www.rit.edu/directory/sxjics-stephen-jacobs) Chris Baker LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/visuallychrisbaker) Chris Baker RIT (https://www.rit.edu/directory/cabopen-christopher-baker) Open@RIT (https://openr.it/) Rochester Institute of Technology (https://www.visitrochester.com/listing/rochester-institute-of-technology/7303/) Boyer's model of scholarship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyer%27s_model_of_scholarship) Open Work Definition (https://openworkdefinition.com/) Alfred P. Sloan Foundation-Technology (https://sloan.org/programs/digital-technology) The Journal of Open Source Software (https://joss.theoj.org/) Sustain Podcast- Episodes featuring Mike Nolan (https://podcast.sustainoss.org/guests/michael-nolan) Sustain Podcast-Episodes featuring Justin W. Flory (https://podcast.sustainoss.org/guests/justin-w-flory) Sustain Open Source Design-Episode 27: Jenn Kotler on Astronomical Sonification and Designing UX for Science & Open Data (https://sosdesign.sustainoss.org/guests/kotler) 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (https://988lifeline.org/) GitHub + Slack Integration (https://github.com/integrations/slack) Get Your Shit Together (https://getyourshittogether.org/) Brain Donor Project (https://braindonorproject.org/) Software Freedom Conservancy-FOSSY (https://sfconservancy.org/fossy/) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guests: Chris Baker and Stephen Jacobs.

Mat Hames is an Emmy winning Executive Producer and Director, known for his two feature length Independent Lens documentaries What Was Ours and When I Rise (both available on Prime video), as well as award winning documentary series including Power Trip: The Story of Energy (Prime Video, PBS, AppleTV).  Mat is currently directing A State of Mind for Wyoming PBS, a series focused on mental health issues for Americans living in the mountain west.  What Was Ours, filmed on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming over a period of several years, was recently featured on HBO's This Week Tonight with John Oliver. Mat's directorial debut was Last Best Hope, a nationally broadcast PBS film about the Belgian Resistance and escape lines during WWII, for which he was knighted by Belgian King Albert II. Mat's six hour series on the history of energy Power Trip: The Story of Energy has to date been seen by more than 3 million viewers on networks in over 10 countries. . Power Trip received coveted Rockefeller Foundation and Sloan Foundation funding. Mat traveled to eight countries and interviewed 100 experts on topics concerning the history of energy. Season Two production is currently underway filming in Iceland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Mat's other recent films include The Art of Home (PBS Living Channel), and Fossil Country (Wyoming PBS).  Mat is a co-founder of production studio Alpheus Media, based in Austin Texas. In addition to documentaries, with Alpheus Media, Mat has also directed short films for clients like Warner Bros, The Economist, Johns Hopkins and the Redford Center at Sundance, as well as hundreds of online video campaigns for brands such as Whole Foods, the University of Texas, Movember, Partners in Health, and LIVESTRONG. www.mathamesfilm.com

If you want to start a heated debate, pretty much anywhere in the Western world today, just bring up the topic of immigration. While there are plenty of policy issues that drive partisanship today, few are as sticky as the immigration issue. From the arguments of protecting the border and rule of law, to the need to protect immigrant rights and the dynamism that comes with welcoming legal immigrant, there are plenty of ideas, issues, and challenges to work on and argue about. In today's episode, we talk with Dr. James Hollifield, Professor and Director of the Tower Center for Public Policy and International Affairs at Southern Methodist University, about why the United States and the European Union have grappled with immigration for so long. The challenge stems from what he identifies as the "Liberal Paradox", where states need to define borders, citizenship, and rule of law, with the need to respect human rights, uphold values, and welcome new labor. Join us as we take a look at the history of immigration in the U.S. and what these countries can do to solve this issue. James F. Hollifield is the Ora Nixon Arnold Fellow in International Political Economy, Professor in the Department of Political Science, and Director of the Tower Center at SMU in Dallas, Texas, as well as a member of the New York Council on Foreign Relations and a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, DC.Hollifield has served as an Advisor to various governments in North and South America, Europe, East Asia and the Middle East and Africa, as well as the United Nations, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the OECD, the ILO, the IOM, the EU, and other international organizations.  He currently chairs working groups at the World Bank and the IDB and serves on the International Advisory Board of the National Center for Competence in Research (NCCR for Migration and Mobility) of the Swiss National Science Foundation.   He has been the recipient of grants from private corporations and foundations as well as government agencies, including the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Social Science Research Council, the Sloan Foundation, the Owens Foundation, the Raytheon Company, and the National Science Foundation.His major books include Immigrants, Markets and States (Harvard), L'Immigration et l'Etat Nation: à la recherche d'un modèle national (L'Harmattan), Pathways to Democracy: The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions (with Calvin Jillson, Routledge), Migration, Trade and Development (with Pia Orrenius and Thomas Osang, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas), Herausforderung Migration—Perspektiven der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft (with Uwe Hunger, Lit Verlag), Migration Theory (with Caroline Brettell, Routledge, now it its third edition), and Controlling Immigration ( with Philip Martin and Pia Orrenius, Stanford, also in its third edition). His current book projects are The Migration State (Harvard)—a study of how states manage international migration for strategic gains—and International Political Economy: History, Theory and Policy (with Thomas Osang, Cambridge). He also has published numerous scientific articles and reports on the political economy of international migration and development.

Today we welcome Perry Zurn and Dani Bassett. Dr. Perry Zurn is Associate Professor of Philosophy at American University. He is the author or coauthor of more than 75 publications in philosophy, political theory, trans studies, and network science and has given hundreds of talks at local, national, and international venues. His work has been generously funded by organizations like the American Philosophical Association, the Center for Curiosity, the Lee Somers Fund and more. Dr. Dani S. Bassett is the J. Peter Skirkanich Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, with appointments in the Departments of Bioengineering, Electrical & Systems Engineering, Physics & Astronomy, Neurology, and Psychiatry. They authored more than 390 peer-reviewed publications, which have garnered over 38,000 citations. Dr. Bassett has received multiple prestigious awards from the American Psychological Association, Sloan Foundation, and MacArthur Foundation among others. They often collaborate on research about neuroscience, curiosity, and the humanities. Recently, they co-wrote Curious Minds: The Power of Connection.In this episode, I talk to Perry Zurn and Dani Bassett about curiosity. For them, curiosity is not just about gaining knowledge, it's about connecting to the world and to each other. Each individual has their own style of connecting - they can be busybodies, hunters, or dancers at any given time. Perry and Dani also weigh in on how social media affects curiosity and how their network model of curiosity can improve education.Website: perryzurn.com & danisbassett.comTwitter: @perryzurn & @danisbassett Topics02:27 Perry and Dani's interest in curiosity06:26 Curiosity is connection12:45 Network science 15:18 Archetypes of curiosity20:22 Deprivation vs interest-based curiosity 23:56 Social curiosity29:47 Cycling through the different styles of curiosity 37:25 Is social media making us more curious? 40:51 Consciously practicing curiosity 42:32 Curiosity and learning 

Dylan Tuccillo is an award-winning writer, video producer, and filmmaker. While attending NYU's Tisch School of the Arts, a feature screenplay that he wrote won a $10,000 award from the Sloan Foundation. A recent short documentary of his was picked up by Upworthy and viewed over 270,000 times. After 15 years of working with advertising agencies and companies, he's learned how to market content in a media-saturated landscape. His short films have won "Best Short" at the Inwood Film Festival, "Best Director" at the Austin Revolution Film Festival, and awards at the Las Vegas Film Festival and the First Run Film Festival. As a freelance producer and video editor, Dylan has been hired to create content for Ann Taylor, Johnson and Johnson, IBM, Bayer, Berlitz, Columbia University and Vogue, to name a few. In 2013, his non-fiction book about dreams "A Field Guide to Lucid Dreaming" was published by Workman, co-authored with two friends. The book was translated into eleven languages and is on its seventh printing, selling over 75,000 copies. Learn more about his projects at www.dylantuccillo.com

  This week we welcome Dr. Charles Weschler for a show about a topic of great interest to IEQ and restoration professionals. Restoration contractors are inundated with claims about equipment to help on projects when fires, wildfires and other odor events affect indoor environments. What should practitioners know about ozone, hydroxyls, TI02 and other technologies when investigating or remediating indoor environments? We talk to a world renowned professor about this issue.   Charles J. Weschler -After completing his Ph.D. in Chemistry at University of Chicago (1974), Dr. Weschler did postdoctoral studies with Fred Basolo at Northwestern University. In 1975 he joined Bell Laboratories (Physical Chemistry Division) and was made a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff in 1986. He worked at Bell Labs and its successor institutions for twenty-five years. In 2001 he accepted positions at the Environmental & Occupational Health Science Institute, Rutgers University, and the International Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy, Technical University of Denmark, and in 2010 joined the Building Science department at Tsinghua University as an ongoing Visiting Professor. He continues in those positions. His research interests include chemicals in indoor environments, their sources, their chemistry, and their interactions with building occupants. From 1999-2005 Weschler served on the US EPA's Science Advisory Board. He has also served on four committees for the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. From 2012 to the present, he has been an advisor to the Sloan Foundation's program on Chemistry in Indoor Environments. He was elected to the International Academy of Indoor Air Sciences in 1999 and received the Pettenkofer Award, its highest honor, in 2014. Weschler has also received the 2017 Haagen-Smit Prize from Atmospheric Environment; been made “Distinguished Visiting Professor” at Tsinghua University (2018); awarded “Doctor Technices Honoris Causa” from the Technical University of Denmark (2018); and was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2020). His h-index is 69 (Web of Science) and 79 (Google Scholar). http://eohsi.rutgers.edu/eohsi-directory/name/charles-weschler/   LEARN MORE at IAQ Radio!

In this conversation, Adam Falk and I talk about running research programs with impact over long timescales, creating new fields, philanthropic science funding, and so much more.  Adam is the president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,  which was started by the eponymous founder of General Motors and has been funding science and education efforts for almost nine decades.  They've funded everything from iPython Notebooks to the Wikimedia foundation to an astronomical survey of the entire sky. If you're like me, their name is familiar from the acknowledgement part of PBS science shows. Before becoming the president of the Sloan Foundation, Adam was the president of Williams College and a high energy physicist focused on elementary particle physics and quantum field theory. His combined experience in research, academic administration, and philanthropic funding give him a unique and fascinating perspective on the innovation ecosystem. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.  Links - The Sloan Foundation - Adam Falk on Wikipedia  - Philanthropy and the Future of Science and Technology Highlight Timestamps - How do you measure success in science? [00:01:31] - Thinking about programs on long timescales [00:05:27] -  How does the Sloan Foundation decide which programs to do? [00:08:08] - Sloan's Matter to Life Program [00:12:54] -  How does the Sloan Foundation think about coordination? [00:18:24] -  Finding and incentivizing program directors [00:22:32] - What should academics know about the funding world and what should the funding world know about academics? [00:28:03] - Grants and academics as the primary way research happens [00:33:42] - Problems with grants and common grant applications [00:44:49] - Addressing the criticism of philanthropy being inefficient because it lacks market mechanisms [00:47:16] - Engaging with the idea that people who create value should be able to capture that value [00:53:05]   Transcript [00:00:35] In this conversation, Adam Falk, and I talk about running research programs with impact over long timescales, creating new fields, philanthropic science funding, and so much more. Adam is the president of the Alfred P Sloan foundation, which was started by the eponymous founder of general motors. And has been funding science and education efforts for almost nine decades. They funded everything from IP. I fond [00:01:35] notebooks to Wikimedia foundation. To an astronomical survey of the entire sky. If you're like me, their name is familiar from the acknowledgement part of PBS science shows. Before becoming the president of the Sloan foundation. Adam was the president of Williams college and I high energy physicist focused on elementary particle physics in quantum field theory. His combined experience in research. Uh, Academic administration and philanthropic funding give him a unique and fascinating perspective on the innovation ecosystem i hope you enjoy this as much as i did [00:02:06] Ben: Let's start with like a, sort of a really tricky thing that I'm, I'm myself always thinking about is that, you know, it's really hard to like measure success in science, right? Like you, you know, this better than anybody. And so just like at, at the foundation, how do you, how do you think about success? Like, what is, what does success look like? What is the difference between. Success and failure mean to [00:02:34] Adam: you? [00:02:35] I mean, I think that's a, that's a really good question. And I think it's a mistake to think that there are some magic metrics that if only you are clever enough to come up with build them out of citations and publications you could get some fine tune measure of success. I mean, obviously if we fund in a scientific area, we're funding investigators who we think are going to have a real impact with their work individually, and then collectively. And so of course, you know, if they're not publishing, it's a failure. We expect them to publish. We expect people to publish in high-impact journals, but we look for broader measures as well if we fund a new area. So for example, A number of years ago, we had a program in the microbiology of the built environment, kind of studying all the microbes that live in inside, which turns out to be a very different ecosystem than outside. When we started in that program, there were a few investigators interested in this question. There weren't a lot of tools that were good for studying it. [00:03:35] By 10 years later, when we'd left, there was a journal, there were conferences, there was a community of people who were doing this work, and that was another measure, really tangible measure of success that we kind of entered a field that, that needed some support in order to get going. And by the time we got out, it was, it was going strong and the community of people doing that work had an identity and funding paths and a real future. Yeah. [00:04:01] Ben: So I guess one way that I've been thinking about it, it's just, it's almost like counterfactual impact. Right. Whereas like if you hadn't gone in, then it, the, it wouldn't be [00:04:12] Adam: there. Yeah. I think that's the way we think about it. Of course that's a hard to, to measure. Yeah. But I think that Since a lot of the work we fund is not close to technology, right. We don't have available to ourselves, you know, did we spin out products? Did we spin out? Companies did a lot of the things that might directly connect that work to, [00:04:35] to activities that are outside of the research enterprise, that in other fields you can measure impact with. So the impact is pretty internal. That is for the most part, it is, you know, Has it been impact on other parts of science that, you know, again, that we think might not have happened if we hadn't hadn't funded what we funded. As I said before, have communities grown up another interesting measure of impact from our project that we funded for about 25 years now, the Sloan digital sky survey is in papers published in the following sense that one of the innovations, when the Sloan digital sky survey launched in the early. Was that the data that came out of it, which was all for the first time, digital was shared broadly with the community. That is, this was a survey of the night sky that looked at millions of objects. So they're very large databases. And the investigators who built this, the, the built the, the, the telescope certainly had first crack at analyzing that [00:05:35] data. But there was so much richness in the data that the decision was made at. Sloan's urging early on that this data after a year should be made public 90% of the publications that came out of the Sloan digital sky survey have not come from collaborators, but it come from people who use that data after it's been publicly released. Yeah. So that's another way of kind of seeing impact and success of a project. And it's reached beyond its own borders. [00:06:02] Ben: And you mentioned like both. Just like that timescale, right? Like that, that, that 25 years something that I think is just really cool about the Sloan foundation is like how, how long you've been around and sort of like your capability of thinking on those on like a quarter century timescale. And I guess, how do you, how do you think about timescales on things? Right. Because it's like, on the one hand, this is like, obviously like science can take [00:06:35] 25 years on the other hand, you know, it's like, you need to be, you can't just sort of like do nothing for 25 years. [00:06:44] Adam: So if you had told people back in the nineties that the Sloan digital sky survey was going to still be going after a quarter of a century, they probably never would have funded it. So, you know, I think that That you have an advantage in the foundation world, as opposed to the the, the federal funding, which is that you can have some flexibility about the timescales on what you think. And so you don't have to simply go from grant to grant and you're not kind of at the mercy of a Congress that changes its own funding commitments every couple of years. We at the Sloan foundation tend to think that it takes five years at a minimum to have impact into any new field that you go into it. And we enter a new science field, you know, as we just entered, we just started a new program matter to life, which we can talk about. [00:07:35] That's initially a five-year commitment to put about $10 million a year. Into this discipline, understanding that if things are going well, we'll re up for another five years. So we kind of think of that as a decadal program. And I would say the time scale we think on for programs is decades. The timescale we think of for grants is about three years, right? But a program itself consists of many grants may do a large number of investigators. And that's really the timescale where we think you can have, have an impact over that time. But we're constantly re-evaluating. I would say the timescale for rethinking a program is shorter. That's more like five years and we react. So in our ongoing programs, about every five years, we'll take a step back and do a review. You know, whether we're having an impact on the program, we'll get some outside perspectives on it and whether we need to keep it going exactly as it is, or adjust in some [00:08:35] interesting ways or shut it down and move the resources somewhere else. So [00:08:39] Ben: I like that, that you have, you almost have like a hierarchy of timescales, right? Like you have sort of multiple going at once. I think that's, that's like under underappreciated and so w one thing they want to ask about, and maybe the the, the life program is a good sort of like case study in this is like, how do you, how do you decide what pro, like, how do you decide what programs to do, right? Like you could do anything. [00:09:04] Adam: So th that is a terrific question and a hard one to get. Right. And we just came out of a process of thinking very deeply about it. So it's a great time to talk about it. Let's do it. So To frame the large, the problem in the largest sense, if we want to start a new grantmaking program where we are going to allocate about $10 million a year, over a five to 10 year period, which is typical for us, the first thing you realize is that that's not a lot of money on the scale that the federal government [00:09:35] invest. So if your first thought is, well, let's figure out the most interesting thing science that people are doing you quickly realize that those are things where they're already a hundred times that much money going in, right? I mean, quantum materials would be something that everybody is talking about. The Sloan foundation, putting $10 million a year into quantum materials is not going to change anything. Interesting. So you start to look for that. You start to look for structural reasons that something that there's a field or an emerging field, and I'll talk about what some of those might be, where an investment at the scale that we can make can have a real impact. And And so what might some of those areas be? There are fields that are very interdisciplinary in ways that make it hard for individual projects to find a home in the federal funding landscape and one overly simplified, but maybe helpful way to think about it is that the federal funding landscape [00:10:35] is, is governed large, is organized largely by disciplines. That if you look at the NSF, there's a division, there's a director of chemistry and on physics and so forth. And but many questions don't map well onto a single discipline. And sometimes questions such as some of the ones we're exploring in the, you know, the matter to life program, which I can explain more about what that is. Some of those questions. Require collaborations that are not naturally fundable in any of the silos the federal government has. So that's very interdisciplinary. Work is one area. Second is emerging disciplines. And again, often that couples to interdisciplinary work in a way that often disciplines emerge in interesting ways at the boundaries of other disciplines. Sometimes the subject matter is the boundary. Sometimes it's a situation where techniques developed in one discipline are migrating to being used in another discipline. And that often happens with physics, the [00:11:35] physicist, figure out how to do something, like grab the end of a molecule and move it around with a laser. And suddenly the biologists realize that's a super interesting thing for them. And they would like to do that. So then there's work. That's at the boundary of those kind of those disciplines. You know, a third is area that the ways in which that that can happen is that you can have. Scale issues where, where kind of work needs to happen at a certain scale that is too big to be a single investigator, but too small to kind of qualify for the kind of big project funding that you have in the, in the, in the federal government. And so you're looking, you could also certainly find things that are not funded because they're not very interesting. And those are not the ones we want to fund, but you often have to sift through quite a bit of that to find something. So that's what you're looking for now, the way you look for it is not that you sit in a conference room and get real smart and think that you're going to see [00:12:35] things, other people aren't going to see rather you. You source it out, out in the field. Right. And so we had an 18 month process in which we invited kind of proposals for what you could do on a program at that scale, from major research universities around the country, we had more than a hundred ideas. We had external panels of experts who evaluated these ideas. And that's what kind of led us in the end to this particular framing of the new program that we're starting. So and, and that, and that process was enough to convince us that this was interesting, that it was, you know, emergent as a field, that it was hard to fund in other ways. And that the people doing the work are truly extraordinary. Yeah. And that's, that's the, that's what you're looking for. And I think in some ways there are pieces of that in all of the programs that particularly the research programs that. [00:13:29] Ben: And so, so actually, could you describe the matter to life program and like, [00:13:35] and sort of highlight how it fits into all of those buckets? [00:13:38] Adam: Absolutely. So the, the, the matter of the life program is an investigation into the principles, particularly the physical principles that matter uses in order to organize itself into living systems. The first distinction to make is this is not a program about how did life evolve on earth, and it's actually meant to be a broader question then how is life on earth organized the idea behind it is that life. Is a particular example of some larger phenomenon, which is life. And I'm not going to define life for you. That is, we know what things are living and we know things that aren't living and there's a boundary in between. And part of the purpose of this program is to explore that it's a think of it as kind of out there, on, out there in the field. And, and mapmaking, and you know, over here is, you [00:14:35] know, is a block of ice. That's not alive. And, you know, over here is a frog and that's alive and there's all sorts of intermediate spaces in there. And there are ideas out there that, that go, you know, that are interesting ideas about, for example, at the cellular level how is information can date around a cell? What might the role of. Things like non-equilibrium thermodynamics be playing is how does, can evolution be can it can systems that are, non-biological be induced to evolve in interesting ways. And so we're studying both biotic and non biotic systems. There are three strains, stray strands in this. One is building life. That is it was said by I think I, I find men that if you can't build something, you don't understand it. And so the idea, and there are people who want to build an actual cell. I think that's, that's a hard thing to do, but we have people who are building in the laboratory little bio-molecular machines understanding how that might [00:15:35] work. We, we fund people who are kind of constructing, protocells thinking about ways that the, the ways that liquid separate might provide SEP diff divisions between inside and outside, within. Chemical reactions could take place. We funded businesses to have made tiny little, you know, micron scale magnets that you mix them together and you can get them to kind of organize themselves in interesting ways. Yeah. In emerge. What are the ways in which emergent behaviors come to this air couple into this. And so that's kind of building life. Can you kind of build systems that have features that feel essential to life and by doing that, learn something general about, say the reproduction of, of, of, of DNA or something simple about how inside gets differentiated from outside. Second strand is principles of life, and that's a little bit more around are [00:16:35] there physics principles that govern the organization of life? And again, are there ways in which the kinds of thinking that informed thermodynamics, which is kind of the study of. Piles of gas and liquid and so forth. Those kinds of thinking about bulk properties and emergent behavior can tell us something about what's the difference between life that's life and matter. That's not alive. And the third strain is signs of life. And, you know, we have all of these telescopes that are out there now discover thousands of exoplanets. And of course the thing we all want to know is, is there life on them? We were never going to go to them. We maybe if we go, we'll never come back. And and we yet we can look and see the chemical composition of these. Protoplanets just starting to be able to see that. And they transition in front of a star, the atmospheres of these planets absorb light from the stars and the and the light that's absorbed tells you something about the chemical composition of the atmosphere. [00:17:35] So there's a really interesting question. Kind of chemical. Are there elements of the chemical composition of an atmosphere that would tell you that that life is present there and life in general? Right. I, you know, if, if you, if you're going to look for kind of DNA or something, that might be way too narrow, a thing to kind of look for. Right. So we've made a very interesting grant to a collaboration that is trying to understand the general properties of atmospheres of Rocky planets. And if you kind of knew all of the things that an atmosphere of an Earth-like planet might look like, and then you saw something that isn't one in one of those, you think, well, something other might've done that. Yeah. So that's a bit of a flavor. What I'd say about the nature of the research is it is, as you could tell highly interdisciplinary. Yeah. Right. So this last project I mentioned requires geoscience and astrophysics and chemistry and geochemistry and a vulcanology an ocean science [00:18:35] and, and Who's going to fund that. Yeah. Right. It's also in very emerging area because it comes at the boundary between geoscience, the understanding of what's going on on earth and absolutely cutting edge astrophysics, the ability to kind of look out into the cosmos and see other planets. So people working at that boundary it's where interesting things often, often happen. [00:18:59] Ben: And you mentioned that when, when you're looking at programs, you're, you're looking for things that are sort of bigger than like a single pie. And like, how do you, how do you think about sort of the, the different projects, like individual projects within a program? Becoming greater than the sum of their parts. Like, like, you know, there's, there's some, there's like one end of the spectrum where you've just sort of say, like, go, go do your things. And everybody's sort of runs off. And then there's another end of the spectrum where you like very explicitly tell people like who should be working on what and [00:19:35] how to, how to collaborate. So like, how do you, [00:19:37] Adam: so one of the wonderful things about being at a foundation is you have a convening power. Yeah. I mean, in part, because you're giving away money, people will, will want to come gather when you say let's come together, you know? And in part, because you just have a way of operating, that's a bit independent. And so the issue you're raising is a very important one, you know, in the individual at a program at a say, science grant making program we will fund a lot of individual projects, which may be a single investigator, or they may be big collab, collaborations, but we also are thinking from the beginning about how. Create help create a field. Right. And it may not always be obvious how that's going to work. I think with matter to life we're early on and we're, you know, we're not sure is this a single field, are there sub fields here? But we're already thinking about how to bring our pies together to kind of share the work they're doing and get to share perspectives. I can give you another example from a program Reno law, we recently [00:20:35] closed, which was a chemistry of the indoor environment. Where we were funded kind of coming out of our work in the microbiology indoors. It turns out that there's also very interesting chemistry going on indoors which is different from the environmental chemistry that we think about outdoors indoors. There are people in all the stuff that they exude, there's an enormous number of surfaces. And so surface chemistry is really important. And, and again, there were people who were doing this work in isolation, interested in, in these kinds of topics. And we were funding them individually, but once we had funded a whole community of people doing. They decided that be really interesting to do a project where, which they called home cam, where they went to a test house and kind of did all sorts of indoor activities like cooking Thanksgiving dinner and studying the chemistry together. And this is an amazing collaboration. So we had, so many of our grantees came together in one [00:21:35] place around kind of one experiment or one experimental environment and did work then where it could really speak to each other. Right. And which they they'd done experiments that were similar enough that they, the people who were studying one aspect of the chemistry and another could do that in a more coherent way. And I think that never would have happened without the Sloan foundation having funded this chemistry of indoor environments program. Both because of the critical mass we created, but also because of the community of scholars that we, that we help foster. [00:22:07] Ben: So, it's like you're playing it a very important role, but then it, it is sort of like a very then bottom up sort of saying like, like almost like put, like saying like, oh, like you people all actually belong together and then they look around and like, oh yeah, yeah, [00:22:24] Adam: we do. I think that's exactly right. And yeah. You don't want to be too directive because, you know, we're, we're just a foundation where we got some program directors and, you know, [00:22:35] we, we do know some things about the science we're funding, but the real expertise lives with these researchers who do this work every day. Right. And so what we're trying to see when, when we think we can see some things that they can't, it's not going to be in the individual details of the work they're doing, but it may be there from up here on the 22nd floor of the Rockefeller center, we can see the landscape a little bit better and are in a position to make connections that then will be fruitful. You know, if we were right, there'll be fruitful because the people on the ground doing the work with the expertise, believe that they're fruitful. Sometimes we make a connection and it's not fruitful in that. It doesn't fruit and that's fine too. You know, we're not always right about everything either, but we have an opportunity to do that. That comes from the. Particular in special place that we happen to sit. Yeah. [00:23:28] Ben: Yeah. And just speaking of program directors, how do you, how do you think about, I mean, like [00:23:35] you're, you're sort of in charge and so how do you think about directing them and, and sort of how do you think about setting up incentives so that, you know, good work like so that they do good work on their programs and and like how much sort of autonomy do you give them? Sort of how does, how does all of that work? [00:23:56] Adam: Absolutely. So I spent most of my career in universities and colleges. I was my own background is as, as, as a theoretical physicist. And I spent quite a bit of time as a Dean and a college president. And I think the key to being a successful academic administrator is understanding deep in your bones, that the faculty are the heart of the institution. They are the intellectual heart and soul of the institution. And that you will have a great institution. If you hire terrific faculty and support them you aren't telling them, you know, you as, and they don't require a lot of telling them what to do, but the [00:24:35] leadership role does require a lot of deciding where to allocate the resources and helping figure out and, and figuring out how, and in what ways, and at what times you can be helpful to them. Yeah. The program directors at the Sloan foundation are very much. The faculty of a, of a university and we have six right now it's five PhDs and a road scholar. Right. And they are, each of them truly respect, deeply respected intellectual leaders in the fields in which they're making grants. Right. And my job is to first off to hire and retain a terrific group of program directors who know way more about the things they're doing than I do. And then to kind of help them figure out how to craft their programs. And you know, there's different kinds of, you know, different kinds of help that different kind of program directors needs. Sometimes they just need resources. Sometimes they need, you know, a collaborative conversation. You know, [00:25:35] sometimes, you know, we talk about the ways in which their individual programs are gonna fit together into the larger. Programs at the Sloan foundation sometimes what we talk about is ways in which we can and should, or shouldn't change what we do in order to build a collaboration elsewhere. But I don't do much directing of the work that program directors to just like, I don't, didn't ever do much of any directing of the work that, that that the faculty did. And I think what keeps a program director engaged at a place like the Sloan foundation is the opportunity to be a leader. Yeah. [00:26:10] Ben: It's actually sort of to double click on that. And on, on, on hiring program directors, it seems it like, I, I, I would imagine that it is, it is sometimes tough to get really, really good program directors, cause people who would make good program directors could probably have, you know, their pick. Amazing roles. And, and to some extent, and, and [00:26:35] they, they, they do get to be a leader, but to some extent, like they're, they're not directly running a lab, right. Like they're, they, they don't have sort of that direct power. And they're, they're not like making as much money as they could be, you know, working at Google or something. And so, so like how do you both like find, and then convince people to, to come do that? [00:26:57] Adam: So that's a great question. I mean, I think there's a certain, you know, P people are meant to be program directors are, are not the, usually the place like the Sloan foundation and different foundations work differently. Right. So but in our case are not people who Otherwise, who would rather be spending their time in the lab. Yeah. Right. And many of them have spent time as serious scholars in one discipline or another, but much like faculty who move into administration, they've come to a point in their careers, whether that was earlier or later in their [00:27:35] career where the larger scope that's afforded by doing it by being a program director compensates for the fact that they can't focus in the same way on a particular problem, that, that the way a faculty member does or a researcher. Yes. So the, the other thing you have to feel really in your bones, which is, again, much like being an academic administrator is that there's a deep reward in finding really talented people and giving them the resources. They need to do great things. Right. And in the case, if you're a program director, what you're doing is finding grantees and When a grantee does something really exciting. We celebrate that here at the foundation as, as a success of the foundation. Not that we're trying to claim their success, but because that's what we're trying to do, we're trying to find other people who can do great things and give them the resources to do those great things. So you have to get a great kind of professional satisfaction from. So there are people who have a [00:28:35] broader view or want to move into a, a time in their careers when they can take that broader view about a field or an area that they already feel passionate about. And then who have the disposition that, that, you know, that wanting to help people is deeply rewarding to them. And, you know, say you, how do you find these folks? It's, it's just like, it's hard to find people who were really good at academic administration. You have to look really hard for people who are going to be great at this work. And you persuade them to do it precisely because they happen to be people who want to do this kind of work. Yeah. [00:29:09] Ben: And actually and so, so you, you sort of are, are highlighting a lot of parallels between academic administration and, and sort of your role now. I think it. Is there anything that, but at the same time, I think that there are many things that like academics don't understand about sort of like science funding and and, and this, that, that world, and then there's many things that it seems like science funders don't understand about [00:29:35] research and, and you're, you're one of the few people who've sort of done in both. And so I guess just a very open-ended question is like, like what, what do you wish that more academics understood about the funding world and things you have to think about here? And what do you wish more people in the funding world understood about, about research? Yeah, [00:29:54] Adam: that is, that is great. So I can give you a couple of things. The, I think at a high level, I, I always wish that on both sides of that divide, there was a deeper understanding of the constraints under which people on the other side are operating. And those are both material constraints and what I might call intellectual constraints. So there's a parallelism here. I, if I first say from the point of view of the, of as a foundation president, what do I wish that academics really understood? I, I, I'm always having to reinforce to people that we really do mean it when we say we do fund, we fund X and we don't fund Y [00:30:35] yeah. And that please don't spend time trying to persuade me that Z, that you do really is close enough to X, that we should fund it and get offended. When I tell you that's not what we fund, we say no to a lot of things that are intrinsically great, but that we're not funding because it's not what we fund. Yeah. We as, and we make choices about what to fund that are very specific and what areas to fund in that are very specific so that we can have some impact, right. And we don't make those decisions lightly, you know, for almost any work someone is doing, we're not the only foundation who might fund it. So move on to someone else. If you're not fitting our program, then argue with us and just understand why it is that, that we do that. Right. I think that is that's a come across that a lot. There's a total parallel, which I think is very important for people in foundations who have very strong ideas about what they should fund to understand that, you know, academics are not going to drop what they're doing and start doing something else because there's a [00:31:35] little bit of money available that, you know, is an academic, of course, you're trying to make. Your questions, two ways, things you can support, but usually driven because some question is really important to you. And if, you know, if some foundation comes to you and says, well, stop doing that and do this, I'll find it. You know why maybe that's, you're pretty desperate. You're not going to do that. So the best program directors spend a lot of time looking for people who already are interested in the thing that the foundation is funding, right? And really underst understand that you can't bribe people into doing something that they, that they, that they otherwise wouldn't do. And so I think those are very parallel. I mean, to both to understand the set of commitments that people are operating under, I would say the other thing that I think it's really important for foundations to understand about about universities is and other institutions is that these institutions. Are not just platforms [00:32:35] on which one can do a project, right? They are institutions that require support on their own. And somebody has to pay the debt service on the building and take out the garbage and cut the grass and clean the building and, you know hire the secretaries and do all of the kind of infrastructure work that makes it possible for a foundation such as Sloan to give somebody $338,000 to hire some postdocs and do some interesting experiments, but somebody is still turning on the lights and overhead goes to the overhead is really important and the overhead is not some kind of profit that universities are taking. It is the money they need in order to operate in ways that make it possible to do the grants. And. You know, there's a longer story here. I mean, even foundations like Sloan don't pay the full overhead and we can do that because [00:33:35] we typically are a very small part of the funding stream. But during the pandemic, we raised our overhead permanently from the 15% we used to pay to the 20% that we pay now, precisely because we've, we felt it was important to signal our support for the institutions. And some of those aren't universities, some of those are nonprofits, right? That other kinds of nonprofits that we're housing, the activities that we were interested in funding. And I just think it's really important for foundations to understand that. And I do think that my own time as a Dean at a college president, when I needed that overhead in order to turn on the lights, so some chemist could hire the post-docs has made me particularly sensitive [00:34:16] Ben: to that. Yeah, no, that's, that's a really good. Totally that I don't think about enough. So, so, so I really appreciate that. And I think sort of implicit implicit in our conversation has been two sort of core things. One, is that the way that you [00:34:35] fund work is through grants and two, is that the, the primary people doing the research are academics and I guess it just, w let's say, w w what is, what's the actual question there it's like, is it like, do you, do you think that that is the best way of doing it? Have you like explored other ways? Because it, it, it feels like those are sort of both you know, it's like has been the way that people have done it for a long time. [00:35:04] Adam: So there's, there's two answers to that question. The first is just to acknowledge that the Sloan foundation. Probably 50 out of the $90 million a year in grants we make are for research. And almost all of that research is done at universities, I think primarily because we're really funding basic research and that's where basic research has done. If we were funding other kinds of research, a lot of use inspired research research that was closer to kind of technology. We would be, you might be [00:35:35] funding people who worked in different spaces, but the kind of work we fund that's really where it's done. But we have another significant part of the foundation that funds things that aren't quite research, that the public understanding of science and technology diversity, equity and inclusion in stem, higher ed of course, much of that is, is money that goes into universities, but also into other institutions that are trying to bring about cultural change in the sciences badly needed cultural change. And then our technology program, which looks at all sorts of technologies. Modern technologies that support scholarships such as software scholarly communication, but as increasingly come to support modes of collaboration and other kinds of more kind of social science aspects of how people do research. And there are a lot of that funding is not being given to universities. A lot of that funding is given to other sorts of institutions, nonprofits, always because we're a [00:36:35] foundation, we can only fund nonprofits, but that go beyond the kind of institutional space that universities occupy. We're really looking for. You know, we're not driven by a kind of a sense of who we should fund followed by what we should fund. We're interested in funding problems and questions. And then we look to see who it is that that is doing that work. So in public understanding some of that's in the universities, but most of it isn't and [00:37:00] Ben: actually the two to go back. One thing that I wanted to to ask about is like It seems like there's, if you're primarily wanting to find people who are already doing the sort of work that is within scope of a program, does it, like, I guess it almost like raises the chicken and egg problem of like, how, how do you, like, what if there's an area where people really should be doing work, but nobody is, is doing that work [00:37:35] because there is no funding to do that work. Right. Like this is just something that I struggled with. It's not right. And so, so it's like, how do you, how do you sort of like bootstrap thing? Yes. [00:37:46] Adam: I mean, I think that the way to think about it is that you work incrementally. That is if, if once, and I think you're, you're quite right. That is in some sense, we are looking for areas that. Under inhabited, scientifically because people aren't supporting that work. And that's another way of saying what I said at the beginning about how we're looking for maybe interdisciplinary fields that are hard to support. One way you can tell that they're hard to support is that there isn't a support people aren't doing it, but typically you're working in from the edges, right. There's people on the boundaries of those spaces chomping at the bit. Right. And when you say, you know, what is the work? You can't do what you would do if you add some funding and tell [00:38:35] us why it's super interesting. That's the question you're asking. And that's kind of the question that drives what we talked about before, which is how do you identify a new area, but it's it it's actually to your point, precisely, it's not the area where everybody already is. Cause there's already a lot of money there. Right? So I would say. You know, if you really had to bootstrap it out in the vacuum, you would have to have the insights that we don't pretend to have. You'd have this ability to kind of look out into the vacuum of space and conjure something that should be there and then have in conjure who should do it and have the resources to start the whole thing. That's not the Sloan foundation we do. We don't operate at that scale, but there's another version of that, which is a more incremental and recognizes the exciting ideas that researchers who are adjacent to an underfunded field. Can't th th th th th the, the excitement that they have to go into a new [00:39:35] area, that's just adjacent to where they are and being responsive to that. [00:39:39] Ben: No, that's, and that's, it sort of ties back in my mind to. Y you need to do programs on that ten-year timescale, right? Like, you know, it's like the first three years you go a little bit in the next three years, you do a little bit in, and by like the end of the 10 years, then you're actually in, in [00:39:59] Adam: that new. No, I think that's exactly right. And the other thing is you can, you know, be more risky or more speculative. I like the word speculative better than risky. Risky makes it sound like you don't know what you're doing. Speculative is meant to say, you don't know where you're going to go. So I don't ever think the grants we're funding are particularly risky in the sense that they're going to, the projects will fail. They're speculative in the sense that you don't know if they're going to lead somewhere really interesting. And this is where. The current funding landscape is really in the federal funding. Landscape is really challenging because [00:40:35] the competition for funding is so high that you really need to be able to guarantee success, which doesn't just mean guarantee that your project will work, but that it will, you know, we will contribute in some really meaningful way to moving the field forward, which means that you actually have to have done half the project already before that's, what's called preliminary data playmate. As far as I'm concerned, preliminary data means I already did it. And now I'm just going to clean it up with this grant. And that is, that's a terrible constraint and we can, we're not bound by that kind of constraint in funding things. So we can have failures that are failures in the sense that that didn't turn out to be as interesting as we hoped it would be. Yeah. I, [00:41:17] Ben: I love your point on, on the risk. I, I, I dunno. I, I think that it's, especially with like science, right? It's like, what is it. The risk, right? Like, you're going to discover something. You might discover that, you know, this is like the phenomenon we thought was a [00:41:35] phenomenon is not really there. Right. But it's, it's still, it's, it's not risky because you weren't like investing for, [00:41:43] Adam: for an ROI. Can I give you another example? I think it was a really good one. Is, is it in the matter of the life program? We made a grant to a guy named David Baker, the university of Washington and hated him. And so, you know, David Baker. And so David Baker builds these little nanoscale machines and he has an enormous Institute for doing this. It's extraordinarily exciting work and. Almost all of the work that he is able to do is tool directed toward applications, particularly biomedical applications. Totally understandable. There's a lot of money there. There's a lot of need there. Everybody wants to live forever. I don't, but everybody else seems to want to, but, so why did, why would, why do we think that we should fund them with all of the money that's in the Institute for protein engineering? Which I think is what it's called. It's because we actually funded him to do some basic science.[00:42:35] Yeah to build machines that didn't have an application, but to learn something about the kinds of machines and the kinds of machinery inside cells, by building something that doesn't have an application, but as an interesting basic science component to it, and that's actually a real impact, it was a terrific grant for us because there's all of this arc, all of this architecture that's already been built, but a new direction that he can go with his colleagues that that he actually, for all of the funding he has, he can't do under the content under the. Umbrella of kind of biomedicine. And so that's another way in which things can be more speculative, right? That's speculative where he doesn't know where it's going. He doesn't know the application it's going to. And so even for him, that's a lot harder to do unless something like Sloan steps in and says, well, this is more speculative. It's certainly not risky. I don't think it's risky to fund David bay could do anything, but it's speculative about where this particular [00:43:35] project is going to lead. [00:43:36] Ben: Yeah, no, I like that. It's just like more, more speculation. And, and you, you mentioned just. Slight tangent, but you mentioned that, you know, Sloan Sloan operates at a certain skill. Do you ever, do you ever team up with other philanthropies? Is that, is that a thing? [00:43:51] Adam: Yeah, we, we do and we love, we love co-funding. We've, we've done that in many of our programs in the technology program. We funded co-funded with more, more foundation on data science in the, we have a tabletop physics program, which I haven't talked about, but basically measuring, you know, fundamental properties of the electron in a laboratory, the size of this office rather than a laboratory. You know, the Jura mountains, CERN and there we, it was a partnership actually with the national science foundation and also with the Moore foundation we have in our energy and environment program partnered with the research corporation, which runs these fascinating program called CYA logs, where they bring young investigators out to Tucson, Arizona, or on to zoom lately, but [00:44:35] basically out to Tucson, Arizona, and mix them up together around an interesting problem for a few days, and then fund a small, small kind of pilot projects out of that. We've worked with them on negative emission science and on battery technologies. Really interesting science projects. And so we come in as a co-funder with them there, I think, to do that, you really need an alignment of interests. Yeah. You really both have to be interested in the same thing. And you have to be a little bit flexible about the ways in which you evaluate proposals and put together grants and so forth so that, so that you don't drive the PIs crazy by having them satisfy two foundations at the same time, but where that is productive, that can be really exciting. [00:45:24] Ben: Cause it seems like I'm sure you're familiar with, they feel like the common application for college. It just, it seems like, I mean, like one of the, sort of my biggest [00:45:35] criticisms of grants in general is that, you know, it's like you sort of need to be sending them everywhere. And there's, there's sort of like the, the well-known issue where, you know, like PI has spend some ridiculous proportion of their time writing grants and it. Sort of a, like a philanthropic network where like, it just got routed to the right people and like sort of a lot happened behind the scenes. That seems like it could be really powerful. Yeah. [00:46:03] Adam: I think that actually would be another level of kind of collective collaboration. Like the common app. I think it would actually in this way, I love the idea. I have to say it's probably hard to make it happen because pre-site, for a couple of reasons that don't make it a bad idea, but it just kind of what planet earth is like. You know, one is that we have these very specific programs and so almost any grant has to be a little bit re-engineered in order to fit into because the programs are so specific fit into a new foundations [00:46:35] program. And the second is. We can certainly at the Sloan foundation, very finicky about what review looks like. And very foundations have different processes for assuring quality. And the hardest work I find in a collaboration is aligning those processes because we get very attached to them. It's a little like the tenure review processes at university. Every single university has its own, right. They have their own tenure process and they think that it was crafted by Moses on Mount Sinai and can never be changed as the best that it possibly ever could be. And then you go to another institution, that thing is different and they feel the same way. That is a feature. I mean really a bug of of the foundation, but it's kind of part of the reality. And, and we certainly, if, if what we really need in order for there to be more collaboration, I strongly feel is for everyone to adopt the Sloan foundation, grant proposal guidelines and review practices. And then all this collaboration stuff would be a piece of cake.[00:47:35] It's like, [00:47:35] Ben: like standards anywhere, right. Where it's like, oh, of course I'm willing to use the standard. It has to be exactly. [00:47:41] Adam: We have a standard we're done. If you would just, if you would just recognize that we're better this would be so much simpler. It's just, it's like, it's the way you make a good marriage work. [00:47:51] Ben: And speaking of just foundations and philanthropic funding more generally sort of like one of the criticisms that gets leveled against foundations especially in, in Silicon valley, is that because there's, there's sort of no market mechanism driving the process that, you know, it's like, it, it can be inefficient and all of that. And I, personally don't think that that marketing mechanisms are good for everything, but I'd be interested in and just like. Sort of response to, to [00:48:23] Adam: that. Yeah. So let me broaden that criticism and because I think there's something there that's really important. There's the enormous discretion that [00:48:35] foundations have is both their greatest strength. And I think their greatest danger that is, you know what, because there is not a discipline that is forcing them to make certain sets of choices in a certain structure. Right. And whether that's markets or whether you think that more generally as, as a, as a kind of other discipline in it, disciplining forces too much freedom can, or I shouldn't say too much freedom, but I would say a lot of freedom can lead to decision-making that is idiosyncratic and And inconsistent and inconstant, right? That is a nicer, a more direct way to say it is that if no one constraints what you do and you just do what you feel like maybe what you feel like isn't the best guide for what you should do. And you need to be governed by a context which assure is strategic [00:49:35] consistencies, strategic alignment with what is going on at other places in, in ways that serve your, you know, that serve the field a commitment to quality other kinds of commitments that make sure that your work is having high impact as a, as a funder. And those don't come from the outside. Right. And so you have to come up with ways. Internally to assure that you keep yourself on the straight and narrow. Yeah. I think there's some similar consideration about which is beyond science funding and philanthropy about the necessity of doing philanthropic work for the public. Good. Yeah. Right. And I think that's a powerful, ethical commitment that we have to have the money that we have from the Sloan foundation or that the Ford foundation, as of the Rockefeller foundation as are in it, I didn't make that money. What's more Alfred P Sloan who left us this money made the money in a context in which lots of people did a lot of work [00:50:35] that don't have that money. Right. A lot of people working at general motors plants and, and, you know, he made that work in a society that support. The accumulation of that fortune and that it's all tax-free. So the federal government is subsidizing this implicitly. The society is subsidizing the work we do because it's it's tax exempt. So that imposes on us, I think, an obligation to develop a coherent idea of what using our funding for the public good means, and not every foundation is going to have that same definition, but we have an obligation to develop that sense in a thoughtful way, and then to follow it. And that is one of the governors on simply following our whims. Right? So we think about that a lot here at the Sloan foundation and the ways in which our funding is justifiable as having a positive, good [00:51:35] that You know, that, that, that attaches to the science we fund or, or just society in general. And that if we don't see that, you know, we, we think really hard about whether we want to do that grant making. Yeah. So it's [00:51:47] Ben: like, I, and I think about things in terms of, of, of like systems engineering. And so it's like, you sort of have these like self-imposed feedback loops. Yes. While it's not, it's not an external market sort of giving you that feedback loop, you still there, you can still sort of like send, like to set up these loops so [00:52:09] Adam: that, so my colleague, one of the program directors here, my colleague, Evan, Michelson is written entire book on. On science philanthropy, and on applying a certain framework that's been developed largely in used in Europe, but also known here in this state, it's called responsible research and innovation, which provides a particular framework for asking these kinds of questions about who you fund and how you fund, what sorts of funding you do, what [00:52:35] sorts of communities you fund into how you would think about doing that in a responsible way. And it's not a book that provides answers, but it's a book that provides a framework for thinking about the questions. And I think that's really important. And as I say, I'm just going to say it again. I think we have an ethical imperative to apply that kind of lens to the work we do. We don't have an ethical imperative to come up with any particular answer, but we have an ethical imperative to do the thinking and I recommend Evan's book to all right. [00:53:06] Ben: I will read it recommendation accepted. And I think, I think. Broadly, and this is just something that, I mean, sort of selfishly, but I also think like there's a lot of people who have made a lot of money in, especially in, in technology. And it's interesting because you look at sort of like you could, you could think of Alfred P Sloan and, and Rockefeller and a lot of [00:53:35] in Carnegie's as these people who made a lot of money and then started, started these foundations. But then you don't see as much of that now. Right? Like you have, you have, you have some but really the, the, the sentiment that I've engaged with a lot is that again, like sort of prioritizing market mechanisms, a implicit idea that, that, like anything, anything valuable should be able to capture that value. And I don't know. It's just like, like how do you, like, have you [00:54:08] Adam: talked to people about, yeah, I think that's a really interesting observation. I think that, and I think it's something we think about a lot is the, the different, I think about a lot is the differences in the ways that today's, you know, newly wealthy, you know, business people, particularly the tech entrepreneurs think about philanthropy. As relates to the way that they made their money. So if we look at Alfred [00:54:35] P Sloan, he he basically built general motors, right? He was a brilliant young engineer who manufactured the best ball bearings in the country for about 20 years, which turned out at the nascent automobile industry. As you can imagine, reducing friction is incredibly important and ball bearings were incredibly important and he made the best ball-bearings right. That is a real nuts. And, but nothing sexy about ball-bearings right. That is the perspective you get on auto manufacturer is that the little parts need to work really well in order for the whole thing to work. And he built a big complicated institution. General motors is a case study is the case study in American business about how you build a large. In large business that has kind of semi-autonomous parts as a way of getting to scale, right? How do you get general motors to scale? You have, you know, you have Chevy and you have a Buick and you're a [00:55:35] Pontiac and you have old's and you have Cadillac and GMC and all, you know, and this was, he was relentlessly kind of practical and institutional thinker, right across a big institution. And the big question for him was how do I create stable institutional structures that allow individual people to exercise judgment and intelligence so they can drive their parts of that thing forward. So he didn't believe that people were cogs in some machine, but he believed that the structure of the machine needed to enable the flourishing of the individual. And that's, that's how we built general motors. That does not describe. The structure of a tech startup, right? Those are move fast and break things, right? That is the mantra. There. You have an idea, you build it quickly. You don't worry about all the things you get to scale as fast as you can with as little structure as you can. You [00:56:35] don't worry about the collateral damage or frankly, much about the people that are, that are kind of maybe the collateral damage. You just get to scale and follow your kind of single minded vision and people can build some amazing institutions that way. I mean, I think it's, it's been very successful, right? For building over the last decades, you know, this incredible tech economy. Right? So I don't fault people for thinking about their business that way. But when you turn that thinking to now funding science, There's a real mismatch, I think between that thinking about institutions and institutions don't matter, the old ones are broken and the new ones can be created immediately. Right? And the fact that real research while it requires often individual leaps forward in acts of brilliance requires a longstanding functioning community. It [00:57:35] fires institutions to fund that research, to host that research that people have long, you know, that the best research is actually done by people who were engaged in various parts of very long decades, careers doing a certain thing that it takes a long time to build expertise and Eva, as brilliant as you are, you need people around you with expertise and experience. There's a real mismatch. And so there can be a reluctance to fund. Th the reluctance to have the commitment to timescales or reluctance to invest in institutions to invest in. There's a I, I think has developed a sense that we should fund projects rather than people and institutions. And that's really good for solving certain kinds of problems, but it's actually a real challenge for basic research and moving basic research forward. So I think there's a lot of opportunity to educate people. And these are super smart people in the tech sector, right. About the [00:58:35] differences between universities and which are very important institutions in all of this and star tech startups. And they really are different sorts of institutions. So I think that's a challenge for us in this sector right now. [00:58:48] Ben: What I liked. To do is tease apart why, why is this different? Like, why can't you just put in more nights to your research and like come up with the, come out with the, like the brilliant insight faster. [00:59:01] Adam: Yeah. I mean, these people who are already working pretty hard, I would say, I mean, you, you know, you're of course, you know, this really well, there are different, I mean, science has, you know, has different parts of science that work on different sorts of problems and, you know, there's, there are problems. Where there's a much more immediate goal of producing a technology that would be usable and applicable. And those require a diff organism organizing efforts in different ways. And, you know, as you well know, the, the national, you know, [00:59:35] the, the private laboratories like bell labs and Xerox labs, and so forth, played a really important role in doing basic research that was really inspired by a particular application. And they were in the ecosystem in a somewhat different way than the basic research done in the universities. You need both of them. And so it, it's not that the way that say the Sloan foundation fund sciences, if everybody only funded science that way, that would not be good. Right. But, but the, the, the big money that's coming out of the, the newly wealthy has the opportunity to have a really positive impact on basically. Yeah, but only if it can be deployed in ways that are consistent with the way that basic sciences is done. And I think that requires some education and, [01:00:22] Ben: and sort of speaking of, of institutions. The, like, as I know, you're aware, there's, there's sort of like this, this like weird Cambridge and explosion of people trying stuff. And I, I guess, like, in addition [01:00:35] to just your, your thoughts on that, I'm, I'm interested particularly if you see, if you see gaps. That people aren't trying to fill, but like, you, you, you think that you would sort of like want to, to shine spotlights on just from, from, from your, your overview position. [01:00:52] Adam: I mean, that's a great question. I, I'm not going to be able to give you any interesting insight into what we need to do. I do think I'm in great favor of trying lots of things. I mean, I love what's going on right now that people are, you know, the, that people are trying different experiments about how to, to fund science. I think that I have a couple of thoughts. I mean, I do think that most of them will fail because in the Cambrian explosion, most of things fail. Right. That is that's if they all succeeded people, aren't trying interesting enough things. Right. So that's fine. I think that there is a, I think that a danger in too much reinventing the wheel. And I, you know, one of the things I, you know, when notice is, is [01:01:35] that you know, some of the new organizations, many of them are kind of set up as a little bit hybrid organizations that they do some funding. And, but they also want to do some advocacy. They're not 5 0 1 they maybe want to monetize the thing that they're, that they're doing. And I think, you know, the, you know, if you want to set a bell labs set up bell labs, there aren't. Magic bullets for some magic hybrid organization, that's going to span research all the way from basic to products, right. And that is going to mysteriously solve the problem of plugging all of the holes in the kind of research, you know, research ecosystem. And so I think it's great that people are trying a lot of different things. I hope that people are also willing to invest in the sorts of institutions we already have. And and that there's a, that there is kind of a balance. There's [01:02:35] a little bit of a language that you start to hear that kind of runs down, that it kind of takes a perspective that everything is broken in the way we're doing things now. And I don't think that everything is broken in the way we do things. Now. I don't think that the entire research institution needs to be reinvented. I think. Interesting ideas should be tried. Right. I think there's a distinction between those two things. And I would hate to see the money disproportionately going into inventing new things. Yeah. I don't know what the right balance is. And I don't have a global picture of how it's all distributed. I would like to see both of those things happening, but I worry a little bit that if we get a kind of a narrative that the tech billionaires all start to all start to buy into that the system is broken and they shouldn't invest in it. I think that will be broken, then it will be broken and we'll [01:03:35] miss a great opportunity to do really great things, right? I mean, the, you know, the, what Carnegie and Rockefeller left behind were great institutions that have persisted long after Carnegie and Rockefeller. We're long gone and informs that Carnegie and Rockefeller could never have imagined. And I would like that to be the aspiration and the outcome of the newly wealthy tech billionaires. The idea that you might leave something behind that, that 50 or a hundred years from now, you don't recognize, but it's doing good right. Long past your own ability to direct it. Right. And that requires a long-term sense of your investment in society, your trust in other people to carry something on after you to think more institutionally and less about what's wrong with institutions, I think would be a [01:04:35] helpful corrective to much of the narrative that I see there. And that is not inconsistent with trying exciting new things. It really isn't. And I'm all in favor of that. But the system we have has actually produced. More technological progress than any other system at any other point in history by a factor that is absolutely incalculable. So we can't be doing everything wrong. [01:04:58] Ben: I think that is a perfect place to stop. Adam. Thanks for being part of idea machines. And now a quick word from our sponsors. Is getting into orbit a drag. Are you tired of the noise from rockets? Well, now with Zipple the award-winning space elevator company, you can get a subscription service for only $1,200 a month. Just go to zipple.com/ideamachines for 20% off your first two months. That's zipple.com/ideamachines.

About This Episode: Del Bigtree is one of the preeminent voices of the vaccine risk awareness movement around the world. He is the founder of the non-profit, Informed Consent Action Network, and host of a rapidly growing internet talk show The HighWire, boasting over 33 million views to date. Del's multi-pronged approach incorporates legal, legislative, and media actions to expose the fraud, lies, and conflicts of interest that have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to evade standardized safety testing for vaccines. This collusion between government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, now the most powerful lobby in Washington, has led to a dramatic increase in vaccine injuries, estimated to be as high as 5.9 million cases per year in the US alone. Despite mainstream media sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post blame so-called “Anti-Vaxxers” for the growing trend of vaccine hesitancy, Del has focused the spotlight on the real issue – the shocking lack of credible vaccine science. Del's foray into the vaccine issue was anything but intentional. After spending a decade celebrating great doctors, cutting edge surgeries and medical breakthroughs as a producer on The Dr. Phil Show and the CBS medical talk show, The Doctors, it was a routine investigation into the story of a whistleblower at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that catapulted Del into the vaccine debate. When every news agency in television, including The Doctors, refused to cover the story of Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the CDC who had provided over 10,000 documents to support his claim that the agency had destroyed scientific evidence proving a connection between vaccines and autism, Del put his career on the line and left network television to make one of the most controversial documentaries in history: Vaxxed: From Cover-Up To Catastrophe. The film became a worldwide phenomenon when it was abruptly removed from the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival lineup under unprecedented pressure by the festival's medical sponsor, The Sloan Foundation. Del is now one of the most sought after public speakers in the natural health arena, often gathering audiences in the thousands who travel from around the world to be inspired by his unique blend of passion, wit, and scientific expertise. He has worked directly with the likes of Robert Kennedy Jr., Robert DeNiro, and Jenny McCarthy, and was an official member of the 2017 Kennedy Vaccine Safety Delegation at the National Institute of Health arranged by President Trump. He is the recipient of multiple awards including an Emmy Award as a producer on The Doctors, Best Drama at the New York Television Festival, and the Health Freedom Hero Award from the National Health Freedom Federation, the oldest natural health organization in America. He has appeared on several primetime news networks including ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX and has been interviewed by countless radio and Internet personalities ranging from Tom Hartman to David Knight of Infowars. Above all, Del is most fulfilled by his work with the brave mothers and fathers of vaccine injured children who are marching on state capitols around the nation to stop Big Pharma's push to forcibly inject every American citizen with vaccines, a product the Supreme Court has described as “unavoidably unsafe.” Find out more about Del at: The HighWire - https://thehighwire.com/ ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) - https://www.icandecide.org/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/delbigtree The HighWire on Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/TheHighWire Check out our YouTube Channel: Jeremyryanslatebiz See the Show Notes: www.jeremyryanslate.com/959 Sponsors: LinkedIn Jobs: Post your first job for free linkedin.com/cyol MyPillow: Use the promo code: CYOL to get up to 60% off https://www.mypillow.com/ Audible: Get a free 30 day free trial and 1 free audiobook from thousands of available books. Right now I'm reading " Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections" by Mollie Hemingway www.jeremyryanslate.com/book  

About This Episode: Del Bigtree is one of the preeminent voices of the vaccine risk awareness movement around the world. He is the founder of the non-profit, Informed Consent Action Network, and host of a rapidly growing internet talk show The HighWire, boasting over 33 million views to date. Del's multi-pronged approach incorporates legal, legislative, and media actions to expose the fraud, lies, and conflicts of interest that have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to evade standardized safety testing for vaccines. This collusion between government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry, now the most powerful lobby in Washington, has led to a dramatic increase in vaccine injuries, estimated to be as high as 5.9 million cases per year in the US alone. Despite mainstream media sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post blame so-called “Anti-Vaxxers” for the growing trend of vaccine hesitancy, Del has focused the spotlight on the real issue – the shocking lack of credible vaccine science. Del's foray into the vaccine issue was anything but intentional. After spending a decade celebrating great doctors, cutting edge surgeries and medical breakthroughs as a producer on The Dr. Phil Show and the CBS medical talk show, The Doctors, it was a routine investigation into the story of a whistleblower at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that catapulted Del into the vaccine debate. When every news agency in television, including The Doctors, refused to cover the story of Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the CDC who had provided over 10,000 documents to support his claim that the agency had destroyed scientific evidence proving a connection between vaccines and autism, Del put his career on the line and left network television to make one of the most controversial documentaries in history: Vaxxed: From Cover-Up To Catastrophe. The film became a worldwide phenomenon when it was abruptly removed from the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival lineup under unprecedented pressure by the festival's medical sponsor, The Sloan Foundation. Del is now one of the most sought after public speakers in the natural health arena, often gathering audiences in the thousands who travel from around the world to be inspired by his unique blend of passion, wit, and scientific expertise. He has worked directly with the likes of Robert Kennedy Jr., Robert DeNiro, and Jenny McCarthy, and was an official member of the 2017 Kennedy Vaccine Safety Delegation at the National Institute of Health arranged by President Trump. He is the recipient of multiple awards including an Emmy Award as a producer on The Doctors, Best Drama at the New York Television Festival, and the Health Freedom Hero Award from the National Health Freedom Federation, the oldest natural health organization in America. He has appeared on several primetime news networks including ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX and has been interviewed by countless radio and Internet personalities ranging from Tom Hartman to David Knight of Infowars. Above all, Del is most fulfilled by his work with the brave mothers and fathers of vaccine injured children who are marching on state capitols around the nation to stop Big Pharma's push to forcibly inject every American citizen with vaccines, a product the Supreme Court has described as “unavoidably unsafe.” Find out more about Del at: The HighWire - https://thehighwire.com/ ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) - https://www.icandecide.org/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/delbigtree The HighWire on Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/TheHighWire Check out our YouTube Channel: Jeremyryanslatebiz See the Show Notes: www.jeremyryanslate.com/959 Sponsors: LinkedIn Jobs: Post your first job for free linkedin.com/cyol MyPillow: Use the promo code: CYOL to get up to 60% off https://www.mypillow.com/ Audible: Get a free 30 day free trial and 1 free audiobook from thousands of available books. Right now I'm reading " Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections" by Mollie Hemingway www.jeremyryanslate.com/book  

Modern particle physics is a victim of its own success. We have extremely good theories — so good that it's hard to know exactly how to move beyond them, since they agree with all the experiments. Yet, there are strong indications from theoretical considerations and cosmological data that we need to do better. But the leading contenders, especially supersymmetry, haven't yet shown up in our experiments, leading some to wonder whether anthropic selection is a better answer. Michael Dine gives us an expert's survey of the current situation, with pointers to what might come next.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Michael Dine received his Ph.D. in physics from Yale University. He is Distinguished Professor of Physics at the Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz. Among his awards are fellowships from the Sloan Foundation, Guggenheim Foundation, American Physical Society, and American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as the Sakurai Prize for theoretical particle physics. His new book is This Way to the Universe: A Theoretical Physicist's Journey to the Edge of Reality.Web pagePublications at iNspireWikipediaAmazon author pageSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Patrick Link has crafted a story about a retired NFL linebacker who must deal with a family tragedy and his own suffering because of the violence of his chosen sport.Headstrong is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by Bart DeLorenzoProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergDeidrie Henry as Sylvia GreenErnie Hudson as Duncan TroyNtare Guma Mbaho Mwine as Dr. Moses OdameScott Wolf as Nick MerrittRecorded at The Invisible Studios, West Hollywood, in January 2013.

Marc Maron is the host of a successful podcast, and when he and some other pioneers started out he didn't have to think much about the layers of technology he was using, until a patent troll came to call, asking for thousands of dollars to pay for the “rights” to  podcasting because of a patent they were mis-using to get money from the nascent podcast world. Marc and his producer Brendan knew that if they didn't take up the fight to stop the trolls, then all of podcasting would be under threat, so they joined up with some EFF lawyers and a whole lot of listeners to win their fight. In this episode you'll learn about: The prior art, or evidence of earlier technology that EFF was able to present to courts to prove that the so-called “podcasting patent” was invalid. How the landmark Alice v. CLS Bank Supreme Court decision has helped make patent law better, but still didn't solve the problem of patent trolls Why patent trolls are a drain on innovationHow we should think about which ideas should be building blocks for the public good, and which should be owned Why the community that came together around the podcasting patent fight was critical to EFF's victory How EFF prevailed when the patent troll tried to get the names of EFF donorsThis podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons licence from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Warm Vacuum Tube  by Admiral Bob (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Ft: starfroschttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtonehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883Xena's Kiss / Medea's Kiss by mwic (c) copyright 2018 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883 http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533Warm Vacuum Tube  by Admiral Bob (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Ft: starfroschhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721reCreation by airtone (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721

What if we re-imagined the internet to be built by more people, in new ways, that actually worked for us as a public good instead of a public harm? Join Ethan Zuckerman in conversation with Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien as they fix and reimagine the internet. They'll talk about what the internet could look like if a diversity of people built their own tools, how advertising could be less creepy, but still work, and how hope in the future will light the way to a better internet. In this episode you'll learn about:The challenges researchers face when gathering information and data about our relationship with social media platforms.Different ways to communicate with groups online and how these alternatives would improve online speech.Ways that third parties have tried to give more user control in social media platforms.How censorship, and who we worry about censoring speech, has changed as the internet has evolved.The problems with surveillance advertising and alternative ideas for advertisements on the internet.How the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act blocks research and innovation, and how we can fix it.How communication on the internet has changed over time, why social media giants aren't getting it right, and how to move forward.This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons license from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/zep_hurme/59681Come Inside by Zep Hurme (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/zep_hurme/59681 Ft: snowflakehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/60335Perspectives *** by J.Lang (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/60335 Ft: Sackjo22 and Admiral Bobhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883Xena's Kiss / Medea's Kiss by mwic (c) copyright 2018 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883 http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtonehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721reCreation by airtone (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721 

Financial transactions reveal so much about us: the causes we support, where we go, what we buy, who we spend time with. Somehow, the mass surveillance of financial transactions has been normalized in the United States, despite the fourth amendment protection in the constitution. But it doesn't have to be that way, as explained by Marta Belcher, a lawyer and activist in the financial privacy world. Marta offers a deep dive into financial surveillance and censorship. In this episode, you'll learn about: The concept of the third party doctrine, a court-created idea that law enforcement doesn't need to get a warrant to access metadata shared with third parties (such as companies that manage communications and banking services);How financial surveillance can have a chilling effect on activist communities, including pro-democracy activists fighting against authoritarian regimes in Hong Kong and elsewhere;How the Bank Secrecy Act means that your bank services are sharing sensitive banking details on customers with the government by default, without any request from law enforcement to prompt it;Why the Bank Secrecy Act as it's currently interpreted violates the Fourth Amendment; The potential role of blockchain technologies to import some of the privacy-protective features of cash into the digital world;How one recent case missed an opportunity to better protect the data of cryptocurrency users;How financial surveillance is a precursor to financial censorship, in which banking services are restricted for people who haven't violated the law. This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons license from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/zep_hurme/59681Come Inside by Zep Hurme (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/zep_hurme/59681 Ft: snowflakehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/60335Perspectives *** by J.Lang (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/60335 Ft: Sackjo22 and Admiral Bobhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/59612Kalte Ohren by Alex (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/59612 Ft: starfrosch & Jerry Spoonhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533Warm Vacuum Tube  by Admiral Bob (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Ft: starfroschhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtone

In Episode 71 of the Wealth On Any Income Podcast, Rennie is joined by Dr. Matt Champagne. For 28 years, Dr. Champagne has been a researcher, university professor, and serial entrepreneur. His passion is to help you to keep your customers forever!Matt was named “Technology Visionary” by SURVEY Magazine for his pioneering work merging psychology and technology to create never-before-seen customer feedback solutions. When not teaching, Matt can be found in the Caribbean SCUBA diving or on-stage playing keyboard in his rock band.In this episode Rennie and Matt cover:In Matt's various roles he found he was always doing this one thing.Why paying attention to your existing customers is important.Customer Surveys and how they are used poorly.Matt's favorite charities including Meals by Grace https://mealsbygrace.org/The “dark psychology” tactics used to sell.Matt's biggest mistake and what he learned from it.How he helped a cruise line retain customers during the pandemic using good psychology vs tactics.How to get Matt's 9 principles to put into place to help you get more response from your audience to keep them focused on you.Why building trust is so important.To get Matt's download – The 9 Principles of Customer Feedback visit http://matthewchampagne.com/wealth/More About MattFor two decades, Dr. Matthew Champagne has influenced survey and feedback practices in learning organizations worldwide as a researcher, university professor, author, serial entrepreneur and in-demand speaker. He has authored more than 75 articles, books and how-to guides with practical solutions for creating high-quality feedback tools and processes that have now been implemented at more than 600 organizations across the globe.Dr. Champagne's theories and empirical research spawned the web-based course evaluation industry in the late 1990s, and he helped create many of the innovative web-based technologies used today to improve the quality of training and customer service.As Research Fellow and Senior Evaluator for the U.S. Army Research Institute, National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Energy, Sloan Foundation and Hewlett Foundation, Champagne advised 370 colleges and learning organizations on implementing feedback and evaluation systems to drastically improve customer retention, learning, and performance.Dr. Champagne was named Technology Visionary of 2015 by SURVEY Magazine for his pioneering work merging psychological principles and online educational technologies.For more information visit http://matthewchampagne.com/If you'd like to know how books, movies, and society programs you to be poor, and what the cure is visit wealthonanyincome.com/tedx. You'll hear Rennie's TEDx talk and can request a free 27-page Roadmap to Complete Financial Choice™ and receive a weekly email with tips, techniques, or inspiration around your business or money. Rennie's Books and Programshttps://wealthonanyincome.com/books/Rennie's 9 Days to Financial Freedom program:https://wealthonanyincome.com/programsConnect with Rennie Websites:WealthOnAnyIncome.comRennieGabriel.comEmail: Rennie@WealthOnAnyIncome.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/renniegabriel/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WealthOnAnyIncome/Twitter: https://twitter.com/RennieGabrielYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdIkYMOuvzHQqVXe4e_L8PgInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/wealthonanyincome/

Catherine Tucker is the Sloan Distinguished Professor of Management Science, Professor of Marketing, Chair of the MIT Sloan Ph.D. Program, a co-founder of the MIT Cryptoeconomics Lab, which studies the applications of blockchain, and also a co-organizer of the Economics of Artificial Intelligence Initiatives sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Her research interests lie in how technology allows firms to use digital data and machine learning to improve performance, and in the challenges this poses for regulation. Professor Tucker has particular expertise in online advertising, digital health, social media, and electronic privacy. Her research studies the interface between marketing and the economics of technology and law. She holds a BA from the University of Oxford and a PhD in economics from Stanford University.

Matt Mitchell started Crypto Harlem to teach people in his community about how online and real life surveillance works, and what they could do about it. Through empowering people to understand their online privacy choices, and to speak up for change when their privacy in real life is eroded, Matt is building a movement to make a better future for everyone.In this episode you'll learn about: Cryptoparties being organized by volunteers to educate people about what surveillance technology looks like, how it works, and who installed itHow working within your own community can be an extremely effective (and fun) way to push back against surveillanceHow historically surveilled communities have borne the brunt of new, digital forms of surveillanceThe ineffectiveness and bias of much new surveillance technology, and why it's so hard to “surveill yourself to safety”Why and how heavily surveilled communities are taking back their privacy, sometimes using new technologyThe ways that Community Control Of Police Surveillance (CCOPS) legislation can benefit communities by offering avenues to learn about and discuss surveillance technology before it's installedHow security and digital privacy has improved, with new options, settings, and applications that offer more control over our online livesThis podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons licence from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883Xena's Kiss / Medea's Kiss by mwic (c) copyright 2018 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883 http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533Warm Vacuum Tube  by Admiral Bob (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Ft: starfroschhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721reCreation by airtone (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721

We don't always think about what it means to have the information on our devices stay secure, and it may seem like the locks on our phones are enough to keep our private lives private. But there is increasing pressure from law enforcement to leave a back door open on our encrypted devices. Meanwhile, other government agencies, including consumer protection agencies, want more secure devices. We dive into the nuances of the battle to secure our data and our lives, and consider what the future would be like if we can finally end the “crypto wars” and tackle other problems in society. On this episode, hosts Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien are joined by Riana Pfeffercorn from Stanford's Centre for Internet and Society to talk about device encryption and why it's important. This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons licence from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/59612Kalte Ohren by Alex (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/59612 Ft: starfrosch & Jerry Spoonhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtonehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883Xena's Kiss / Medea's Kiss by mwic (c) copyright 2018 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883  

Guest Jin Guo | Jinghui Cheng Panelists Richard Littauer | Eriol Fox | Memo Esparza Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain Open Source Design! The podcast where we talk about sustaining open source with design. Learn how we, as designers, interface with open source in a sustainable way, how we integrate into different communities, and how we as coders, work with other designers. Today, we have two amazing guests, Jin Guo and Jinghui Cheng from Montréal. Jin is an Assistant Professor at McGill University in the School of Computer Science, and she received her Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame. She is particularly interested in the intersection between Software Engineering, Human-Computer Interaction, and Artificial Intelligence. Jinghui is an Assistant Professor at Polytechnique Montréal, where he directs the Human Centered Design Lab. His research combines the field of Human-Computer Interaction with Software Engineering. Today, we hear about Jin's grant she received from the Sloan Foundation, which is supporting the open source usability for scientific software. Jin and Jinghui go in depth about things scientific researchers use, some common problems around usability, the different research methods they are using in their studies, and how they incorporate the community aspect to their research. Also, they share advice on how to get involved with research happening on open source. Go ahead and download this episode now to learn more! [00:03:45] Jin explains more about the grant they were given from the Sloan Foundation. [00:05:49] Find out what kinds of open source code scientific researchers use and some common problems around usability. [00:09:04] Jin and Jinghui tell us about the different research methods they are doing. [00:12:41] Richard wonders what Jin and Jinghui are particularly interested in learning from their study that will help their future research and what are they trying to learn on an academic sense. [00:17:47] Eriol wonders if Jin and Jinghui had similar challenges when researching open source projects. [00:22:15] Jin and Jinghui share their thoughts on incorporating the community aspect to their research. [00:25:32] Richard wonders if Jin and Jinghui can share any ideas to designers, communities which have design focus, or open source in general, on how they can get involved with research happening on open source, besides reading papers, doing a PhD, or going to their workshops. [00:28:11] Eriol asks how Jinghui views end users as a kind of designer and what that might mean for how he's doing his work, and if these workshops are a way of doing that. [00:30:25] Jin expands more on her interest in AI and how that's going to work, and how she's going to get AI to play with designers and open source communities. [00:34:10] Find out where you can follow Jin and Jinghui on the internet. Quotes [00:05:16] “We're hoping to use this grant to help advance scientific software usability, but also use the end result from our projects to benefit open source usability as a whole.” [00:15:40] “For open source usability, I think the tooling is one aspect, but the ultimate goal for our improvement on the tooling is the mindset improvement.” [00:18:38] “As a researcher, ideally we would need to make more frequent and iterative collaborations with open source projects by either interviewing them or having scientific project ideas. Balancing with them and to see what is the relevance of our research with their real concerns.” [00:19:22] “One of the things we are currently planning on is to conduct some of the workshops that are going to invite the end users and the designers to be in the same place, to work together to observe their dynamics of communicating.” [00:23:47] “What we hope is to learn the boundary of communication between those more stereotyped communities, but to make them feel welcomed to communicate with each other regardless of their title or role.” [00:27:46] “Design conferences, they need to welcome more people rather than just really fashi fashionable flashy designers doing, well I don't know, stuff for evil clients.” (Eriol) Spotlight [00:35:36] Memo's spotlight is Jamstack. [00:35:57] Eriol's spotlights are FOSS Backstage and one of their favorite academia papers called, “Non-response, Social Exclusion, and False Acceptance: Gatekeeping Tactics and Usability Work in Free-Libre Open Source Software Development,” by Mikko Rajanen, Netta Iivari, and Arto Lanamäki [00:37:17] Richard's spotlight is JS Montreal. [00:37:41] Jinghui's spotlights are projects that influenced him and his research which are Atom, Jupyter notebook, and PyTorch. [00:38:44] Jin's spotlights are two projects that influenced her previous work and current work which are scikit-learn and Zotero. Links Open Source Design Twitter (https://twitter.com/opensrcdesign) Open Source Design (https://opensourcedesign.net/) Sustain Design & UX working group (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/t/design-ux-working-group/348) Sustain Open Source Twitter (https://twitter.com/sustainoss?lang=en) Richard Littauer Twitter (https://twitter.com/richlitt?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Eriol Fox Twitter (https://twitter.com/EriolDoesDesign?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Memo Esparza Twitter (https://twitter.com/memo_es_) Jin L.C. Guo Twitter (https://twitter.com/jin_lc_guo?lang=en) Jin L.C. Guo Website (http://jguo-web.com/) Jinghui Cheng Twitter (https://twitter.com/jinghuicheng?lang=en) Jinghui Cheng Website (https://jhcheng.me/) Jinghui Cheng Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jinghuicheng/) Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (https://sloan.org/) Argumentation theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory) Jamstack (https://jamstack.org/) FOSS Backstage 2022 (https://foss-backstage.de/) “Non-response, Social Exclusion, and False Acceptance: Gatekeeping Tactics and Usability Work in Free-Libre Open Source Software Development,” by Mikko Rajanen, Netta Iivari, and Arto Lanamäki (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-22698-9_2) JS-Montreal (https://js-montreal.org/) Scikit-learn (https://scikit-learn.org/stable/) Zotero (https://www.zotero.org/) Atom (https://atom.io/) Jupyter (https://jupyter.org/) PyTorch (https://pytorch.org/) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guests: Jinghui Cheng and Jin L.C. Guo.

Join us for a live chat as hosts Cindy and Danny speak with cybersecurity expert Tarah Wheeler on Thursday Dec 9th at 2pm PT. They will continue the conversation that started on this episode of the podcast, exploring how we can incentivize computer security and fix computer crime laws: https://www.eff.org/tarahchat======================There are flaws in the tech we use everyday- from little software glitches to big data breaches, and security researchers often know about them before we do. Getting those issues fixed is not always as straightforward as it should be. It's not always easy to bend a corporation's ear, and companies may ignore the threat for liability reasons putting us all at risk. Technology and cybersecurity expert Tarah Wheeler joins Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien to explain how she thinks security experts can help build a more secure internet. On this episode, you'll learn:About the human impact of security vulnerabilities—and how unpatched flaws can change or even end lives;How to reconsider the popular conception of hackers, and understand their role in helping build a more secure digital world;How the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a law that is supposed to punish computer intrusion, has been written so broadly that it now stifles security researchers;What we can learn from the culture around airplane safety regulation—including transparency and blameless post-mortems;How we can align incentives, including financial incentives, to improve vulnerability reporting and response;How the Supreme Court case Van Buren helped security researchers by ensuring that the CFAA couldn't be used to prosecute someone for merely violating the terms of service of a website or application;How a better future would involve more collaboration and transparency among both companies and security researchers.This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.Resources: ResourcesConsumer Data Privacy:Equifax Data Breach Update: Backsliding (EFF)EFF's Recommendations for Consumer Data Privacy Laws (EFF)Strengthen California's Next Consumer Data Privacy Initiative (EFF)Ransomware:A Hospital Hit by Hackers, a Baby in Distress: The Case of the First Alleged Ransomware Death (WSJ)FAQ: DarkSide Ransomware Group and Colonial Pipeline (EFF)Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA):CFAA and Security Researchers (EFF)Van Buren is a Victory Against Overbroad Interpretations of the CFAA, and Protects Security Researchers (EFF)Van Buren v. United States (SCOTUS)EFF CFAA Revisions – Penalties and Access (EFF)Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Reform (EFF)Electoral Security:Election Security (EFF)This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons licence from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533Warm Vacuum Tube  by Admiral Bob (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Ft: starfroschhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/snowflake/59564rr4Come Inside by Snowflake (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/snowflake/59564 Ft: Starfrosch, Jerry Spoon, Kara Square, spinningmerkabahttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtonehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721reCreation by airtone (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721

Guest Paul Bahr | DeAnn Bahr Panelists Richard Littauer | Allen “Gunner” Gunn | Eric Berry | Justin Dorfman | Pia Mancini | Eriol Fox | Ben Nichols Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain! The podcast where we talk about sustaining open source for the long haul. Cue the horns and balloons folks because today's episode is extremely special. We are celebrating our 100th episode!! Can you believe it? We are so fortunate to have everyone with us, including our editors, as our conversations takes us back to the origins of this podcast and how it all began. We find out a little bit more about each panelist, and thoughts about the future of Sustain and plans going forward. The topic of having more controversy on this podcast is discussed, and thoughts on how each panelist sees the impact this podcast has made on open source sustainability and whether or not we can measure it. Go ahead and download this episode now to hear more and thank you for celebrating this momentous event with us! [00:00:58] We start by getting to know the background of each panelist, where they work, and what they do. [00:08:25] Since Richard always states in the beginning of every episode, “Where are we going,” Paul asks where Sustain is going as an organization and if they have any future plans. [00:13:49] Eriol shares some thoughts with us about the future of Sustain Open Source Design. [00:16:12] Richard brings up wishing there was more controversy on the Sustain podcast and the panelists share more. [00:21:07] Pia talks about some things going back to the origins of this podcast. [00:23:40] We hear from everyone on how they see the impact that this podcast has made on open source sustainability, and if they think we can measure open source sustainability. Quotes [00:15:24] “I really do think that the time for design as a topic within open source has never been more rich, involved, and interesting because of the amount of designers understanding what open source is in all of its different flavors and varieties. And, wanting to participate in new ways or old ways or different ways and doing a lot of really interesting stuff lately. So, I really do think it's really a special time for designers in open source from what I can tell.” Spotlight [00:32:37] Gunner's spotlight is OpenNews. [00:33:02] Paul's spotlight is Descript. [00:33:42] Eric's spotlight is Firefox. [00:34:04] Justin's spotlight is Gregor Martynus. [00:34:20] Ben's spotlight is The National Museum of Computing. [00:35:07] Pia's spotlight is SMAT (Social Media Analysis Toolkit). [00:35:38] Richard's spotlight is “Bird Facts with Richard Littauer.” Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) Ford Foundation (https://www.fordfoundation.org/) Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (https://sloan.org/) Committing To Cloud Native Podcast (https://podcast.curiefense.io/) Reblaze (https://www.reblaze.com/) Curiefense (https://www.curiefense.io/) Sustain our Docs (Pilot Episode) (https://podcast.sustainoss.org/bonus-docs-pilot) Sustain Open Source Design Podcast (https://sosdesign.sustainoss.org/) Open Collective (https://opencollective.com/) OpenNews (https://opennews.org/) Descript-GitHub (https://github.com/descriptinc) Firefox (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/) Gregor Martynus GitHub (https://github.com/gr2m) Light Years Ahead | The 1969 Apollo Guidance Computer-YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM) Social Media Analysis Toolkit (SMAT) (https://www.smat-app.com/) All About Birds-Cooper's Hawk (https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Coopers_Hawk/id) Credits Produced by (Richard Littauer) (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at (Peachtree Sound) (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr (Peachtree Sound) (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guest: Paul and DeAnn Bahr.

Open source software touches every piece of technology that touches our lives- in other words, it's everywhere. Free software and collaboration is at the heart of every device we rely on, and much of the internet is built from the hard work of people dedicated to the open source dream: ideals that all software should be licenced to be free, modified, distributed and copied without penalty. The movement is growing, and that growth is creating pressure: from too many projects, and not enough resources. The culture is shifting, too, as new people around the world join in and bring different ideas and different dreams for an open source future. James Vasile has been working in open source software for decades, and he joins Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien to talk about the challenges that growth is creating, and the opportunities it presents to make open source, and the Internet, even better. If you have any feedback on this episode, please email podcast@eff.org. Please visit the site page at https://eff.org/pod102 where you'll find resources – including links to important legal cases and research discussed in the podcast and a full transcript of the audio, at This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Your phone is a window to your soul - and that window has been left open to law enforcement. Today, even small-town police departments have powerful tools that can easily access the most intimate information on your cell phone. Upturn's Executive Director Harlan Yu joins EFF hosts Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien to talk about a better way for law enforcement to treat our data. When Upturn researchers surveyed police departments on the mobile device forensic tools they were using on mobile phones, they discovered that the tools are being used by police departments large and small across America. There are few rules on what law enforcement can do with the data they download, and not very many policies on how the information should be stored, shared, or destroyed.In this episode you'll learn about:Mobile device forensic tools (MDFTs) that are used by police to download data from your phone, even when it's lockedHow court cases such as Riley v. California powerfully protect our digital privacy-- but those protections are evaded when police get verbal consent to search a phoneHow widespread the use of MDFTs are by law enforcement departments across the country, including small-town police departments investigating minor infractions The roles that phone manufacturers and mobile device forensic tool vendors can play in protecting user data How re-envisioning our approaches to phone surveillance helps address issues of systemic targeting of marginalized communities by police agenciesThe role of warrants in protecting our digital data. If you have any feedback on this episode, please email podcast@eff.org. Please visit the site page at https://eff.org/pod101 where you'll find resources – including links to important legal cases and research discussed in the podcast and a full transcript of the audio. This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

At the heart of most performance practice is storytelling. How can the arts impact the climate narrative? What can individuals and institutions do to make a difference when it comes to climate change? We'll speak with a variety of artists, activists and experts about their work in shaping the story on climate and then close out with our featured artist, Nefertiti Abdulmalik, also known as SolAR Lightbeam. Be sure to visit our website pivotarts.org and click on "Get Updates" to stay  informed about Pivot Arts or follow us @PivotArts.EPISODE 1: RESHAPING THE CLIMATE NARRATIVE GUESTS:Annalisa Dias (she/her) is a Goan-American transdisciplinary artist, community organizer, and award-winning theatre maker working at the intersection of racial justice and care for the earth. She is Director of Artistic Partnerships & Innovation at Baltimore Center Stage and a Co-Founder of Groundwater Arts. Prior to joining BCS, Annalisa was a Producing Playwright and Acting Creative Producer with The Welders, a DC playwright's collective; and a Co-Founder of the DC Coalition for Theatre & Social Justice. For more information on the Green New Theatre Initiative visit: groundwaterarts.com/green-new-theatreHans Detweiler (he/him) Senior Director, Development at Jupiter Power LLC, has a demonstrated history in renewable energy project development. As vice president of development at Clean Line Energy, he directed development of long-distance overhead transmission line projects for wind power. He also oversaw development of a 1,000-MW wind farm in New Mexico, served as director of state policy for the American Wind Energy Association and was deputy director for energy and recycling at the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.Kristin Idaszak (she/they) is a two-time Playwrights' Center Jerome Fellow and the former Shank Playwriting Fellow at the Goodman Theatre. Idaszak has received commissions from the Goodman, EST/the Sloan Foundation, Cleveland Play House, St. Louis Shakespeare Festival, and TimeLine Theatre. Her play SECOND SKIN received the Kennedy Center's Paula Vogel Playwriting Award and the Jean Kennedy Smith Playwriting Award, and her play ANOTHER JUNGLE was a Relentless Award Honorable Mention. She was the Kennedy Center Fellow at the Sundance Theatre Lab. She is a Resident Playwright at Chicago Dramatists and adjunct faculty at The Theatre School at DePaul University and Northwestern University. SolAR*, Nefertiti Abdulmalik (she/her) raised on Chicago's Northside, recently presented her video animation work Portal to New Earth as part of the 2021 Pivot Arts Festival. She has always been drawn towards the arts and nature. Her current focus is to create works that illustrate nature and how it is interconnected. Nefertiti holds a BFA in Animation from DePaul University and is now beginning her career as a performing artist, combining her love for music, dance, animation and storytelling. By blending together animated visuals, music and story, she shares messages of human empowerment, imagination and nature connection.Episode 1 was produced and edited by Julieanne Ehre with original music by Andrew Hansen and sound engineering by Hannah Foerschler.The Pivot Arts Podcast is made possible by FLATS, a Chicago based apartment community.Mentions in Episode Include:"All We Can Save: Truth, Courage, and Solutions for the Climate Crisis"  Edited by Ayana Elizabeth Johnson and Katharine K. Wilkinson"Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds" by Adrienne Maree BrownGroundwater ArtsIllinois' Stretch CodeHeat Pump Technology

If you're a brain, it can be tough to stay organized. The world comes at you fast, from all angles, in different sensory formats—sights, sounds, smells. You need to take it all in, but you also need to parse it, process it, categorize it, remember and learn from it. And of course you also need react to it, preferably appropriately.  So what do you do—as a brain—to handle this organizational overload? Well, for one thing, you make maps. Lots of maps.  My guest today is Dr. Rebecca Schwarzlose, a cognitive neuroscientist and author of the new book Brainscapes: The warped, wondrous maps written in your brain—and how they guide you. Rebecca is former editor of Trends in Cognitive Sciences and is currently a postdoctoral scholar at Washington University in St Louis. Her book was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program in the Public Understanding of Science and Technology. In this conversation, Rebecca and I talk about what brain maps are and why brains evolved to make them. (And just to be clear, it's not just human brains—it's the brains of many creatures.) We talk about how delightfully warped these maps are —and, of course, why. We discuss how we rely on them for vision, touch, smell, and movement, not to mention for thinking about faces, places, numbers, and more. We also discuss the fascinating duality at the heart of these brain maps, which is their balance of universal and unique features. I just love this angle on neuroscience, this way of thinking about the brain as a restless, prodigious cartographer. I thoroughly enjoyed Rebecca's book. And definitely there's a lot in it we couldn't touch on in this episode—details about how the mustache bat makes echolocation maps, for example, and about how new techniques are leveraging brain maps to do something like mindreading. So I hope you enjoy the episode, but I also hope you go and check out Rebecca's book for yourselves. Alright folks, on to my conversation with Dr. Rebecca Schwarzlose. Enjoy!   Notes and links 3:15 – A review article by Dr. Schwarzlose's doctoral advisor, Nancy Kanwisher, on the fusiform face area. (Be sure to check out Dr. Kanwisher's brain course online.) 8:00 – An article on Inouye's work and the “discovery of the visual cortex.” 14:00 – Much work has focused on the metabolic costs associated with the brain. For instance, an article on how metabolic costs of the brain shift over development. 18:30 – A study of cortical magnification in V1 and how it relates to visual acuity. 21:00 – The famous “homunculi” of the brain's touch maps are described and depicted in this article.   28:50 – A recent popular article on the brain's maps of odors. 32:00 – Our interview with Asifa Majid about smell across cultures. 42:00 – An article about how numbers are represented in the parietal cortex. Another article about the relationship between finger discrimination and number discrimination abilities. 46:30 – An article about how the hippocampus supports thinking about the social world. 54:00 – An article about plasticity in the developing brain. 1:01:00 – One of Dr. Schwarzlose's earliest studies, which was on face and body maps in the fusiform gyrus.   Dr. Schwarzlose recommends the following books: Making Space, Jennifer Groh Into the Gray Zone, Adrian Own The New Mind Readers, Russell Poldrack   You can find Dr. Schwarzlose on Twitter (@gothemind) and follow her work at her website.    Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

David's 1999 Paper on e-commerce and the environment This week I sat down with David Rejeski, Visiting Scholar with the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), to learn more about his engagement in the Project on the Energy and Environmental Implications of the Digital Economy. With support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, ELI, the Yale School of the Environment, and the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at UC Berkeley, the Project is shedding much-needed light on the true environmental and energy implications of the digital economy, focusing on blockchain technologies, sharing platforms, artificial intelligence, and other technologies. We also look back at David's pioneering work on the implications of nanotechnology when he was heading up the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2021 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Dr. Jennifer Garrison, PhD (http://garrisonlab.com/) is Assistant Professor, Buck Institute for Research on Aging, Founder & Faculty Director, Global Consortium for Reproductive Longevity & Equality (https://www.buckinstitute.org/gcrle/), Assistant Professor in Residence, Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, UCSF and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Gerontology, USC Leonard Davis School of Gerontology. Dr. Garrison's lab is interested in understanding how neuropeptides (a large class of signaling molecules which are secreted from neurons and transmit messages within the brain and across the nervous system) regulate changes in normal and aging animals as well in understanding how they control behavior at both the cell biological and neural circuit level. Dr. Garrison received her PhD from the University of California San Francisco in Chemistry and Chemical Biology in the laboratory of Dr. Jack Taunton, where she discovered the molecular target of a natural product and elucidated a novel mechanism by which small molecules can regulate protein biogenesis. As a postdoctoral fellow in Dr. Cori Bargmann's lab at the Rockefeller University, she showed that the nematode C. elegans produces a neuropeptide that is an evolutionary precursor of the mammalian peptides vasopressin and oxytocin, and mapped a neural circuit by which this molecule, nematocin, modulates mating behavior. Dr. Garrison was named an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow and received a Glenn Foundation Award for Research in Biological Mechanisms of Aging in 2014, and a Next Generation Leader at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in 2015. Her work is funded by the NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the Larry L. Hillblom Foundation.

Part 3 of 3. Tom Stoppard's Arcadia merges science with human concerns and ideals. Set in an English country house in the years 1809-1812 and 1989, the play examines the connections between two modern scholars, the house's current residents and the lives of those who lived there 180 years earlier.Arcadia is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Additional funding is provided by the Sidney E. Frank Foundation.Directed by John RubinsteinProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergKate Burton as HannahMark Capri as ChaterJennifer Dundas as ThomasinaGregory Itzin as Bernard NightingaleDavid Manis as Captain BriceChristopher Neame as Noakes/JellabyPeter Paige as ValentineDarren Richardson as AugustusKate Steele as ChloeSerena Scott Thomas as Lady CroomDouglas Weston as Septimus

Part 2 of 3. Tom Stoppard's Arcadia merges science with human concerns and ideals, examining the universe's influence in our everyday lives and ultimate fates through relationships between past and present, order and disorder and the certainty of knowledge. Set in an English country house in the years 1809-1812 and 1989, the play examines the lives of two modern scholars and the house's current residents with the lives of those who lived there 180 years earlier.Arcadia is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Additional funding is provided by the Sidney E. Frank Foundation.Directed by John RubinsteinProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergKate Burton as HannahMark Capri as ChaterJennifer Dundas as ThomasinaGregory Itzin as Bernard NightingaleDavid Manis as Captain BriceChristopher Neame as Noakes/JellabyPeter Paige as ValentineDarren Richardson as AugustusKate Steele as ChloeSerena Scott Thomas as Lady CroomDouglas Weston as Septimus

Tom Stoppard's Arcadia merges science with human concerns and ideals, examining the universe's influence in our everyday lives and ultimate fates through relationships between past and present, order and disorder and the certainty of knowledge. Set in an English country house in the years 1809-1812 and 1989, the play examines the lives of two modern scholars and the house's current residents with the lives of those who lived there 180 years earlier.Arcadia is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by John RubinsteinProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergKate Burton as HannahMark Capri as ChaterJennifer Dundas as ThomasinaGregory Itzin as Bernard NightingaleDavid Manis as Captain BriceChristopher Neame as Noakes/JellabyPeter Paige as ValentineDarren Richardson as AugustusKate Steele as ChloeSerena Scott Thomas as Lady CroomDouglas Weston as Septimus

Jenny Heller is the President and Chief Investment Officer of Brandywine Trust Group.  Brandywine formed 25 years ago to manage the capital for a small group of families that all share a long-term, multi-generational time horizon. Today, it oversees almost $9B for those same families, much of it from compounding over a quarter century. The Group invests flexibly across asset classes, with a focus on partnering with people who they believe have sustainable competitive advantages, share their long-term vision, and have highly aligned interests.  These elite managers often start with great ideas, but limited capital.  Before taking the helm at Brandywine five years ago, Jenny worked at the Sloan Foundation, Stanford University Management Company, and Merrill Lynch in its investment banking program. She is a graduate of Williams College, where she serves on its Investment Advisory Committee, and Stanford Business School. Our conversation starts with Jenny's frustrating experiences with a non-profit micro finance in India and South Africa and turns to her career allocating money on behalf of non-profits and families. We touch on subtleties in picking managers for taxable investors, challenges in executing a long-term strategy, learning from mistakes, and mentorship. Jenny's clear and deep thought process provides pearls of wisdom throughout our conversation. Learn MoreSubscribe: Apple | Spotify | Google  Follow Ted on Twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn Subscribe to the mailing list Read the transcripts

When Claudia gets pregnant she has a very clear plan for how she wants to give birth. Her pre-natal anxieties inspire her father to create a device for safer deliveries and Claudia realizes that nothing ever goes quite as expected.Bump is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series of science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by Rosalind AyresProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergLucy DeVito as Mary, Apple, ReceptionistAnna Lyse Erikson as Lemon, Third WomanAlma Martinez as MariaAnna Mathias as Midwife, Avocado, DoulaAna Ortiz as ClaudiaMoira Quirk as Walnut, Mama, Second WomanHerbert Sigüenza as LuisAndré Sogliuzzo as YouTube GuyDevon Sorvari as Grapefruit, Waiting MotherInger Tudor as Narrator, Plum, Different Mama

When Claudia gets pregnant she has a very clear plan for how she wants to give birth. Her pre-natal anxieties inspire her father to create a device for safer deliveries and Claudia realizes that nothing ever goes quite as expected.Bump is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series of science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by Rosalind AyresProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergLucy DeVito as Mary, Apple, ReceptionistAnna Lyse Erikson as Lemon, Third WomanAlma Martinez as MariaAnna Mathias as Midwife, Avocado, DoulaAna Ortiz as ClaudiaMoira Quirk as Walnut, Mama, Second WomanHerbert Sigüenza as LuisAndré Sogliuzzo as YouTube GuyDevon Sorvari as Grapefruit, Waiting MotherInger Tudor as Narrator, Plum, Different Mama

Guest Smera Goel Panelists Justin Flory | Memo Esparza | Richard Littauer Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain Open Source Design! On this podcast, we will talk about sustaining open source with design. Learn how we, as designers, interface with open source in a sustainable way, how we integrate into different communities, and how we as coders, work with other designers. Joining us today, our guest is Smera Goel. Smera was previously an open source design intern through the Outreachy Internship Program and contributed with the Fedora Project on a couple of different projects and other things throughout the open source academia world that we'll be talking about with her. Also, we will learn about the Infographics project, the Fedora Zine project that she started, and what role mentorship plays in working together with other people collaboratively on design projects. Go ahead and download this episode now to find out more, and if you're interested please subscribe! [00:02:36] Smera tells us how she discovered the design world, what got her into this kind of work, and all about the Outreachy Program and the Fedora Project. [00:05:14] We learn from Smera how she always loved being an artist and loved tech since she was a child, and the process of picking your college major in India. [00:07:22] Richard wonders when Smera joined Outreachy and was involved in Fedora, did she have any difficulties being a designer in that community and not just being a coder, and how did she manage the two competing interests. [00:08:54] Smera talks about the Infographics project, what some of the goals were for it, and how it was such a helpful tool for all the different projects. [00:12:12] Memo wonders what is the magical thing that makes Smera so excited, besides being a designer. She also tells us what kind of things she does in her everyday life and the connection process with the Fedora Project. [00:16:01] Richard asks Smera if she can talk about using Hindi or other languages, if there is awareness for open source at her university in India, and if she feels like it's becoming more well-known in the student world of technology. [00:19:30] Smera shares with us her idea of open source design as a professional job or as a business, as opposed to just being something she does with her volunteer time. [00:21:33] We learn all about the Fedora Zine project that Smera started, how she managed all the different feedback and ideas that people came with, and how she turned it into something that she shared back with the community. [00:23:18] Richard wonders what Smera is super excited about in the future when she has her free time back and how is going to bring her particular version of open source design. [00:25:01] Smera explains what role mentorship plays in terms of the design process and working together with other people collaboratively on design projects. [00:27:56] Find out where you can follow Smera on the internet. Spotlight [00:28:30] Justin's spotlight is the announcement of the new research from the Ford and Sloan Foundation funding. [00:29:03] Memo's spotlight is Spline. [00:29:46] Richard's spotlight is his mentor, Alexis Palmer. [00:30:31] Smera's spotlight is Fedora Design, especially Fedora Badges, Zine, and Infographics. Links Smera Goel Twitter (https://twitter.com/SmeraGoel) Smera Goel Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/in/smera-goel/) Fedora Project Commops Infographic (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/commops/_images/infographic-2020.png) Fedora Project Diversity & Inclusion Infographic (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/diversity-inclusion/_images/infographic-2020.png) Outreachy (https://www.outreachy.org/) Tech Crunch- “$1.3M in grants go toward making the web's open-source infrastructure more equitable.” (https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/03/1-3m-in-grants-go-towards-making-the-webs-open-source-infrastructure-more-equitable/?soc_src=tcapp) Spline (https://spline.design/) Alexis Palmer (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NVxAbD8AAAAJ&hl=en) Fedora Badges (https://badges.fedoraproject.org/) Fedora Zine (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Zine) Fedora Pagure Infographics (https://pagure.io/design/issue/685) Open Source Design Twitter (https://twitter.com/opensrcdesign) Open Source Design (https://opensourcedesign.net/) Sustain Open Source Twitter (https://twitter.com/sustainoss?lang=en) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guest: Smera Goel.

Brazil formalized a criminal investigation last week into President Jair Bolsonaro's response to the pandemic. It could lead to his impeachment. The country just passed 400,000 total fatalities so far, with no significant slowdown in sight. With support from the Sloan Foundation, special correspondent Simon Ostrovsky and producer Charles Lyons bring us the first of two reports. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Brazil formalized a criminal investigation last week into President Jair Bolsonaro's response to the pandemic. It could lead to his impeachment. The country just passed 400,000 total fatalities so far, with no significant slowdown in sight. With support from the Sloan Foundation, special correspondent Simon Ostrovsky and producer Charles Lyons bring us the first of two reports. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

A zoologist in Australia gets funding to save an endangered species from the very company that threatens its existence. Will this deal with the devil allow her to save the species, or will it destroy her entire life's work?Recorded at The Invisible Studios, West Hollywood, in September 2020.Extinction is part of L.A. Theatre Works’ Relativity Series of science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by Martin JarvisProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergSeamus Dever as Harry JewellSarah Drew as Dr. Piper RossDarren Richardson as Andy DixonJoanne Whalley as Professor Heather Dixon-BrownSenior Producer: Anna Lyse EriksonRecording Engineer, Editor and Sound Designer: Neil WogensenSenior Radio Producer: Ronn LipkinFoley Artist: Jeff GardnerMixed by Charles Carroll for The Invisible Studios, West Hollywood

A zoologist in Australia gets funding to save an endangered species from the very company that threatens its existence. Will this deal with the devil allow her to save the species, or will it destroy her entire life's work?Recorded at The Invisible Studios, West Hollywood, in September 2020.Extinction is part of L.A. Theatre Works’ Relativity Series of science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by Martin JarvisProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergSeamus Dever as Harry JewellSarah Drew as Dr. Piper RossDarren Richardson as Andy DixonJoanne Whalley as Professor Heather Dixon-BrownSenior Producer: Anna Lyse EriksonRecording Engineer, Editor and Sound Designer: Neil WogensenSenior Radio Producer: Ronn LipkinFoley Artist: Jeff GardnerMixed by Charles Carroll for The Invisible Studios, West Hollywood

Jenny Heller is the President and Chief Investment Officer of Brandywine Trust Group.  Brandywine formed 25 years ago to manage the capital for a small group of families that all share a long-term, multi-generational time horizon. Today, it oversees almost $9B for those same families, much of it from compounding over a quarter century. The Group invests flexibly across asset classes, with a focus on partnering with people who they believe have sustainable competitive advantages, share their long-term vision, and have highly aligned interests.  These elite managers often start with great ideas, but limited capital.  Before taking the helm at Brandywine five years ago, Jenny worked at the Sloan Foundation, Stanford University Management Company, and Merrill Lynch in its investment banking program. She is a graduate of Williams College, where she serves on its Investment Advisory Committee, and Stanford Business School. Our conversation starts with Jenny’s frustrating experiences with a non-profit micro finance in India and South Africa and turns to her career allocating money on behalf of non-profits and families. We touch on subtleties in picking managers for taxable investors, challenges in executing a long-term strategy, learning from mistakes, and mentorship. Jenny’s clear and deep thought process provides pearls of wisdom throughout our conversation. Learn More Subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Google   Follow Ted on twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn Subscribe Monthly Mailing List  Read the Transcript 

One of the world’s wealthiest men has died in a plane crash. The insurance company representing the airline assigns math genius Mitch Bloom to the case to minimize their payout – but Mitch finds himself facing a formidable opponent in Ida Watkins, a small town actuary who challenges his ideas about the value of a human life.Life on Paper is part of L.A. Theatre Works’ Relativity Series of science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by Rosalind AyresProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergKevin Daniels as Ivan BlumenthalSeamus Dever as Mitch BloomSarah Drew as Ida WatkinsMark Jude Sullivan as Michael WatkinsSummer Spiro as Maggie JonesSenior Producer: Anna Lyse EriksonRecording Engineer, Editor and Sound Designer: Neil WogensenSenior Radio Producer: Ronn LipkinFoley Artist: Jeff GardnerMixed by Charles Carroll for The Invisible Studios, West HollywoodMusic for Maggie’s song written and performed by Summer SpiroCello accompaniment by Anna Lyse Erikson

What do a science foundation and an art museum have in common? This week, we pair Adam Falk, president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, with Adam Weinberg, the Alice Pratt Brown Director of the Whitney Museum of American Art. Last year, the Sloan Foundation granted $100,000 to the Whitney for a exhibition exploring the intersection of art and science over the last 50 years. In this episode, the two Adams talk about the importance of partnerships like this one, how to increase trust in both art and science, and how the public interacts with it. View bios, an episode summary, topic-based timestamps, and images on our show notes: https://pj.news.chass.ncsu.edu/2019/09/04/ep-35-trust-in-the-age-of-disbelieving/