Podcasts about swiss federal institute

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope have observed clouds on a hot gas giant exoplanet called WASP-94A b, some 700 light-years away. But these clouds aren't your usual wisps of water vapor—they're vaporized sand. Astronomer David Sing joins Host Flora Lichtman to describe the planetary weather, and how the researchers were able to observe it.  Then, ecologist Elske Tielens joins Flora to describe how ecologists using weather radar data counted the insects aloft in U.S. skies: around 100 trillion of them on an average summer day. Guests: Dr. David Sing is a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Elske Tielens is an ecologist with the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. Other episodes you may enjoy: How Insects Changed The World—And Human Cultures Not Just Dying Stars: A Black Hole That Came From Gas Transcripts for each episode are available within 1-3 days at sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Follow our show on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and Bluesky @scifri and sign up for our newsletters. Got a science question that's keeping you up at night? Call us: 877-4-SCIFRI Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Himalayan glaciers are melting more rapidly as global temperatures rise, raising concerns about the future of ecosystems and communities across the Himalayan mountain range. Glaciers store more than two thirds of the world's freshwater and help regulate global temperatures by reflecting the sun's rays.Across South Asia, melting ice is contributing to the formation of unstable glacial lakes and increasing the risks of floods, droughts and avalanches. The Himalayas are a vital source of water for millions of people, supporting agriculture, energy production and livelihoods from tourism.Experts warn that continued glacier loss could have significant consequences for people living in the region and the mountainous ecosystem, but what can be done to respond to these changes?This week on The Inquiry, we're asking: are the Himalayan glaciers at a tipping point?Contributors: Pasang Yangjee Sherpa, assistant professor at the University of British Columbia, Canada Pam Pearson, director and founder of the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative, US Matthias Huss, glaciologist and senior scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland Alton Byers, faculty research scientist at the Institute of Artic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, USPresenter: Tanya Beckett Producer: Matt Toulson Researchers: Evie Yabsley and Amelia Cox Editor: Tom Bigwood Technical producer: Mitch Goodall Production management: Phoebe Lomas and Liam Morrey(Photo: Trekkers walk to Everest Base Camp in Nepal. Credit: Kriangkrai Thitimakorn/Getty Images)

The recent Nasa Artemis II crewed mission to the far side of the Moon is a further step towards a long-term return to the lunar surface and future missions to Mars. The plan is that before the end of the decade there will be a crewed landing and the start of a Moon base. China is among those developing similar plans. Previous missions both crewed and uncrewed have provided evidence of resources that potentially could be of use here on Earth, and support human life on the Moon. So, it's not just the race to the Moon that's capturing the world's attention, but also the possible economic benefits that that might bring with it. The Moon's surface or lunar regolith contains volatiles like hydrogen, carbon dioxide and methane. There is evidence of minerals such as silicate and oxides and metals like aluminium and titanium, which could be extracted for building materials. And something that is rare on Earth, Helium-3, a potential resource for clean fusion energy. Governments in conjunction with private corporations are already working on the technology to extract these resources. Concerns have been raised about the potential damage to the Moon, not only in terms of the depletion of its resources, but in terms of its scientific value and its cultural heritage. Protection ranges from established treaties that prohibit ownership of the moon, to national laws that permit resource extraction. But to date, there is no universally accepted international law in place, which explicitly permits or prohibits lunar mining. So, this week on the Inquiry, we're asking ‘Should we mine the Moon?'Contributors: Dr Dylan Mikesell, principal geophysicist, NGI-The Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway Dr Justin Holcomb, assistant research professor, Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas, USA Prof Dr Thomas Zurbuchen, director of ETH Space, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland Dr Tanja Masson-Zwann, assistant professor and deputy director, International Institute of Air and Space Law, Leiden University, The NetherlandsPresenter: William Crawley Producer: Jill Collins Researcher: Evie Yabsley Editor: Tom Bigwood Technical Producer: Nicky Edwards Production Management: Phoebe Lomas and Liam Morrey(Photo: The Moon. Credit: Reuters/BBC Images)

Dr. David Sedlak is the Plato Malozemoff Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Co-Director of the Berkeley Water Center, Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center for Reinventing the Nation's Urban Water Infrastructure, and Director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition, he is author of the book Water 4.0: The Past, Present, and Future of the World's Most Vital Resource. David is working to create technologies that will allow future generations to have access to adequate amounts of clean, safe water. When David isn't working, he enjoys long-distance running. He often runs along the many trails in the Berkeley area, and he participates in an annual local trails marathon. David earned his Bachelor's degree in environmental science from Cornell University. After college, he worked as a Staff Scientist at Environ Corporation in Princeton, New Jersey. David then attended graduate school at the University of Wisconsin, Madison where he was awarded his Ph.D. in water chemistry. Prior to joining the faculty at UC, Berkeley, David conducted postdoctoral research at the Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology in Dübendorf, Switzerland. Throughout his career, David has received numerous awards and honors, including a National Science Foundation CAREER Development Award, the Paul L. Busch Award for Innovation in Applied Water Quality Research, a Fulbright Senior Scholar Award, a Fulbright Alumni Initiative Award, the U.S. National Academy of Engineering Gilbreth Lecture Award, and the Athalie Richardson Irvine Clarke Prize for Excellence in Water Research. He has also been named an Elected Member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, as well as a Rydell Distinguished Visiting Professor at Gustavus Adolphus College and the Francqui Foundation Chair, Ghent University. In our interview, David shares more about his life and research.

Show Summary:ENGINEER SPOTLIGHT: Dr. Lonnie Johnson (b. 1949) is an American inventor and engineer whose curiosity started early. Growing up in Alabama, he loved taking things apart and even built a working robot in high school, winning a statewide science fair as the only Black student competing. Johnson went on to earn engineering degrees and worked for the U.S. Air Force and NASA, contributing to major missions like Galileo's exploration of Jupiter.While experimenting at home in the 1980s, he accidentally created a powerful water stream that sparked an idea. After refining the design, he invented the Super Soaker, one of the best‑selling toys of all time. Dr. Johnson used its success to fund research in advanced batteries and clean energy through his own company. With more than 100 patents, he continues to innovate and inspire young engineers today.Links from the Show:Related The STEM Space Podcast Episodes 178. Getting Kids to Think71. How to Create a Relevant STEM Challenge193. Are You Manufacturing Engineers?150. Screw the Standards! Or Should We? ft. Dr. PedersenVivify STEM Blog Posts Go On a Mission to Mars!7 Activities Featuring Women in STEM HistoryWhat to Teach in STEM: A K-8 Engineering Education FrameworkVivify STEM LessonsFREE! - Featured Engineer Lesson: Dr. Lonnie JohnsonDesign a Lunar or Mars ColonyOrbital MissionSTEM Innovators lessonsWho is an Engineer or Scientist? STEM Career Game & ActivitySTEM Innovators BINGO Game: 24 Game-Changing Thinkers in STEM!Astro-Rover Space Science & Engineering Design UnitOther STEM ResourcesDr. Lonnie Johnson Official WebsiteNASA Galileo MissionBook: Whoosh!: Lonnie Johnson's Super-Soaking Stream of Inventions by Chris BartonNASA ArtemisArticle: The 5 Traits of a Great EngineerIn STEM NewsBoiling Space Oceans: A study in Nature Astronomy suggests that some icy moons, including Enceladus, may have underground oceans that can begin to boil as their ice shells thin.Light Control: Scientists at NYU have developed a new way to control how crystals form by using light as a “remote control.”Thing IRL: Researchers led by roboticist Aude Billard at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology have developed a highly flexible robotic hand that can grasp multiple objects at once — and even detach to crawl around independently.Lunar Construction: Astroport Space Technologies and Venturi Astrolab have successfully tested a robotic lunar excavator designed to help build future infrastructure on the Moon.Retinal Implant: A miniature wireless retinal implant is offering renewed hope to individuals who have lost their sight due to advanced age-related macular degeneration.THE STEM SPACE SHOWNOTESTHE STEM SPACE FACEBOOK GROUPVIVIFY INSTAGRAMVIVIFY FACEBOOKVIVIFY XVIVIFY TIKTOKVIVIFY YOUTUBE

This is a city like no other. An invisible army of microbes live here, including bacteria, fungi, moulds and mites, and it's the one place you'd have hoped would be clean – your showerhead.这是一座与众不同的“城市”。这里住着一支看不见的微生物大军，包括细菌、真菌、霉菌和螨虫，而这地方正是你最希望保持干净的地方——你的淋浴喷头。If you unscrew it and take a peek inside, you might be surprised as to what you find – quite possibly a slimy dark biofilm. When you switch on the shower, it's not just steam and water that come out, but a blast of microbes as well.如果你把喷头旋开往里看，你可能会被里面的东西吓一跳——很可能是一层黏糊糊的暗色生物膜。当你打开淋浴时，不只是蒸汽和水喷出来，还有一阵微生物被一起喷出。Rob Dunn, an evolutionary biologist from North Carolina State University, calls showerheads extreme environments because they are either bone-dry or soaking wet. Once you've showered, the head remains warm and dries out undisturbed, creating the perfect ecosystem for bacteria to feed on dissolved nutrients from the water.北卡罗来纳州立大学的进化生物学家 Rob Dunn 称淋浴喷头是一种“极端环境”，因为它们要么完全干燥，要么完全湿透。洗完澡后，喷头保持温暖并在无人打扰的情况下慢慢变干，这为细菌提供了完美的生态系统，它们可以靠水中溶解的养分生存。It seems the majority of us don't need to worry about catching a bug from having a shower though. "Only showers contaminated with Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens pose a risk," says Frederik Hammes, a drinking water microbiologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology in Switzerland.不过，大多数人似乎不需要担心因为洗澡而感染细菌。瑞士联邦水科学与技术研究所的饮用水微生物学家 Frederik Hammes 表示：“只有被军团菌等机会性致病菌污染的淋浴喷头才会构成风险。”Meanwhile, one study in the US found that warmer areas, like Florida and Hawaii, with higher chlorine levels tend to have more pathogenic mycobacteria, which can lead to higher rates of a chronic lung infection called non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) lung disease.同时，美国的一项研究发现，在佛罗里达、夏威夷等温暖地区，水中氯含量较高的地方往往含有更多致病性分支杆菌，这可能导致一种名为“非结核分枝杆菌（NTM）肺病”的慢性肺部感染发病率更高。This is likely because the showerhead has less time to dry out in more tropical climates, so bacteria can grow more easily.这很可能是因为在热带气候下，喷头没有足够的时间完全干燥，所以细菌更容易繁殖。Even if becoming ill from your showerhead is highly unlikely, you'd probably still like to reduce the number of bacteria coming out when you're trying to get clean.即使因淋浴喷头而生病的可能性极低，你在洗澡时大概仍然希望减少从喷头喷出的细菌数量。One study found that the spray pattern of your shower makes a difference – mist mode spreads NTM cells a lot more than a massage or rain showerhead, for example.有研究发现，喷头的喷水模式也会影响细菌扩散。例如，雾状喷洒模式比按摩式或雨淋式喷头传播更多 NTM 细胞。Higher temperatures have also been shown to spread microbes more easily. The best way to keep bacteria away though is to regularly clean your showerhead by descaling it or soaking it in lemon juice.研究还表明，高温会更加促进微生物扩散。而减少细菌的最佳方法是定期清洁喷头，例如除水垢或浸泡在柠檬汁中。Since we can't fully eradicate the microbes in our showers, and we like to stay clean, we'll have to learn to coexist with them.既然我们无法彻底消灭淋浴中的微生物，而我们又喜欢保持清洁，那么我们只能学会与它们共存。

Several major online platforms have been taken offline following a Cloudflare outage.Spotify, X, Facebook and Canva were all hit when the network broke down in what the company called an “internal service degradation”.A magnetic micro robot that can travel through tiny blood vessels to deliver medication right where it's needed has been developed by scientists in Switzerland.We speak to professor of Robotics and Intelligence Systems at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich Brad Nelson about the new technology, and how it could impact treatment for stroke and brain tumour patients.Also in this episode: Google CEO Sundar Pichai says no company "including us” would be immune if the AI bubble burstsBrit ordered to repay £4m million in cryptocurrency after hacking celebrity social media accountsCambridge researchers warn AI could become a “cognitive poison” in schools without a radical rethink of how education is delivered and assessedUK volcanic rocks coils turn CO2 into stone locking away decades of industrial emissionsIBM and UFC debut an AI system that gives real-time stats to commentatorsThis episode's thumbnail image shows how small the latest ETH micro robot is. Credits: Luca Donati / lad.studio Zürich Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of ACM ByteCast, Bruke Kifle hosts 2024 ACM Prize in Computing recipient Torsten Hoefler, a Professor of Computer Science at ETH Zurich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), where he serves as Director of the Scalable Parallel Computing Laboratory. He is also the Chief Architect for AI and Machine Learning at the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS). His honors include the Max Planck-Humboldt Medal, an award for outstanding mid-career scientists; the IEEE CS Sidney Fernbach Award, which recognizes outstanding contributions in the application of high-performance computers; and the ACM Gordon Bell Prize, which recognizes outstanding achievement in high-performance computing. He is a member of the European Academy of Sciences (Academia Europaea), a Fellow of IEEE, and a Fellow of ACM. In the interview, Torsten reminisces on early interest with multiple computers to solve problems faster and on building large cluster systems in graduate school that were later turned into supercomputers. He also delves into high-performance computing (HPC) and its central role in simulation and modeling across all modern sciences. Bruke and Torsten cover the various requirements that power HPC, the intersection of HPC and recent innovations in AI, and his key contributions in popularizing 3D parallelism for training AI models. Torsten highlights challenges, such as AI's propensity to cheat, as well as the promise of turning reasoning models into scientific collaborators. He also offers advice to young researchers on balancing academic learning with industry exposure. We want to hear from you!

⚡️Female-specific health protocols, groundbreaking therapies, & the secrets to thriving in your prime years.

⚡️Female-specific health protocols, groundbreaking therapies, & the secrets to thriving in your prime years.

Effy Vayena, Professor of Bioethics, Associate Vice President, Digital Transformation & Governance, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), Member of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, and Constantine Dovrolis, Professor and Director, Center for Computational Science and Technology, The Cyprus Institute & Professor of Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA, discuss about Ethics in Algorithms: Is an AI Conduct Manual warranted?

What is Fusarium graminearum and why were scientists allegedly smuggling it into the US? Also, Alpine Glacier collapse and an HIV capitulation.The FBI has accused two Chinese scientists of trying to smuggle a dangerous crop fungus into the US, calling it a potential agro-terrorist threat. But the fungus has long been widespread across US farms, and elsewhere, and is treatable. So what's going on? Frédéric Suffert, Senior researcher in plant disease epidemiology at France's National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment, gives us some insight.Last week, a glacier above the swiss village of Blatten collapsed and up to 12 million tonnes of ice and rock buried the idyllic, yet thankfully all-but evacuated, hamlet below. Daniel Farinotti of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology explains how it was monitored more than any such event before, and maybe, despite the tragedy, could help inform the science of such events in a warming world.Amongst the latest cuts to scientific funding by the US government, two consortia working at advanced stages of a potential HIV vaccine have been told their funding will not continue. Dennis Burton of Scripps Research describes finding out.The recipient of the Royal Society Faraday Prize 2024 gave his prize lecture last week. Titled Science Under Threat: The Politics of Institutionalised Disinformation, Salim Abdul Karim's lecture is available on YouTube. Afterwards, he was kindly able to have a chat with Science in Action about his theme. Presenter: Roland Pease Producer: Alex Mansfield Production co-ordinator: Jasmine Cerys George(Photo: A hand holding an ear of wheat. Credit: Heather Schlitz/Reuters)

In this episode of the Events Demystified Podcast⁠, host Anca Platon Trifan, CMP, WMEP⁠ sits down with Pierre Metrailler, CEO of SpotMe and Onomi, to discuss the current landscape and future of pharma event technology. They talk about the inefficiencies in current event methodologies, the integration of AI and automation, and the importance of education and engagement in medical meetings. Pierre also shares his personal journey and extensive experience in transforming pharma customer engagement through innovative technology solutions. Key takeaways include the importance of moving beyond traditional models to more interactive and engaging formats, the crucial role of compliance, and the potential of AI to reshape the industry. Don't miss this essential conversation for anyone involved in the pharma or life sciences space.GUEST BIOPierre Metrailler is an event technology pioneer with over 20 years of experience. After joining SpotMe in 2001, he expanded the company's vision from hardware-based networking devices to comprehensive event engagement solutions. He led the company's transformation to a SaaS platform in 2011, with a strong focus on enterprise customers. As CEO since 2016, Pierre has pursued a CRM-first strategy and addressed critical industries' unmet needs, launching Onomi, a customer engagement platform for life sciences. He holds degrees from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne and INSEAD.

⚡️Learn how to reverse signs of ageing by unlocking the secrets of mitochondrial health

⚡️Learn how to reverse signs of ageing by unlocking the secrets of mitochondrial health

Hilal Lashuel and Dave Reay join Michelle Kimple to talk about faculty mental health and why it is often overlooked.A heart attack in 2016 forced Lashuel, a neurogenerative diseases researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, to question success in science and how it is defined.The pressure to be an excellent researcher, manager, accountant and mentor can exact a heavy mental toll, he says.Since his heart attack Lashuel has taken steps to reduce his workload and spend more time with his family, but also to lobby for systemic change in academia to better support faculty colleagues who are struggling.Climate scientist Dave Reay describes the mental health problems he experienced as a PhD student and the suicidal thoughts it triggered.Now, as a faculty member at the University of Edinburgh, UK, he is protective of family time, talks openly about the struggles he faced, and champions kindness at work and in his pastoral role as a supervisor.Finally, Michelle Kimple, an endocrinology researcher at the University of Wisconsin Madison, describes how junior colleagues react to her openness about her bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).This episode is the third in an eight-part series about mental health and wellbeing in academia. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week we welcome Chris Laszcz-Davis - OHTA, Chelsea Earhart – BGC, Larry Sloan – AIHA and Dr. Albert Tien -WHWB-US to talk about global worker health and the new Global Pathway for CIH Accreditation. This week we focus on organizations involved in global worker safety and their new collaboration for educating and mentoring global EH&S professionals. We discuss how someone with no specific education, such as a degree in engineering, can become a CIH through the program. It starts with the training from OHTA; work experience with WHWB-US in places that are in need of help with health and safety; proceeds to membership in AIHA, along with participation in committees, etc.; and concludes with an application and a test to obtain a CIH accreditation. Chris Laszcz-Davis, MS, CIH, FAIHA, FAIC is the Founder & President of The Environmental Quality Organization (EQO) LLC, She has over forty (40) years of executive management including as a former Corporate Vice-President, Environmental Affairs for Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation. Prior to industry, Chris worked for the US Department of Energy (DOE) in both DC and the west coast as a regional EH&S Manager and at the University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Chris is presently Co-Chair of the global Occupational Hygiene Training Association (OHTA). Chelsea Earhart, MBA, CAE, ICE-CCP is the Executive Director of The Board for Global EHS Credentialing (BGC®). Over the past 22 years, Chelsea Earhart has served as the certification / accreditation departments of associations representing diverse professions and industries. She has also helped many certification and licensure organizations create and implement exams and examination programs. Lawrence Sloan serves as CEO of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Before this, he served as CEO at SOCMA, a trade association representing the US specialty chemical industry. He began his career as a chemical engineer at Air Products. Mr. Sloan earned a BS in chemical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania and an MBA from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. Dr. Albert Tien is the Managing Partner for 2TSustainAbility. He is also President and one of the founding members of Workplace Health Without Borders (US). Dr. Tien holds a PhD Biotechnology from Swiss Federal Institute of Technology; he also was a Postdoctoral Fellow at Oakridge Institute for Science and Engineering. His MS Life Sciences is from New Mexico Highlands University and his undergraduate work was at Tulane University in Biological Chemistry.

Queering Premodern Asia is a limited series and the 5th season of the Nuances podcast about Our Asian Stories. Each episode explores different aspects of sexual diversity in premodern Asia with commentary from guest scholars. Episodes are divided into a narrative portion, and a discussion with a guest co-host from the queer Asian community. Introduction & content warnings China – Literacy as a barrier (Prof. Wu) China – Li Yu's "The Fragrant Companion" (read by Karen) China – Lesbian consort in the Ming dynasty (Prof. Wu) China – Wu Zao China – Golden Orchid Societies Korea – Deposed Crown Princess Sun Bin Japan – Lesbian sex toys Iran – The cross-dressed woman (Niloofar Rasooli) Discussion with Karen References - in the shownotes on nuancespod.com Episode transcript: COMING SOON Guest scholar:  Niloofar Rasooli, doctoral fellow at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Wu CunCun, ⁠professor of Chinese literature at the University of Hong Kong⁠. Guest co-host bio: Karen Zheng is a first-generation, queer, Chinese-American poet. Her poetry has been featured in Sine Theta Magazine, Honey Literary, Benningham Review, Harbor Review and elsewhere. She has received fellowships from the Breadloaf Writers' Conference, Roots. Wounds. Words, Chicago Storystudio, and The Poetry Lab. She has been a finalist for Harbor Review's Washburn Chapbook Prize. In her free time, she hosts the Mx. Asian American podcast and Tucked in Bed podcast. Find out more about her on her website and listen to Mx. Asian American here and here.  You can also follow us on all social media: @nuancespod --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nuancespod/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nuancespod/support

Heute finden viele ihren Traum-Partner mit Hilfe von künstlicher Intelligenz. Kann KI oder diese Technologie auch in der Bauindustrie den besten Match finden? An der Automatisierung für die Wiederverwendung von Baumaterialien arbeitet Dr. Catherine de Wolf. Assistenzprofessorin für "Circular Engineering for Architecture" an der ETH Zürich. Wir sprechen mit Catherine wie das am realen Beispiel des Centre Pompidou in Paris gelungen ist und warum die Verbindung zwischen Wissenschaft und Industrie der Schlüssel für eine zirkuläre gebaute Umwelt ist. Wenn euch diese oder andere Folgen gefallen, dann sagt es bitte weiter. Ihr könnt uns auch unterstützen, indem ihr ein Patreon werdet. Mit einem Betrag eurer Wahl. Hier ist der link zu unserer Patreon-Seite. patreon.com/kap_podcast Website: www.catherinedewolf.com Instagram: @catherinedewolf KAP Podcast website: www.kapture.ch @kap_kapture As Assistant Professor of Circular Engineering for Architecture at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich), Prof. Catherine De Wolf is conducting research on digital innovation towards a circular built environment. She is the director of the Chair of Circular Engineering for Architecture (CEA). The CEA lab is an interdisciplinary team of civil engineers, architects, urbanists, and computer scientists who collaborate towards automating the reuse of building materials. A key element in Catherine's work is ensuring a continuous link between academia and industry. Therefore, she works with real-​world examples such as the Centre Pompidou in Paris.

There's a lot of buzz around A.I. and what the future holds... but what about its potential to change today's problems? All of us deal with traffic in our cars and there are A.I. systems already in place around the World helping to solve this issue. One such company is Switzerland based Parquery. Johnny speaks with CEO & Co-Founder Andrea Fossati to find out how they're able to help better control the flow of traffic both at intersections and in parking management. Then Johnny and Derek reflect on the good and bad traffic systems they've encountered around the world and how they'd execute Parquery's technology to optimize profitability. About Andrea Fossati: Andrea Fossati co-founded Parquery in 2014 as a spin-off from ETHZ (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Zurich) and is currently its CEO. Parquery launched the first video-based Smart Parking Project in 2015 and is currently running 100+ Smart Parking and Mobility projects worldwide. Andrea Fossati received a Master of Science in Computer Engineering from Politecnico di Milano in 2005 and a Master of Science from the University of Illinois in Chicago in 2006. He completed his PhD at the Computer Vision Laboratory (CVLab) at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne (EPFL). Since 2010, he has been working as a postdoctoral scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Zurich (ETHZ), where he has conducted research in various computer vision sectors and co-edited the book "Consumer Depth Cameras for Computer Vision", which was published by Springer in 2012. Discussed:  Parquery Official Site Parquery's A.I. Traffic Light Demo Video Where we are: Johnny FD – Pattaya, Thailand / IG @johnnyfdj Sam Marks - Bangkok, Thailand / IG @sammarks12 Derek – Los Angeles, US / IG @DerekRadio Sponsor: ILAB PatreonJoin the Invest Like a Boss Patreon now and get tons of bonus content, including additional episodes, full quarterly updates including account screenshots and more for as low as $5/month at Patreon.com/InvestLikeaBoss Time Stamp: 00:20 - Derek/Johnny Intro 05:03 - Interview with Andrea Begins 20:39 - Obstacles to Implementing A.I. Cameras 26:45 - Was this technology around before the A.I. hype? 31:46 - Derek/Johnny Recap What Traffic Problems They've Seen If you enjoyed this episode, do us a favor and share it! If you haven't already, please take a minute to leave us a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. Read our disclaimer here.

Bigyan Babu Regmi is a distinguished economist and PhD researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. He delves into the complexities of global economic conditions and sheds light on inflation dynamics and addresses the critical issue of brain drain in Nepal. He offers valuable perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing developing economies.

We've had so many guests-- and of such a high caliber, it must be said-- that it's taken us this long to get to our first author episode of season 3! We take a look at Cormac McCarthy's style before shamelessly pillaging it for our stories. If you've never read McCarthy, buckle up. His work is depressing and glorious (unless you ask Spud, who... did not enjoy the experience of reading him. More on that within!). Stories this evening begin around the 19:20 mark and feature a detective, puzzled by shrouds; a prophet seeking sanctuary; a story about violence; and a tale of an abbey.  From Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable:  Turin Shroud, The. The shroud of twill linen kept in Turin Cathedral and claimed to be the one in which the body of Christ was wrapped after the crucifixion. The pope agreed to RADIOCARBON DATING in 1987, and in 1988 the archbishop of Turin appointed the Oxford Research Laboratory for Archaeology, the Department of Physics of Arizona University and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Zurich to date the shroud, pieces of which -101 were gi were given to these institutes in April 1988. The results were announced on 13 October and the cloth was dated between 1260 and 1390. There is no firm historical evidence that it was known before the 14th century. Although not accepted by all, the general conclusion is that the shroud is a medieval fake. Check out our website for a featured story from this week's episode, and be sure to follow us on Instagram (if that's your sort of thing). Please do send us an email with your story if you write along, which we hope you will do. Episodes of Radio FreeWrite are protected by a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license. All Stories remain the property of their respective authors.

The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich's Robert Reiner was one of the key figures to initiate the Cybathlon in 2016. The Cybathlon is a unique event in the development of every- day assistive devices in which people living with various disabilities compete while using the latest developments. There are six disciplines from advanced wheelchairs to FES cycling. Florian Haufe, a PhD candidate in Dr. Reiner's lab, fills us in a little more about this premiere event and what the expect in the 2020 competition. Takeaways: 1. Showcase of technology for people with disabilities in the spirit of competitive sport. 2. Competitive challenges center around tasks for people with physical impairments in every-day life and the use of assistive technology. [0:00] Ladan introduces the episode and joins the conversation with Florian Haufe and Jen French at RehabWeek 2019. [1:16] Haufe tells about how he became involved in the Cybathlon and what the event is about. [2:09} Discussion of the different competitive disciplines at the event and the tasks in the competition highlighted the exoskeleton discipline. [3:31] Haufe explains the scoring technique for the disciplines. [3:51] Haufe further describes the initial event that took place in Zurich in 2016 with competitors from academia and industry. There were 6 disciplines and over 5000 attendees. [5:40] What makes up the team is the pilot or end user/athlete along with a technical team that can range from students to licensed engineers to hobbyists. [7:10] Haufe describes the overall goal of the event. Giving people with impairments a platform for the use of assistive devices in the spirit of competition, allow technology developers to show what their latest inventions can do and increase public awareness are the goals of the event. [9:24} Here are the details about the 2020 event and how to get involved. Go to https://cybathlon.ethz.ch/cybathlon-2020.html

Welcome the Driven Female Entrepreneurs Podcast! The weekly show that helps you dream bigger and achieve more in your business, by learning what works from successful female entrepreneurs.   In this episode In this episode of the Driven Female Entrepreneur Podcast, I speak with Helena Pleinert, Managing Partner & CEO of Pleinert & Partner. Helena's fascination with organisational structures and their impact on teams and groups led her to pursue a career in business, despite initial advice to study physics. Excelling in her physics engineering studies, she obtained a Ph.D. from the prestigious Swiss Institute of Technology.  However, her passion for organisational dynamics persisted, drawing her towards projects related to organisation design during her tenure as a quantitative analyst in investment management. This presented a challenge as she balanced her physics background with her deep interest in organisational theory. Recognizing her talent and passion for organisation design, Helena founded Pleinert and Partner, a pioneering company focused on exploring new organisation models and remote work. For 17 years, the company has led the way in innovative organisational practices, implementing remote work environments ahead of the mainstream trend. Helena's expertise has enabled numerous European companies to transform their structures and embrace new work approaches. Don't miss this episode as we explore Helena's journey in organisational design and development. From her unconventional path to her transformative work with Pleinert and Partner. Join us to uncover the impact of her experiences and be inspired by her journey of turning passion into a thriving business. “All remote communication necessitates a mindset where presence is a choice, not bound by physical location, but inclusive behaviour and perception.” - Helena Pleinert   Highlights In this value-packed episode you'll learn: What independence means to an entrepreneur. What exactly is the Metaverse? Virtual Reality vs Augmented Reality. How industries are differentiating their business with immersive technologies like VR and XR. The importance of immersive technologies like VR in training and coaching for effective skill development and growth.   About Helena Helena is a Physics Engineer with a PhD from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and a life-long fan of organisational design and of organisational and technological innovation. She is the Founder of Pleinert & Partner, a strategic people management consultancy based online and operating internationally. The focus of her current work is on how to enable clients, companies as well as individuals to utilise the emerging immersive communication and collaboration technologies, such as VR and AR, to their advantage in their work with team members and clients.    Connect with Helena Website                Linkedin                Facebook                                              Access your Free Training (as mentioned in the show) The number one question I'm asked is: How can I get more clients?  To help you market your business and attract more of your ideal clients, don't miss this masterclass: Access your Free Training and Attract your Next Dream Client Here                                      Join the Driven Female Entrepreneur Community Come and join like-minded women in the FREE online community for Driven Female Entrepreneurs.  You can expect many more tips, tools and insights to support you as you build and grow your business to 6 figures and beyond!   > The Driven Female Entrepreneurs Club   About Your Host, Melitta Campbell Since 1997, Melitta has been using her ability to spot gaps between a company's goals and its strategy and positioning to help businesses become profitable and achieve growth - in as little as three months. By combining the insights gained from working directly with senior leaders for more than 20 years, her unique blend of art-school and business-school training, and her restless curiosity, Melitta has helped her clients identify new opportunities and develop creative solutions that add value in profitable and purposeful ways, that are straight-forward to implement and result in a clear competitive edge. After witnessing too many talented and passionate women fall short of their vision to make a profit and a difference, more recently, Melitta has brought her business, leadership and marketing expertise together with her personal experiences, to become a trusted advisor and coach for female-led businesses. Book your Free Business Clarity Call: www.melittacampbell.com

Her Excellency Elisabeth von Capeller is the ambassador of Switzerland to Nepal. She has a master's degree in agricultural engineering from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. She was appointed as the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Switzerland to Nepal in Feb 2018.

Dr. Diana Aga is the Henry M. Woodburn Chair and a State University of New York (SUNY) Distinguished Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University at Buffalo. She also serves as the Director of RENEW (Research and Education in eNergy, Environment and Water) Institute at the University at Buffalo. Diana is an environmental chemist. She studies sustainable agriculture and pollutants such as the “forever chemicals” (Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS)) that we frequently encounter in our everyday lives. When it's warm outside, Diana enjoys biking and hiking, and when it's cold she spends more time indoors watching movies. Cooking is another one of Diana's hobbies, and she is particularly fond of making Filipino food, creatively reusing leftovers, and recreating restaurant favorites at home. Diana received a B.S. degree in agricultural chemistry from the University of the Philippines, Los Baños and her PhD in analytical chemistry from the University of Kansas. Afterwards, she conducted postdoctoral research at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology. Diana worked on the faculty at the University of Nebraska at Kearney and then in industry at Bayer before joining the faculty at the University at Buffalo. She has received numerous awards for her research, teaching, and mentoring, including the SUNY Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Scholarship and Creative Activities, the Koh Lectureship Award in Science from the Philippine-American Academy of Science and Engineering, the Jacob F. Schoellkopf Medal of the Western New York Chapter of the American Chemical Society (ACS), a National Science Foundation CAREER Award, the Menzie Environmental Education Award from The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and the Excellence in Graduate Student Mentoring Award from the University at Buffalo. Diana has also been named a Fulbright Fellow, an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Research Fellow, an ACS Fellow, and an ACS AGRO Fellow. In this interview, Diana shares more about her life and science.

In this episode: Lauren Hawker Zafer is joined by Ayisha Piotti Who Can Benefit From This Conversation?Overall, when thinking about the regulation of AI technologies or the use of AI, we should be aiming to strike a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring that the technology is used in a way that aligns with ethical principles and societal values. This episode is therefore a key listen that invites us to think about how AI technology has the potential to significantly impact society. It provides an opportunity for us to think about the considerations that need to be made from a regulatory perspective - to ensure that ethical questions are addressed, and we can start to confirm that AI is used in a fair and transparent way. Who is Ayisha Piotti?Ayisha Piotti is the Managing Partner at the Swiss-based firm RegHorizon. She is also the Director of AI Policy at the Center for Law and Economics of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - the ETH Zurich. Ayisha and her colleagues at the Center for Law & Economics at the ETH  Zurich are the visionaries behind the largest Global AI Policy Summit in Switzerland. In 2022, the summit was attended by 82 countries spanning 6 continents and is a multi-stakeholder event where representatives from academia, businesses, NGOs, citizens and policy makers from all over the world come together to discuss the implications of AI on society and policy, and build AI Policy together, for a better world. Visit the RegHorizon website to find out more about the AI Policy Summit and connect with the team via email through connect@reghorizon.com REDEFINING AI is powered by The Squirro Academy - learn.squirro.com. Try our free courses on AI, ML, NLP and Cognitive Search at the Squirro Academy and find out more about Squirro here.

Spotlight Five is a snippet from our upcoming episode: Ayisha Piotti - AI Policy - How to Move The Needle Forward? Listen to the full episode, as soon as it comes out by subscribing to Redefining AI. Who is Ayisha Piotti?Ayisha Piotti is the Managing Partner at the Swiss-based firm RegHorizon. She is also the Director of AI Policy at the Center for Law and Economics of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology - the ETH Zurich. Ayisha and her colleagues at the Center for Law & Economics at the ETH  Zurich are the visionaries behind the largest Global AI Policy Summit in Switzerland. In 2022, the summit was attended by 82 countries spanning 6 continents and is a multi-stakeholder event where representatives from academia, businesses, NGOs, citizens and policy makers from all over the world come together to discuss the implications of AI on society and policy, and build AI Policy together, for a better world. This episode is an important and key listen that invites us to think about how AI technology has the potential to significantly impact society. It provides an opportunity for us to think about the considerations that need to be made from a regulatory perspective - to ensure that ethical questions are addressed, and we can start to confirm that AI is used in a fair and transparent way. Visit the RegHorizon website to find out more about the AI Policy Summit and connect with the team via email through connect@reghorizon.com

On episode 411 of The Nurse Keith Show nursing and healthcare career podcast, Keith interviews French biomedical engineer and podcaster Mathieu Chaffard, regarding Mathieu's podcast — Impulse: Meeting Healthcare Pioneers — and his perspective on the European zeitgeist when it comes to healthcare innovation and emerging technologies in the 21st century. Mathieu is a French biomedical engineer, trained at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. Passionate about medical technology applied to cardiac indications, he has occupied different technical roles in Europe, including Development Engineer for B. Braun in Berlin and Field Specialist for Abbott in Paris, before moving to project management in the digital health space for Roche Diagnostics in Zürich. Wishing to share his passion for medical progress on a broad scale and driven by an ongoing desire to learn more about its aspects, he has decided to create his own show where he talks with entrepreneurs, researchers and physicians about their personal journey and the innovative technologies they are developing to transform patients' lives. Connect with Mathieu: Impulse: Meeting Healthcare Pioneers podcast LinkedIn Instagram Twitter YouTube ----------- Did you know that you can now earn CEUs from listening to podcasts? That's right — over at RNegade.pro, they're building a library of nursing podcasts offering continuing education credits, including episodes of The Nurse Keith Show! So just head over to RNegade.pro, log into the portal, select Nurse Keith (or any other Content Creator) from the Content Creator dropdown, and get CEs for any content on the platform! Nurse Keith is a holistic career coach for nurses, professional podcaster, published author, award-winning blogger, inspiring keynote speaker, and successful nurse entrepreneur. Connect with Nurse Keith at NurseKeith.com, and on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Nurse Keith lives in beautiful Santa Fe, New Mexico with his lovely fiancée, Shada McKenzie, a highly gifted traditional astrologer and reader of the tarot. You can find Shada at The Circle and the Dot. The Nurse Keith Show is a proud member of The Health Podcast Network, one of the largest and fastest-growing collections of authoritative, high-quality podcasts taking on the tough topics in health and care with empathy, expertise, and a commitment to excellence. The podcast is adroitly produced by Rob Johnston of 520R Podcasting, and Mark Capispisan is our stalwart social media manager and newsletter wrangler.

In 2021, a group of Scholars at Oxford University published a paper that made big waves in the energy world. It argued that key clean energy technologies — wind, solar, batteries, and electrolyzers — are on learning curves which guarantee that, if they are deployed at the scale required to reach zero carbon, they will get extremely cheap.This is, as they say, big if true. In September, I had one of the lead authors, Doyne Farmer, on Volts to discuss the paper in-depth. He made a convincing case for the paper's thesis, but when I asked him why these technologies were on learning curves and others weren't, he could only speculate.That's the question that's been on my mind ever since. Why are some clean-energy technologies getting rapidly cheaper while others aren't? What is it about particular technologies that make them amenable to learning curves?I cast that question to the academic gods, and lo, they returned with a paper, and that paper is what we're here to discuss today. It's called “Accelerating Low-Carbon Innovation,” by Abhishek Malhotra of the School of Public Policy at the Indian Institute of Technology in New Delhi, India, and Tobias Schmidt of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland.It sets out to chart technologies against two basic axes: design complexity and need for customization. That creates a schema that can help illuminate why some technologies developed quicker than others.I don't want to say much more than that, since I have my Malhotra and Schmidt here with me to help explain. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures."Actually, awareness doesn't help. We are on the campaign to produce a desire for that transformation. Information is useless unless it's empowering. And of course, it has to be factual. If it's not factual, then it's going to be found out, and it also has to be relevant because otherwise, it's irrelevant. But if it's just relevant, it actually may just be counterproductive because if people see it as relevant but not empowering, they will use their brain to fight it. So that's why I think awareness campaigns don't work. We can only work on motivation, helping people to find a greater desire to get there, to say, yeah, that's what I want. A sense of agency that they say I can do something about it. Also, a sense of curiosity because we really don't know how to get there eventually.So, it takes a bit more than just awareness and that's what we learned a bit painfully, obviously, over the last 30 years or painfully because in the beginning we just thought, Oh, why don't people just measure how many planets we have compared to how many we use? And once they see the number, it would be very obvious to them. So we were the first to start to - and still are I think - the main accounting approach to compare directly how big human activities are compared to what the planet can renew.”www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"Actually, awareness doesn't help. We are on the campaign to produce a desire for that transformation. Information is useless unless it's empowering. And of course, it has to be factual. If it's not factual, then it's going to be found out, and it also has to be relevant because otherwise, it's irrelevant. But if it's just relevant, it actually may just be counterproductive because if people see it as relevant but not empowering, they will use their brain to fight it. So that's why I think awareness campaigns don't work. We can only work on motivation, helping people to find a greater desire to get there, to say, yeah, that's what I want. A sense of agency that they say I can do something about it. Also, a sense of curiosity because we really don't know how to get there eventually.So, it takes a bit more than just awareness and that's what we learned a bit painfully, obviously, over the last 30 years or painfully because in the beginning we just thought, Oh, why don't people just measure how many planets we have compared to how many we use? And once they see the number, it would be very obvious to them. So we were the first to start to - and still are I think - the main accounting approach to compare directly how big human activities are compared to what the planet can renew.”Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"Actually, awareness doesn't help. We are on the campaign to produce a desire for that transformation. Information is useless unless it's empowering. And of course, it has to be factual. If it's not factual, then it's going to be found out, and it also has to be relevant because otherwise, it's irrelevant. But if it's just relevant, it actually may just be counterproductive because if people see it as relevant but not empowering, they will use their brain to fight it. So that's why I think awareness campaigns don't work. We can only work on motivation, helping people to find a greater desire to get there, to say, yeah, that's what I want. A sense of agency that they say I can do something about it. Also, a sense of curiosity because we really don't know how to get there eventually.So, it takes a bit more than just awareness and that's what we learned a bit painfully, obviously, over the last 30 years or painfully because in the beginning we just thought, Oh, why don't people just measure how many planets we have compared to how many we use? And once they see the number, it would be very obvious to them. So we were the first to start to - and still are I think - the main accounting approach to compare directly how big human activities are compared to what the planet can renew.”Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures."Actually, awareness doesn't help. We are on the campaign to produce a desire for that transformation. Information is useless unless it's empowering. And of course, it has to be factual. If it's not factual, then it's going to be found out, and it also has to be relevant because otherwise, it's irrelevant. But if it's just relevant, it actually may just be counterproductive because if people see it as relevant but not empowering, they will use their brain to fight it. So that's why I think awareness campaigns don't work. We can only work on motivation, helping people to find a greater desire to get there, to say, yeah, that's what I want. A sense of agency that they say I can do something about it. Also, a sense of curiosity because we really don't know how to get there eventually.So, it takes a bit more than just awareness and that's what we learned a bit painfully, obviously, over the last 30 years or painfully because in the beginning we just thought, Oh, why don't people just measure how many planets we have compared to how many we use? And once they see the number, it would be very obvious to them. So we were the first to start to - and still are I think - the main accounting approach to compare directly how big human activities are compared to what the planet can renew.”www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"So by looking at the effect of Earth Overshoot, which we think is the second largest risk for humanity, it actually becomes easier to address because all things come together, and you start to see the self-interest to act. Because if you're in a world of overshoot, and you're not able to be resource-secured, really it's going to hurt you. So it's not just being nice to the rest of the world. I mean, that too, but primarily, it also becomes really essential. If you're not ready for that world, it's going to be very difficult for you. So by bringing this story out, make it resonant, people then also come to us, companies approach us and say, “Let's work with each other.” And it may not be that important how big they are, because we are impressed by stories to a large extent, so the more we can show examples where people build their own success by thinking about the world from that perspective, that's probably convincing others in some ways. So it's very hard to work effectively with institutions who deeply believe that the information is inconvenient because they come up with excuses and you try to overcome the excuses. And by the time you've overcome these excuses, they have invented seven other excuses. Like the hydra, chop off the head, and seven more heads grow. So I think that's really the big tragedy we find. And I think it actually would be so simple if we had a better narrative. We're so in love with the narrative of pointing fingers that we don't see the obvious.So it's like we are on a boat, and we see a big storm approach. And we realize our boat is not too seaworthy. And then the first thing we do is we go to an international Boat Owners Conference to find out who needs to fix their boat first. Doesn't make that much sense to me, you know?And then we complexify the story rather than saying, 'Actually I am exposed.' And so when you say, 'Oh, the poor Maldives,' we take ourselves out of the game. 'It's about these others'. It's actually about each one of us in some ways.”Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures."So by looking at the effect of Earth Overshoot, which we think is the second largest risk for humanity, it actually becomes easier to address because all things come together, and you start to see the self-interest to act. Because if you're in a world of overshoot, and you're not able to be resource-secured, really it's going to hurt you. So it's not just being nice to the rest of the world. I mean, that too, but primarily, it also becomes really essential. If you're not ready for that world, it's going to be very difficult for you. So by bringing this story out, make it resonant, people then also come to us, companies approach us and say, “Let's work with each other.” And it may not be that important how big they are, because we are impressed by stories to a large extent, so the more we can show examples where people build their own success by thinking about the world from that perspective, that's probably convincing others in some ways. So it's very hard to work effectively with institutions who deeply believe that the information is inconvenient because they come up with excuses and you try to overcome the excuses. And by the time you've overcome these excuses, they have invented seven other excuses. Like the hydra, chop off the head, and seven more heads grow. So I think that's really the big tragedy we find. And I think it actually would be so simple if we had a better narrative. We're so in love with the narrative of pointing fingers that we don't see the obvious.So it's like we are on a boat, and we see a big storm approach. And we realize our boat is not too seaworthy. And then the first thing we do is we go to an international Boat Owners Conference to find out who needs to fix their boat first. Doesn't make that much sense to me, you know?And then we complexify the story rather than saying, 'Actually I am exposed.' And so when you say, 'Oh, the poor Maldives,' we take ourselves out of the game. 'It's about these others'. It's actually about each one of us in some ways.”www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures."As a minimal condition to be able to persist, we cannot use forever more than what we get back from nature, what nature can renew. It's a very mechanical view, but we are not even fulfilling this mechanical, bottom-line requirement. Ecologists will tell you that to maintain biodiversity because wild species are in competition for that regeneration, maybe it's not a good idea to use the entire capacity of the planet.So shooting for one planet just means you would be totally dominant, and leave no space for other species. Ecologists say to maintain 85% of preindustrial biodiversity, it would take about at least half the planet left on its own. That would mean getting to half-planet. And now we use at least 1.75. I say at least because our assessments with about 15,000 data points per country in year are based on UN statistics, and their demand side is probably an underestimate because not all demands are included. And also on the supply side or the regeneration side, the UN is very production oriented, so it's the FAO numbers, for example, look at agricultural production, and the depletion side or the destruction side is not factored in adequately."www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"As a minimal condition to be able to persist, we cannot use forever more than what we get back from nature, what nature can renew. It's a very mechanical view, but we are not even fulfilling this mechanical, bottom-line requirement. Ecologists will tell you that to maintain biodiversity because wild species are in competition for that regeneration, maybe it's not a good idea to use the entire capacity of the planet.So shooting for one planet just means you would be totally dominant, and leave no space for other species. Ecologists say to maintain 85% of preindustrial biodiversity, it would take about at least half the planet left on its own. That would mean getting to half-planet. And now we use at least 1.75. I say at least because our assessments with about 15,000 data points per country in year are based on UN statistics, and their demand side is probably an underestimate because not all demands are included. And also on the supply side or the regeneration side, the UN is very production oriented, so it's the FAO numbers, for example, look at agricultural production, and the depletion side or the destruction side is not factored in adequately."Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures."In my way of talking, I try to move away from the word responsibility because people don't come to me and say, 'Thank you so much for giving me responsibility,' rather they avoid me at parties and so, how do we talk about it? So I like more the metaphor of brushing your teeth. Brushing your teeth is not so much an imposition. You must brush your teeth, otherwise, you're a really bad person, you know? No, you just brush your teeth because you want to have healthy teeth. It's not a capitalist plot either. They say, Oh, you're such a capitalist, protecting the capital in your jaw. No, we want to have healthy teeth. So it is just protecting your teeth is necessary. Make an effort today to protect the health of your tooth tomorrow. And that's kind of a similar approach. So the same principles that apply to a country or a city also apply to an individual. I mean, an individual could be an investor or can have a pension fund. And so the question is my investment going to be more valued in the future or not? Probably it's more likely to be valuable if it is aligned with what the future will look like. Or you're making decisions about where to live. Like if you make yourself dependent on cars, then every time gasoline prices go up, then you get more exposed.If you can live with fewer resources, then you feel more safe. So we are talking more about resource security rather than reducing your demand, which is the same thing, but it comes with a twist. Big shifts are needed if you want to be able to operate in the future. So it is very serious. I think in the end, only things we want to do will happen. So I think the best thing to get on that track is to, in our own speech, ban the word should because as soon as we say should, we indicate it's not going to happen, and we lose agency.”www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"In my way of talking, I try to move away from the word responsibility because people don't come to me and say, 'Thank you so much for giving me responsibility,' rather they avoid me at parties and so, how do we talk about it? So I like more the metaphor of brushing your teeth. Brushing your teeth is not so much an imposition. You must brush your teeth, otherwise, you're a really bad person, you know? No, you just brush your teeth because you want to have healthy teeth. It's not a capitalist plot either. They say, Oh, you're such a capitalist, protecting the capital in your jaw. No, we want to have healthy teeth. So it is just protecting your teeth is necessary. Make an effort today to protect the health of your tooth tomorrow. And that's kind of a similar approach. So the same principles that apply to a country or a city also apply to an individual. I mean, an individual could be an investor or can have a pension fund. And so the question is my investment going to be more valued in the future or not? Probably it's more likely to be valuable if it is aligned with what the future will look like. Or you're making decisions about where to live. Like if you make yourself dependent on cars, then every time gasoline prices go up, then you get more exposed.If you can live with fewer resources, then you feel more safe. So we are talking more about resource security rather than reducing your demand, which is the same thing, but it comes with a twist. Big shifts are needed if you want to be able to operate in the future. So it is very serious. I think in the end, only things we want to do will happen. So I think the best thing to get on that track is to, in our own speech, ban the word should because as soon as we say should, we indicate it's not going to happen, and we lose agency.”Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"If you can live with fewer resources, then you feel more safe. So we are talking more about resource security rather than reducing your demand, which is the same thing, but it comes with a twist. If we talk about you've got to reduce your demand, it generates resentment in society because if I put an effort into showering less or with cold water or not going somewhere, and I see my neighbor still doing it, I feel resentful about that neighbor. So it generates resentment in society. It's because you think I gave myself up for humanity and you didn't. Then it's unfair, you know? But if you think from a perspective of resource security, and you learn how to live not by depending on that many resources, you feel safe for yourself.And if your neighbor is not able to do it and still depends on all of the resources, you can feel empathy for the neighbor. Oh my god, my neighbor is really exposed. And so it's so by empathy, it's kind of a more stable mechanism. So I think we have to find ways to build empathy for saying, Wow, it's really about preparing ourselves.Like with COVID, if you protect yourself, that's good for society as well. And so that's kind of a win-win that we want to develop. Big shifts are needed if you want to be able to operate in the future. So it is very serious. I think in the end, only things we want to do will happen. So I think the best thing to get on that track is to. In our own speech, ban the word should because as soon as we say should, we indicate it's not going to happen, and we lose agency."Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures."If you can live with fewer resources, then you feel more safe. So we are talking more about resource security rather than reducing your demand, which is the same thing, but it comes with a twist. If we talk about you've got to reduce your demand, it generates resentment in society because if I put an effort into showering less or with cold water or not going somewhere, and I see my neighbor still doing it, I feel resentful about that neighbor. So it generates resentment in society. It's because you think I gave myself up for humanity and you didn't. Then it's unfair, you know? But if you think from a perspective of resource security, and you learn how to live not by depending on that many resources, you feel safe for yourself.And if your neighbor is not able to do it and still depends on all of the resources, you can feel empathy for the neighbor. Oh my god, my neighbor is really exposed. And so it's so by empathy, it's kind of a more stable mechanism. So I think we have to find ways to build empathy for saying, Wow, it's really about preparing ourselves.Like with COVID, if you protect yourself, that's good for society as well. And so that's kind of a win-win that we want to develop. Big shifts are needed if you want to be able to operate in the future. So it is very serious. I think in the end, only things we want to do will happen. So I think the best thing to get on that track is to. In our own speech, ban the word should because as soon as we say should, we indicate it's not going to happen, and we lose agency."www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"Actually, awareness doesn't help. We are on the campaign to produce a desire for that transformation. Information is useless unless it's empowering. And of course, it has to be factual. If it's not factual, then it's going to be found out, and it also has to be relevant because otherwise, it's irrelevant. But if it's just relevant, it actually may just be counterproductive because if people see it as relevant but not empowering, they will use their brain to fight it. So that's why I think awareness campaigns don't work. We can only work on motivation, helping people to find a greater desire to get there, to say, yeah, that's what I want. A sense of agency that they say I can do something about it. Also, a sense of curiosity because we really don't know how to get there eventually.So, it takes a bit more than just awareness and that's what we learned a bit painfully, obviously, over the last 30 years or painfully because in the beginning we just thought, Oh, why don't people just measure how many planets we have compared to how many we use? And once they see the number, it would be very obvious to them. So we were the first to start to - and still are I think - the main accounting approach to compare directly how big human activities are compared to what the planet can renew.”Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures."So by looking at the effect of Earth Overshoot, which we think is the second largest risk for humanity, it actually becomes easier to address because all things come together, and you start to see the self-interest to act. Because if you're in a world of overshoot, and you're not able to be resource-secured, really it's going to hurt you. So it's not just being nice to the rest of the world. I mean, that too, but primarily, it also becomes really essential. If you're not ready for that world, it's going to be very difficult for you. So by bringing this story out, make it resonant, people then also come to us, companies approach us and say, “Let's work with each other.” And it may not be that important how big they are, because we are impressed by stories to a large extent, so the more we can show examples where people build their own success by thinking about the world from that perspective, that's probably convincing others in some ways. So it's very hard to work effectively with institutions who deeply believe that the information is inconvenient because they come up with excuses and you try to overcome the excuses. And by the time you've overcome these excuses, they have invented seven other excuses. Like the hydra, chop off the head, and seven more heads grow. So I think that's really the big tragedy we find. And I think it actually would be so simple if we had a better narrative. We're so in love with the narrative of pointing fingers that we don't see the obvious.So it's like we are on a boat, and we see a big storm approach. And we realize our boat is not too seaworthy. And then the first thing we do is we go to an international Boat Owners Conference to find out who needs to fix their boat first. Doesn't make that much sense to me, you know?And then we complexify the story rather than saying, 'Actually I am exposed.' And so when you say, 'Oh, the poor Maldives,' we take ourselves out of the game. 'It's about these others'. It's actually about each one of us in some ways.”www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"So by looking at the effect of Earth Overshoot, which we think is the second largest risk for humanity, it actually becomes easier to address because all things come together, and you start to see the self-interest to act. Because if you're in a world of overshoot, and you're not able to be resource-secured, really it's going to hurt you. So it's not just being nice to the rest of the world. I mean, that too, but primarily, it also becomes really essential. If you're not ready for that world, it's going to be very difficult for you. So by bringing this story out, make it resonant, people then also come to us, companies approach us and say, “Let's work with each other.” And it may not be that important how big they are, because we are impressed by stories to a large extent, so the more we can show examples where people build their own success by thinking about the world from that perspective, that's probably convincing others in some ways. So it's very hard to work effectively with institutions who deeply believe that the information is inconvenient because they come up with excuses and you try to overcome the excuses. And by the time you've overcome these excuses, they have invented seven other excuses. Like the hydra, chop off the head, and seven more heads grow. So I think that's really the big tragedy we find. And I think it actually would be so simple if we had a better narrative. We're so in love with the narrative of pointing fingers that we don't see the obvious.So it's like we are on a boat, and we see a big storm approach. And we realize our boat is not too seaworthy. And then the first thing we do is we go to an international Boat Owners Conference to find out who needs to fix their boat first. Doesn't make that much sense to me, you know?And then we complexify the story rather than saying, 'Actually I am exposed.' And so when you say, 'Oh, the poor Maldives,' we take ourselves out of the game. 'It's about these others'. It's actually about each one of us in some ways.”Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis' awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

In this episode of Two Bees in a Podcast, released on September 7, 2022, Dr. Jamie Ellis and Amy Vu speak with Joan Casanelles Abella, a researcher from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research in Switzerland, on the sustainability of urban beekeeping. This episode concludes with a Q&A segment. Check out our website ufhoneybee.com for additional resources from today's episode.

✨ Subscribe to the Green Pill Podcast ✨ https://availableon.com/greenpill 

Today's episode was recorded live in front of a virtual audience at a side event of the International Migration Review Forum. The episode is produced in partnership with CGIAR and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.  The event was titled "Climate-related mobility and conflict: Pathways to peace and human security" and includes some extended expert commentary on this topic.  You will first hear from Sheggen Fan, system board member CGIAR followed by remarks from Shukri Ahmed, Deputy Director Office of Emergencies and Resilience at the FAO. I then moderate a panel discussion featuring: Prof. Dr. Vally Koubi, a Professor at and the Director of the Center for Comparative and International Studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology – Zurich. Dr Bina Desai, Head of Programs with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center Pablo Escribano,  Regional Thematic Specialist for the Americas: Migration, Environment and Climate Change with the International Organization for Migration. and Prof Dr. Marisa O. Ensor, Adjunct Professor with the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University.  After they take some questions from the audience, some concluding remarks are offered by Katrina Kosec, Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Lecturer at Johns Hopkins University.