stitcherLogoCreated with Sketch.
Get Premium Download App
Listen
Discover
Premium
Shows
Likes

Listen Now

Discover Premium Shows Likes

Science for Progress

59 Episodes

30 minutes | Dec 31, 2020
57 Ready for a Change? – with Jennifer Polk
Jennifer Polk coaches PhDs ready to make a career change. It’s the time of the year when many of us slow down and think about our career decisions. Are you happy with yours? Are you considering a change? I am, in fact, going to make a change in 2021. On this podcast, I talked about careers outside of academia a couple of times. This time I talk with Dr. Jennifer Polk from Toronto, Canada. She’s a career coach for PhDs. I came across her Twitter account a while back and thought this would make a great episode. She describes how she helps PhDs to find out what they want from life and how to find a fitting job. If you’d like to get in touch with her, check her out: Jennifer Polk’s website “From PhD to Life” On Twitter, Jennifer Polk is @FromPhDtoLife From PhD to Life on Facebook From PhD to Life on LinkedIn Other episodes on careers for academics and in academia: 48 SciComm as Career Development Tool – Dmitry Kopelyanskiy 39 From Cosy(?) Academia to Harsh(?) Industry! – with John Stowers 27 Precarious Postdocs. A Future for Research? – with Gary McDowell 25 SciComm: Pint of Science – with Elodie Chabrol 19 Insecurity and Uncertainties for Early Career Academics – with Maria Pinto 17 From PhD to SciComm via BookTube – with Deboki Chakravarti 13 Is there Sunshine Outside the Ivory Tower? – The Recovering Academic Podcast #7: Funding Adviser: career at the Interface of Science – with Cristina Oliveira
32 minutes | Oct 27, 2020
56 Food System Transformation – with Gesa Maschkowski
Food production, transportation, and consumption habits have an immense impact on health, biodiversity, and the climate. Which food we eat influences our risks for metabolic and cardiovascular diseases; but also the use of land, water, fertilizers, and pesticides, Prices are the main driver for our decisions at the grocery store, but –  just as we discussed in the context of mobility and industry as a whole in earlier episodes – the true costs from damages done to the environment by unsustainable agricultural practices are hidden from the consumer. For this episode, I interviewed Dr. Gesa Maschkowski. She is a science journalist and editor in the field of nutrition and sustainable diet communication. For her PhD she looked into interventions to shift dietary habits in society. She found that the deficit model – merely informing citizens what would be beneficial practice – isn’t sufficient. Instead, intensive work was necessary to include citizens in the transformation process and guide them. This is how Finland was able to reduce diet-related health issues in its citizens. Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Speaking of dietary recommendations. The EAT-Lancet Commission published recommendations named the “Planetary Health Diet”. The diet is supposed to be healthy and at the same time its production sustainable. The change in diet for the average European would mainly be to exchange most of the animal products – meat, dairy, and eggs – with fruit, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts. As an activist with Scientists for Future, Gesa participates in a project with the city of Bonn that will put what she learned about guiding transformations into practice. The inclusive approach was met with agreement by the city council and they are now setting up the structure for the project. And this project isn’t just about eating habits and agriculture, the whole city is supposed to become carbon-neutral within 15 years. This project could be a model project for transforming cities and cultures. Unfortunately, we can’t wait to see how it works out. This opportunity has passed. We need action everywhere, immediately. Sources Transformation-Project “Bonn im Wandel” Scientists for Future EAT-Lancet’s Planetary Health Diet Information Deficit Model Backcasting
29 minutes | Oct 14, 2020
55 Are you FIT 4 RRI?
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is the idea of bringing stakeholders to the table when we plan our research strategies. The EU-funded project “FIT4RRI” was tasked with finding out why aspects of RRI – such as citizen science projects or the adoption of open science – are applied only little by European research institutes and their researchers. Experiments were conducted to find out how research projects can implement RRI principles right from the beginning. Based on that knowledge they then proceeded to develop guidelines and recommendations for institutions to foster RRI. And finally, they developed an online training course for researchers and administrators to learn about Responsible Research & Innovation practices. Maxie Gottschling (University of Göttingen) and Helene Brinken (now at the Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology) were part of a German workgroup within the much larger project. In this conversation, they give us some insights into what FIT4RRI found out, and what can be done. https://youtu.be/MyTdNdujVko informational video by FIT4RRI Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Resources: Maxie Gottschling and Helene Brinken on @sfprocur The FIT4RRI Website RRI Toolkit on FOSTER Slides and Recordings of the final summit “RRI4REAL” (scroll to the bottom)
39 minutes | Sep 14, 2020
54 Flatten the Global Temperature Curve – with Maria-Elena Vorrath
My guest in this episode is Dr. Maria-Elena Vorrath, a geologist who studies the history of climate change, who just finished her PhD. Besides her work as a researcher she is a science communicator with Scientists for Future. Her message is clear: we can’t stop climate change, but we can slow the temperature rise. Every bit of reduction in carbon dioxide emissions saves lives down the line. And: A low-carbon society cannot rely on low-emission-technologies, only, but it also has to reduce it’s overall consumption. We further talk about Elena’s background and research, as well as her science communication for Scientists for Future. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! To investigate the climate for the last 17 000 years, Maria-Elena Vorrath took samples from the ocean floor at the coast of Antarctica – sediment cores to be precise. These cores reveal the layers of sedimentation. Each layer correlates with one year. She sampled the different layers and analysed how much of a specific protein they contained; a protein that was produced by algae that live at the bottom side of ice sheets. So, the amount of protein tells her about the amount of ice on the ocean in a given year. Elena began sharing her work with the public around the same time Greta Thunberg gained media attention in late 2018 and joined Scientists for Future shortly after. She gives talks about her work at Science Slams and other events and combines it with her dire warning message about the climate emergency. The entertaining jokes she leaves to the other contestants at the Science Slam. She feels that this is her duty as a climate investigator. Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Ressources Maria-Elena Vorrath on Twitter Maria-Elena’s Science Slam talk on YouTube [GER] Maria-Elena’s talk at the “Chaos Computer Club” on YouTube [GER] Maria-Elena Vorrath’s profile at the Alfred-Wegner-Institute Reports by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Earth Hasn’t Warmed this Fast for Tens of Millions of Years” (Scientific American) “Sea level rise from ice sheets track worst-case climate change scenario” (Science Direct) Carbon calculator: find out how much CO2 your flight will emit (The Guardian)
40 minutes | Aug 20, 2020
53 A Neuroscientist’s View on Artificial Intelligence
One of my favorite topics is artificial intelligence, or – more specifically – what we can learn from neuroscience about artificial intelligence. So, when I was gifted the book “Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” by Max Tegmark I enjoyed the read thoroughly. But, several scenarios envisioned in the book as paths to human-like artificial intelligence didn’t make sense to me, as a neuroscientist. So a bestseller book on artificial intelligence completely ignored the views of neuroscience. This is why invited Dr. Grace Lindsay, host of the podcast “Unsupervised Thinking” about computational neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Grace is a postdoc at University College London, and she is currently writing a popular book about computational neuroscience. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! Neuroscience inspired the technology that is currently leading the field in artificial intelligence: artificial neural networks (ANNs); now better known as ‘deep networks’ as in ‘deep learning’. The inventors of ANNs were the first to implement the basic idea of distributing computations across a large number of small processing units – neurons. For decades this method suffered from it’s need for large amounts of data and a lack of appropriate hardware. As soon as these prerequisites were met, ANNs really took off. Today, some people are thinking about how progress in neuroscience can further inform the structure of ANNs to improve on their performance – because they still are far behind what a brain can do. Referring to Tegmark’s book we discuss scenarios that he writes are proposed to lead toward human-like artificial intelligence. We discuss whether modelling a human brain on different levels, from the molecules of every brain cell up to the behavior of an individual human, would work out – or would even count as intelligence. Could we upload our minds? Would human-level AI be conscious? Will the “singularity” kill us all? We try to answer these questions form the viewpoint of neuroscience. Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Resources: Grace Lindsay on Twitter Grace’s upcoming Book “Models of the Mind“ Grace’s Podcast “Unsupervised Thinking” Grace’s Blog “Neurdiness” Max Tegmark “Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” Mentioned Black Mirror episode: “Be Right Back”
38 minutes | Aug 3, 2020
52 B&D Online Teaching, SciComm, and the Populist Fringes
My co-host Bart Geurten and I had a rather spontaneous conversation, again. We talk about remote teaching, how science communication and science journalism could be supported by the public, and speculate about how the political fringe might be missing a sense of belonging. Following a catch-up about our lives in the pandemic, we talk about taking lectures online. Should we do it? Are there circumstances when it makes sense? Or does it remove important social interactions among students? Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! We then talk about science communication. There was a hearing in the German Bundestag about how the parliament could install a funding mechanism for science communication and science journalism. One of the issues is that journalism is under a lot of pressure to make profits. This, finally, led us to discuss – once more – the plight of populism. Does it provide people with a sense of belonging? Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Dennis risks his life and hearing to demonstrate the dangerous noise from wind-turbines: https://youtu.be/AOFR4XuClkM Academic Writing Videos by Dennis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgGJBLboYtc&list=PLjZptrQXtspB7c5rAvU_RItVzBqv1JvzE
88 minutes | Jun 28, 2020
51 Extended Throwback: Precarious Postdocs – with Gary McDowell
 Postdocs are, besides graduate students, the main workforce in academic research. Following the PhD, the postdoc position is the only way to follow a research career within academia. Many PhDs around the world are advised to go to the USA for a postdoc – or two – because it is known for its large research output and high-quality research institutes. Around two-thirds of postdocs in the USA are foreign-born. In this episode, I talk to Gary McDowell, a UK born scientist in protein research who, over the last few years, worked with “Future of Research” to investigate the conditions postdocs in the USA are facing. The situation appears to be far from optimal. And this doesn’t just hurt the postdocs and their families; it also impacts research productivity. The extended edition of our podcast appears on Patreon! The goals of Future of Research are to enable PhDs to make better career decisions about whether a postdoc is a good decision, and if so, how to choose the right place to apply to. Another fundamental problem is the disconnect between the lived experience of junior academics and their senior supervisors.  At the same time, the data they collected unveil systemic problems with postdocs in the USA, and Future of Research is working to change academia for the better. Postdoc: Advertisement and Reality The postdoc, as advertised, is a sort of apprenticeship position where PhDs develop their independent research projects to become leading scientists heading their own labs. The reality is that postdocs have replaced staff researchers, working on their Principal Investigator’s project, and hardly ever being mentored or trained in leadership and management. Even training in essential day-to-day parts of the work as an academic scholar – like conducting peer review – doesn’t seem to be part of their experience. At the same time, postdocs are still being classified as “trainees” to justify not paying them their worth, and to deny them benefits such as proper health care. Salary Because postdocs are paid below their skill and experience levels, and most are not given the mentoring and training promised, they are exploited as cheap labor by the academic system. A few years ago, Obama tried to change a labor law, which would have affected that institutions would need to give postdocs a raise – or face the issue of having actually to keep track of postdoc working hours. Unfortunately, this change didn’t become active. On the bright side, most universities still implemented the raise – even though some universities were trying to take it back. So this was good news. Future of Research collected salary data from postdocs just after this happened (and continues to do so for a longitudinal study), and found a median income of about $47500. This number clearly could be related to the planned labor law adjustment. So this was a positive finding. However, we should not forget that taking all people with doctorates in the USA, median salaries range from $70 000 to $100 000. Even worse: a postdoc negatively affects income up to 15 years following graduation to a PhD. This seems to come as a surprise to many, including industry representatives. Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Benefits The USA are infamous for their inadequate health care and labor protection situation. Many PhDs from countries with socialized or mandated benefits, like in Europe, will be surprised that things like basic health care, vacation time of more than two weeks, and maternal protection (let alone parental leave), are not a given in America. And Universities often will take any excuse not to pay benefits.  Vice versa, Americans appear to be quite surprised that in the UK, for example, there is a training time mandate by funding providers. In the USA the PI has full control over a postdoc’s time. And not only are PIs allowed to keep their “trainees” from getting trained in workshops and elsewhere, but they also often simply don’t mentor them themselves, either.  Training As one example for lack of training, and general misconduct, we talk peer review. PIs who are asked to review a paper for a journal, often pass the work on to postdocs or graduate students under the pretense of it being a training opportunity. But then there is no feedback given. Often the written peer reviews are handed to the editors directly without mentioning who wrote it. In this way, the integrity of peer review is broken, the trainee is denied credit and networking opportunity, and the PI just committed plagiarism. Change The work of Future of Research to inspire change has been compared to talking to climate change deniers. Senior academics responded with outright denial, the wish to only talk about the positive sides (which ones?), or even demanded that research on these issues should be stopped. You know, because it’s easier to ignore the problems this way. Thankfully, some change is underway, despite these reactions. Many institutions slowly realize that the adverse conditions in academia are beginning to deter young people. Future of Research is pushing for more transparency, and they want to see more Early Career Researchers on boards of societies and institutions. They are further looking for ways to measure the mentorship quality at a university. And finally, they want to suggest guidelines to journals to avoid ghost-writing in peer review – a measure that would help early career researchers gain a reputation with editors. links:• Future of Research• Gary McDowell on Twitter• Assessing the Landscape of U.S. Postdoctoral Salaries• Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts• Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws
45 minutes | Jun 20, 2020
50 Sustainable Mobility – with Jonathan Koehler of Scientists for Future
For this episode, I spoke with  Dr. Jonathan Köhler who studies the transformation of the transportation and mobility sectors using computational models at Competence Centre Sustainability and Infrastructure Systems of Fraunhofer Institute. He discusses how ships and aircraft can become carbon neutral, and answers some common questions on the topic. He then talks about his experience with Scientists for Future and Fridays for Future. In the end, he gives us a vision of how mobility could look like in a climate-neutral city. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Resources: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI Dr. Köhler on KIKA: “Fliegen – muss das sein?” [GER] More on synthetic fuels / Power to X: 29 Climate Action: Energiewende – with Rüdiger Eichel Scientists for Future (international) Scientists for Future (German-speaking countries)
42 minutes | Jun 1, 2020
49 Times of Crisis – Conspiracy Myths and SciComm – with B&D
For this episode, Bart and I had a rather spontaneous chat about conspiracy beliefs and science communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Worldwide conspiracy myths about SARS-CoV-2 appear to be on the rise, and conspiracy narrators team up with other cranks in demonstrations – ‘hygiene demos’ they call it in Germany. And the far right is taking advantage of them. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! At the same time, science communication is at the center of the social discussions surrounding COVID-19. Several virologists have reached a certain celebrity status, which is having a lot of … interesting … effects. At the time we recorded this, the juiciest one, had not happened yet, unfortunately. But still, we had some things to say. Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Disclaimer: as mentioned, this conversation was completely unprepared (usually we at least have some articles at hand). Feel free to fact check us, and let us know! And please take everything we say with a grain of salt. Resources: How are Germany’s coronavirus protests different? (Deutsche Welle) Coronavirus, ‘Plandemic’ and the seven traits of conspiratorial thinking Streeck, Laschet, StoryMachine: Vom PR-​Plan zum Exit-​Rush [GER] Heinsberg Study Results Published (University of Bonn) 8 Cognitive Biases in Science and Society – with Dr. Bart Geurten
31 minutes | May 22, 2020
48 SciComm as Career Development Tool – Dmitry Kopelyanskiy
For this episode, Dennis talked to Dmitry Kopelyanskiy, a contest-winning science communicator who gives entertaining science talks on stage – mostly about his own research on tropical diseases. But here, Dmitry also talks about his academic career odyssey (from Russia to Switzerland via Israel and Germany), his path to science communication, and his involvement in “Skills for Scientists” – a career development program at the University of Lausanne. Over the past two years, Dmitry Kopelyanskiy has been quite successful at science communication contests. At FameLab he made it all the way to the international finals in the UK! But he also did rather well at a number of Science Slam events. Last year he had been involved with Pint of Science in Lausanne as an organizer, and he has become a moderator at FameLab. In the contests, the candidates must explain their science in a clear AND entertaining way. This is – as he says – a skill every scientist should have in order to defend their science; be it as a publishing academic, as a graduating Ph.D. student, or as a scientist who finds himself in a heated discussion with an antivax cab driver – as he once did. And if you can make it fun and interesting, even better! Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! But being a successful speaker did not come to Dmitry naturally. He remembers his first presentation as a Master’s student in Germany to be horrible! He mumbled while he was reading directly from his slides; his back turned to the class. When he finally turned around, he found the whole class holding their foreheads with their hands. His professor described the presentation as “not the worst” he had ever heard; which Dmitry thinks meant that it – indeed – had been the worst. Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. SUPPORT US THROUGH PAYPAL Fortunately, he overcame his disheartenment and decided to go out of his comfort zone. Dmitry joined the Toastmaster clubs where people from different backgrounds practice public speaking and learn about storytelling and leadership. He continued working on his presentation skills, and he is still taking every opportunity to go on a stage and demonstrate his growth. To Dmitry, training your skills is one of the most important aspects of developing your career. Thinking about his own career outside academia after graduation, Dmitry wants to combine his best skill (public speaking) with his passion: science. Resources Dmitry Kopelyanskiy’s Website Slap in the face: How pathogens trick your immune system (Dmitry Kopelyanskiy– Science Slam) Skills for Scientists, Uni Lausanne Pint of Science, Switzerland 15×4 Munich Toastmasters International Hugo Bettencourt talks about science communication and FameLab
66 minutes | May 15, 2020
47 Extended Throwback: Insecurity and Uncertainties for Early Career Academics – with Maria Pinto
During this season, once every 4 weeks, I pick one of the 13 most popular episodes from the first two years and post the original interview. These extended editions contain a couple of parts that didn’t make it into the final cut and give an insight into the underlying conversation. Supporters on Patreon have immediate access to these versions, btw. If you are one of them, thank you very much! If not, think about it! Find the final edition here! Academics are Spoiled. Right? The stereotype of academics is that they live a well-protected life in the ivory tower. But this is not the case for most of them. Maria Pinto from Portugal is a Ph.D. student in marine microbiology in Austria. With the final stages of her work approaching, Maria is beginning to think about the future. Forgoing Salaries, Benefits, and Life Planning Security in your Late 20s to 40s. We talk about the many uncertainties in academia, particularly for early career researchers. In general, the salaries are not good, but in poorer countries, where the salaries are particularly low and may not even include social security, there is also an expectation of students to pay fieldwork trips themselves. Traveling in order to present your work at conferences is important to researchers and their careers, but for many, this is not affordable. Ph.D. students and postdocs are in the typical age for founding families. The academic career, however, demands mobility. For many, this means that they need to move countries several times – a factor that greatly affects life planning security negatively. And all of this is happening in a climate of increasing Ph.D. graduations and stagnating long-term or permanent job openings. Yet, leaving academia is often discouraged. Among early-career academics and their advisers it’s simply expected to try hard for an academic career. This often means that PhDs think about a possible transition outside of academia very late. And then there is always the gnawing question: Do I have any value on the private market? We don’t have an answer to the problems we highlight, but maybe we can work a little bit against the stereotype of the spoiled academic. And maybe we can push some early career researchers to think about plan B, earlier. sources: • YouTube Channel “Sea&me – Marine stuff with Maria”• The Stagnating Job Market for Young Scientists• Why a postdoc might not advance your career• These studies offer a realistic view of postdoc life—and guidance for making career decisions that work for you• How Ph.D.s Romanticize the ‘Regular’ Job Market
41 minutes | May 9, 2020
46 Scientists for Future – with Thomas Loew
The initial statement of Scientists for Future in support of Fridays for Future came out just at the right time. In the public debate, it was a swift response to politicians who were trying to mute the student strikes by telling them to "leave it to the experts". In reality, scientists who had been concerned about the climate and the ecological damages human activities for decades had been working on the statement for a while. Among the authors was our guest Thomas Loew. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! Thomas Loew is a German researcher who started his own Institute for Sustainability. He studies how companies can and should respond to the risks posed by ecological damages - on a management level. These studies are usually for the German federal government. Besides academic articles, the outcomes of his research are published in the shape of guidelines or recommendations to company managers. He finds that companies are ready for a change in order to address climate change. What is holding them back is that regulators hesitate to create market conditions to incentivize change and to decrease the economical risks of investing in new products and production lines. Understanding that climate action is too slow due to lacking regulation is what brought Scientists for Future together. And they quickly outgrew the initial statement. While not planned as such, some of the more than 26 000 signatories decided to continue and become more active for the cause. Today, Scientists for Future consists of many local groups that are loosely organized. Although Thomas Loew is officially an organizer of the movement across Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Northern Italy, he usually learns about the activities of local groups through the news. However, to uphold consistency across the movement, Scientists for Future set up a kind of "Carta" that regulates which types of activities conform with the agreed-upon role of science in society: to research, to inform, and to consult. Resources Scientists for Future (international)Scientists for Future (German-speaking countries)Thomas Loew's Institute for SustainabilityYouTube video "The Destruction of the CDU" by Rezo (GER)
29 minutes | Mar 24, 2020
45 Animal Research During the COVID-19 Lockdown – with B&D and Daniela Buchwald
In this episode, Bart and I invited PhD candidate Daniela Buchwald from the German Primate Center – a private research institute. We compare how the University of Göttingen and the German Primate Center (GPC) responded to the impending shutdown of most research activities - with a focus on how the animals are being cared for. The conversation was recorded on Tuesday, March 17, just after the German local government began to take serious action to reduce public life to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Remember that when we talk about news reaching us on Monday, we mean “yesterday” at the time of recording. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! Daniela studies the planning of grasping movements in monkeys‘ brains at the GPC. Currently, a thousand monkeys are hosted in the facility and Daniela’s group is working with 12 of them. Daniela had just defended her PhD thesis  - two weeks earlier than planned to avoid delays due to the lockdown. Other students weren’t so lucky. Their graduation will certainly be delayed. We do hope that potential future employers will take this into account. But Daniela, too, is facing career difficulties: She had planned to visit different conferences to talk to Principal Investigators about postdoc opportunities. But everything is canceled or postponed.  Hopefully, she will be able to connect with PIs online. The GPC responded relatively early. They began preparing for a possible lockdown and sent general notices (wash hands, social distancing, home working…). Most importantly: they began planning for the continued care of the monkeys. The institute divided the animal caregiver into 2 teams. These teams will alternate biweekly. So, if one team member becomes sick, the institute will know whom he or she had been in contact with. Monkeys can get the virus, too. So - although the monkeys get back on their feet and build an immunity quickly - the researchers decided to halt almost all experiments. Only monkeys with brain implants will still be trained and tested. That is because the implants are very sensitive and, once implanted, can only be used for a limited time. To stop these experiments would mean to lose enormous investments – including the monkey. At the University of Göttingen, where Bart works with flies and keeps zebrafish for demonstration purposes, things are a bit easier. The flies don’t need any attention for 2 weeks at a time, and the fish can be cared for by just two people. Bart and a colleague freed the students from these duties entirely. Resources Daniela Buchwald on Twitter
37 minutes | Mar 15, 2020
44 Green Biotechnology – with David Spencer
Dennis’s guest for this episode is David Spencer, a researcher in plant physiology and phytopathology in Germany. In his Ph.D., David uses genetic engineering to fortify soybeans against fungal infection. They explain why we need more resilient crops fast, why this would be great for the environment, and how genetic engineering can help achieve this. The episode complements the previous one (extended throwback with Hélène Pidon) which focused on explaining different breeding methods and how artificially induced mutations compare to naturally occurring ones. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! How can biotechnology make agriculture more environment-friendly? While wild plants defend themselves against pathogens and insects, our food crops lost their resilience. So, protective measures are needed to ensure yields: pesticides. When we spray a field with a pesticide, we apply large quantities and it gets everywhere, affecting the wildlife, the soil and the water. But when each plant produces its own insecticide, it applies just the right amount and only where it is needed. This is why David advocates for using genetic engineering to create crops that have both the high yield of modern crops, and the resilience of their wild relatives. The perfect plants to use in organic farming in the face of climate change and population growth. What is hindering implementation in the EU? Of course, breeders and scientists need to test the crops to ensure that they are safe for us and the environment. But the current EU regulations make the approval process so difficult and expensive that only the biggest companies can afford it – and only if large profit margins are to be expected. Public researchers and NGOs who predominantly have the good of the people in mind have no chance. Also, the EU does not allow for genetically altered plants to be tested in the field, preventing tests for environmental impact under realistic conditions. Not only do these regulations effectively prohibit the development and establishment of environmentally friendly crops with high nutritional value in Europe, but it also causes a ‘brain drain’: researchers are moving to countries with more reasonable regulations. What’s the flaw in EU regulations? First of all, for the approval of crops, the EU focuses on production methods instead of the actual safety of the food. The genetically identical plant, if bred through hybridization and crossing, faces lower hurdles, than if it was bred through genetic engineering; Although alterations made using gene editing are predictable and often indistinguishable from even the subtlest naturally occurring mutations, and alterations caused by hybridization are unpredictable and enormous. Further, regulators try to draw the line at alterations that ‘could not occur naturally’. But David points out that every imaginable gene alteration happens in nature, all the time. There are more than 3000 crops in use in the EU that had been created through random mutageneses – such as treatment with radioactivity – decades ago. But, because we have consumed them for generations with no harm, the regulation makes an exception for those. How does this make sense? Well, it doesn’t. Resources: David Spencer on TwitterInformation about CRISPR by Progressive Agrarwende (ENG)Falling Walls Lab 2019 – David Spencer: Breaking the Wall of Genetic ModificationEpisode 11: Genetically Modified Crops and the EU - with Hélène PidonAncient DNA from 8400 Year-Old Çatalhöyük Wheat: Implications for the Origin of Neolithic Agriculture Widespread impact of horizontal gene transfer on plant colonization of landWas der Mops mit Gentechnik zu tun hat (David Spencer – Science Slam –Research Ride)Pro-Gen-Technik und trotzdem Öko? (David Spencer – Science Slam)Klimawandel: Warum ist die Genschere CRISPR so wichtig, David Spencer?
59 minutes | Mar 10, 2020
43 Extended Throwback: Genetically Modified Crops and the European Union – with Hélène Pidon
During this season, once every 4 weeks, I pick one of the 13 most popular episodes from the first two years and post the original interview. These extended editions contain a couple of parts that didn’t make it into the final cut and give an insight into the underlying conversation.Supporters on Patreon have immediate access to these versions, btw. If you are one of them, thank you very much! If not, think about it! This time I present to you the full conversation to 11: Genetically Modified Crops and the European Union – with Hélène Pidon Plant geneticists are not happy with the European judgment on gene editing Dr. Hélène Pidon is a postdoctoral researcher at the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research. She searches for genes that give plants resistance to diseases. She wants to use these genes to fortify cultivated Barley against these diseases, and thus reduce the number of pesticides used to grow the plant. When the European Court of Justice ruled on the status of crops modified with gene-editing methods like CRISPR, Hélène contacted me to talk with me about GMO crops. Crops have been genetically modified for millennia I was curious about the origins of agriculture and how simple artificial selection of nice-looking plants affected their genomes. For Millennia, farmers would choose a particularly good looking plant to sow its seeds in the next season. Unknowingly, they had a major impact on the whole genome of domesticated plants. For example, the size of the wheat genome tripled – a rather drastic modification. Plant scientists often view the cultivated plants as completely new species that can’t reproduce with their wild counterparts. Domesticated crops like these would not be able to survive in the wild and need constant attendance. Industrialized Agriculture With the population boom at the end of the 19th century, farmers needed to outsource their breeding efforts. Companies stepped in producing fertilizers, and pesticides, and also new breeding procedures. Now, specialized breeders would search for plants with valuable traits. These plants would then cross with the currently used crop plant in order to create a new variety with the new trait. However, if you breed your ‘elite’ plant with another plant, the offspring also inherits many unwanted traits. In order to get back to a plant that has all the traits of the current elite crop, and the additional new one, the plants need to be backcrossed with the elite variant many times. This is a very slow and tedious process. Mutagenesis To speed things up, breeders figured that it would be better to increase the variability in the offspring of the elite crop. This way they could simply select an elite crop with the new randomly added trait. To do so, breeders use radiation or chemicals to induce a mutation rate that is higher than under natural conditions. This method has been very successful. Today, every major crop has undergone mutagenesis at some point. Transgenesis and Gene Editing Today, the latest discoveries in genetics and developments of genetic methods allow identifying the genes underlying the beneficial traits breeders want to add to their crops. With transgenesis, scientists have first become able to introduce complete genes into a genome. The source of this gene is irrelevant. So-called ‘BT crops’ for example, are transgenic plants that received a bacterial gene that makes them resistant to certain insects. The insecticide these plants produce are proteins that act very specifically against specific insect species. This allows the farmers to use fewer insecticides that may not be as specific. While this technique had some problems in the past regarding the positioning of the new gene in the genome, it has been improved greatly since its introduction. The latest advancements in gene modification are gene-editing techniques like CRISPR. Here, only a few base pairs are changed in a specific gene ...
41 minutes | Mar 1, 2020
42 Entering Year Three, Dawkins and Eugenics & Ranking Unis – with Bart and Dennis
This episode marks the official end of the second year of this podcast! (unfortunately, there was still no present for Bart - consider becoming a Patron to help!) Apart from the plans for year 3, Bart & Dennis discussed the hot topic of the week: a provocative tweet by Richard Dawkins on Eugenics, and the dos and don’ts, and pros and cons of university rankings. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! AN AMBIGUOUS(?) TWEET Richard Dawkins (a famous evolutionary biologist and member of the royal society) tweeted that, while he deplores eugenic practice, ”it” would still “work”, as “it” would work in farm animals and pets – as if breeding animals was the same as eugenics. https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1229060502984306689 https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1229083369641824266 His tweet – as you have probably guessed - led to a heated debate on eugenics. And geneticists joined the uproar arguing that breeding would not even work in humans: all inbreeding (animals or crops) leads to genetic weakness - just look at pugs! Or the Lannister family! Bart acknowledges that certain opinions based on science are offensive to certain groups. But how could we communicate such opinions? Especially on a platform like Twitter? Regularly, the lives of people at the center of outrage are affected negatively. In the end, you can’t separate a term like eugenics from its fascist ideology. And if you make divisive tweets, you must expect a strong reaction. EVALUATING UNIVERSITIES Bart and Dennis compare two very distinct ways of ranking universities, and they discuss whether such a ranking is useful at all – or possibly even harmful. On the one hand, there is “Nature Index” by nature publishing group. It ranks institutes based on the number of papers published in a selected set of journals and by how often these papers are shared with authors from other institutes (as a measure of collaboration). Dennis points out that the journals considered are subjectively selected by an undisclosed number of scientists with undisclosed affiliations. The selection is further restricted to journals listed on Web of Science, a database that excludes many journals described as “local” – mostly journals that don’t publish in English, or simply aren’t “Western”. It also comes at no surprise that more than 20% of the journals considered by Nature Index are publications of nature publishing group. At least they didn’t use the Journal Impact Factor – you would say - but is this better? On the other hand, there is the NGO “CHE” (Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung - which Dennis would translate to Centre for the Development of Higher Education) who rank Universities in German-language-areas. Their criteria are very different: they look, for example, at the job prospects of graduates, the facilities at the university (gym, library, dorm), and even at the town and the general quality of life. High school graduates looking for a place to live and study are certainly better served with a CHE-kind of ranking than with the publication-based Nature Index. Having more research funding may not reflect the quality of life and education. Bart argues that he never even used a ranking system to choose where to study - he went for the best party location! And, on a more serious note, Bart and Dennis agreed that rankings, in general, may not only serve as an indicator for how an institution could improve, they could also give unhelpful incentives to publish in certain journals and intensify “money makes money” funding biases. PLANS FOR YEAR 3 As per usual, the interview episodes on big science, science communication, and academia will of course continue. Interviews are recorded – or at least planned – up until summer! For the talk episodes, we will try something new: “Bart & Dennis Against Humanities”. Both biologists with PhDs in neuroscience, they want to explore the strange world of the Humanitie...
31 minutes | Feb 9, 2020
41 @RealScientists Tweet their SciComm – with Upulie Divisekera
For this episode, Dennis talked to Upulie Divisekera, the Australian molecular biologist and accomplished science communicator who co-founded “@RealScientists”. She shares how she got access to platforms with large audiences, and lessons from her SciComm experiences: that you should use storytelling and never underestimate your audience. If you are on Twitter and like to learn about science and the people behind it, you probably know @Realscientists, the Twitter rotating curation account. There, real-life scientists sign up to talk about science and their daily lives for a week at a time; showcasing the diversity of scientists, and breaking the trope of academics as an elitist group.   Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! Beyond @RealScientists, Upulie Divisekera wrote articles for mainstream Australian newspapers, gave talks at cultural events, and partook at the first science panel of the TV show “Questions and Answers”. One of her many fascinating stories took place in 2011. Following the discovery of the first feathered relative of T. rex, @Upulie – as she is called on Twitter - both ranted and cheered for the new discovery. This got her invited to give a talk at TEDx Canberra! She doesn’t have a background in paleontology, but communicating the scientific results wasn’t the point.  In our imagination, the past was populated by enormous reptiles with big pointy teeth. But suddenly the new discovery forces us to re-imagine them as big fuzzy reptiles! The message: Science makes us re-evaluate our views of the world, past and future! Resources @Upulie Divisekra onTwitter@RealScientists on TwitterWikipedia: Upulie DivisekeraDinosaurs (and feathers), bosons, curiosity: Upulie Divisekera at TEDxCanberra 2012String Theory, Sea Turtles, AI and Pi - Q&A | 14 March 2016
39 minutes | Jan 29, 2020
40 What does Society Think about Science? – B&D
In this episode, Bart and I talk about Wissenschaftsbarometer or “science barometer”. This annual survey in Germany and Switzerland is about the public’s trust in science and scientists. Afterward, we talk about a similar survey in the USA, published by the Pew Foundation a few months earlier. For each survey, we picked a couple of questions and interpret the answers.  As a side note: The extended version of this episode has two parts. Each one is more than an hour long. You can access both parts by becoming a supporter on Patreon. In the past, we asked for a minimum pledge of $5.99 per month for this perk. But now, any pledge will grant you access! Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! Wissenschaftsbarometer (find the links to this survey in the sources, below) How much do you trust scientists and other public professions? Respondents trusted scientists at public research institutes and universities the most when compared to scientists in industry, the media, and politics. However, it’s still just about 56%. Maybe it's because for some people it depends on the fields of research whether they agree with the scientific consensus. Would you want to see how scientists work? An astonishing amount of respondents would like to watch scientists work in the lab (65%). Bart and I wonder how this could be made interesting. Most days in a scientist’s life are rather boring for the typical spectator. It’s refreshing that open days at universities are indeed visited well. Bart also mentions an uplifting study about how interested people with different political views are in science. Is the public sufficiently involved in decisions about science? 51% feel like they should have more say in this. This reminded Bart of the project “Fit for Responsible Research and Innovation”. They are promoting the involvement of stakeholders from society in research from the beginning (see sources). The discussion leads us to acknowledge the constantly changing economy and job market, and how this needs to be addressed. But overall it might be overkill to ask the public for permission for every little experiment. What are we taking out of this? What stuck with me was that most people do claim to trust in science. But Wissenschaftsbarometer does not investigate possible reasons why still a large proportion of citizens don’t. Pew Research Survey Trust and Mistrust in Americans’ Views of Scientific Experts (link in the sources) Confidence in scientists to work in the public interest is rising. But views on environmental research scientists, in particular, are a bit confusing. We were surprised to find so much less confidence in health specialists and environmental research scientists than in scientists in general. The respondents consider environmental research scientists “good people”. Yet, at the same time, they have little trust in environmental scientists to communicate their findings, to admit possible mistakes, or to reveal conflicts of interest. I try to explain it with the often encountered argument that environmental scientists had financial pressures. Something about which Americans seem to be more forgiving than Europeans … Maybe?  My Take-Home A major problem - in my opinion - is that identities often dictate which scientific facts people are comfortable accepting. Many science communicators provide facts nicely packaged for lay audiences and point out the benefits we all enjoy thanks to scientific progress. But they almost exclusively reach those who are already convinced.  When the science interferes with people’s identities, interests, and convictions - and those are the people who we'd like to convince - getting their attention is a major challenge. In the interview with Deboki Chakravarti (see sources), she points out how she was able to reach her audience on YouTube. Her subscribers didn’t know her as a scientist but as a book lover.
38 minutes | Jan 5, 2020
39 From Cosy(?) Academia to Harsh(?) Industry! – with John Stowers
Life as an Early Career Researcher is rather uncertain. The conditions for most postdocs aren’t really great and the availability of professorships isn’t increasing at the same rate as the number of PhDs entering the academic career path - we talk about this, regularly. So it makes sense to seriously consider other career options, and we do so every now and then, too. For this episode, I talk to Dr. John Stowers, engineer, neuroscientist, and founder of "LoopBio", about the transition from postdoc to technology business founder! Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! Academic Nomad After being hit by a natural disaster in New Zealand, John left his home country for a postdoc in Austria. He didn’t just switch countries, he also switched from engineering to neuroscience. In his time in Vienna, John developed experimental setups far ahead of the curve in terms of complexity. As other laboratories kept asking for his help with their own setups, he realized there was a market for a certain subset of the technologies he used for his own research. Moving Into Entrepreneurship When his adviser was about to leave Vienna, John faced the decision to either look for another postdoc position in Vienna, where his now-wife was still working on her Ph.D., or follow his adviser to Freiburg in Germany. He did neither. Because the postdoc came with many uncertainties and he didn’t see postdoc opportunities that he considered a step up in his career, he decided to become an entrepreneur, instead. After googling “How to found a company in Austria”, John and his partner got themselves legal and financial advice and founded LoopBio. How They Built It They used their professional network and the reputation John had gained by publishing an impactful paper to find early adopters. Those were laboratories in their field willing to invest resources in LoopBio in return for John and his partner to develop custom solutions for their high-end requirements. By focussing on exclusive customized systems for scientists in a narrow niche, LoopBio gathered experience and a reputation.  Now, a bit over three years later, John is satisfied with the course the company is taking, and they are looking to widen their customer base by investing in promotion at the leading neuroscience conferences. LoopBio Conference Booth (Left: Dr. John Stowers, Right: Max Hofbauer, MSc ) What John Learned On the personal side, John is very happy with his role as an entrepreneur. He says it gives him the freedom to choose his battles and to develop the products the way he wants them to work, which is particularly satisfying. Of course, there is still a good amount of stress involved, but it’s stress about different things. He urges early career researchers to realistically think about the uncertainties that lay ahead. Making clear career decisions every now and then is probably better than getting stuck in one career path for too long because one is trying to avoid them. LoopBio is Hiring They have two open positions: * Sales / Administrative Assistant* Junior / Front-end DeveloperBoth would be perfect for a scientist/programmer or science lover looking to transition to industry. All the fun of keeping up with the latest cool advances in behavioral (science) experiments without the burden of writing papers. Links LoopBio WebsiteLoopBio on TwitterVirtual Reality for Freely Moving Animals
37 minutes | Nov 24, 2019
38 A Split in the Human Species: ANYA the Movie – with Carylanna Taylor and Jacob Okada
In this episode, I talk about the science fiction movie ANYA with its creators, Anthropologist Dr. Carylanna Taylor, and Jacob Okada of First Encounter Productions (not a sponsor). The plot of ANYA could happen today! It all starts with a couple in New York that has difficulty having a baby. The groom is a member of the Narval People who keep to themselves - mostly because they think there is a curse that prohibits them from having children with anyone but other members of the community. They bring in a geneticist to find out why they are having problems procreating, and this is where the story becomes interesting. Listen to the Full Conversation on Patreon! As his assistant accidentally analyzes the genome of Marco (Gil Perez-Abraham), an expert in neanderthal genomes Seymour (Motell Foster) finds a mutation that may explain the problem. The change in the genome happened in an "Ultra-Conserved Element", a real genetic phenomenon where certain regions in a gene never change. His hypothesis is that such a mutation may prohibit procreation with someone who doesn't carry the same mutation. Do you have questions, comments or suggestion? Email info@scienceforprogress.eu, write us on facebook or twitter, or leave us a video message on Skype for dennis.eckmeier. A population of people who can have viable offspring with each other, but not with other populations is considered a distinct species. Did Seymour discover a new species of humans? What does this mean for the Narval, the people named after the small island in the Caribbean on which they originated? Seymour suggests applying gene editing to allow Libby (Ali Ahn) and Marco to have a baby. This leads to a whole list of ethical questions that the movie wants to raise. And we talk about these issues in the episode. ANYA is being released on November 26th for download from Amazon, Apple, Google Play, vimeo and Hulu, and you can also order it as DVD. And the next big screening will be on November 30th at the SciFi FilmFest in Berlin! LINKS: ANYA the movieTrailerFirst Encounter ProductionsGenetics Paper featured in the movie: Abnormal Dosage of Ultraconserved Elements Is Highly Disfavored in Healthy Cells but Not Cancer CellsEpisode on the CRISPR babies in China
COMPANY
About us Careers Stitcher Blog Help
AFFILIATES
Partner Portal Advertisers Podswag
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information
© Stitcher 2022