April 25, 2025 • 41 mins
More reading & sources:
- Fantastic article which echos many of our arguments here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/04/18/wildlife-extinction-dire-wolf-endangered-species/
- Science article which summarizes dire wolves news & science: https://www.science.org/content/article/what-s-deal-dire-wolves-iconic-predators-may-have-been-neanderthals-wolf-world
- Article which leaked an internal memo from US interior secretary which said, “Pick your favorite species and call up Colossal.”: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/04/10/trump-endangered-species-protections-dire-wolves/
- ... which is also discussed in this very good Vox reporting: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/407781/dire-wolves-deextinction-colossal-biosciences
- Updates on recent cuts to NSF: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01263-0
Notes:
- Ashley said bioRxiv is federally-funded, she meant to say the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) archive, where Colossal posted the dire wolf genome, is federally funded
- Here’s what Embark does tell you about “Wolfiness”: https://help.embarkvet.com/hc/en-us/articles/360053867714-What-is-Wolfiness
Learn more about Ashley:
Learn more about Cat:
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ashley (00:05):
Oh my God.
Like, look how majestic that is.
Cat (00:08):
Didn't one of them say, I'm gonna light a cigar and then
we're gonna talk about wolves?
Like, okay, I'm sorry.
The gender was at 11.
Ashley (00:23):
You know what reduced my stress this week?
Cat (00:25):
What's that?
Ashley (00:27):
Reading about dire wolves?
Cat (00:30):
That's funny.
'cause it increased my stress.
Ashley (00:33):
Let's just say it increased my intrigue and
curiosity, which for me as aperson is a stress reducer.
'cause I'm like, this isinteresting.
Cat (00:42):
We were able to activate that.
I think I just activatedannoyance.
But I'm ready to find thecuriosity and the wonder.
Tell me, tell me about direwolves.
Ashley (00:53):
got a mix of things.
We've got a mix of things.
Earlier this month, this companyColossal Biosciences announced
they brought the dire wolf backfrom extinction.
So if you don't know about direwolves, these are uh, species of
wolf that were around about10,000 years ago.
They came to fame through Gameof Thrones and some other
places.
So people just like.
"woo, dire wolves, very cool.".
(01:13):
uh, yeah, This company was like,yeah, we made one.
Here they are.
Some pictures of them and theykind of announced that they had
done this.
And I actually didn't learnabout this first cat.
You were the first person totell me about this.
And I just remember you, I thinkyou opened your phone one day
and you were like, oh, likewhat's happening?
What is this?
Like?
Do you remember that morning?
Cat (01:31):
Yeah, I, I'm, I'm Ashley's conduit to social media a lot of
the time and, um, uh, I don'tremember what I said, but it was
something like.
Can you believe this old manyells at cloud kind of reaction?
Um, yeah.
No, I mean, I, I, I don't likeanything that, that comes out
the gate with like a reallypreposterous, you know, Jurassic
(01:54):
Park feeling claim.
Um, and I, I think that.
I think that I had seen thisplace a little bit before, and
you know what, it just smelledstartup to me as a former
startup founder, and as someonewho's, you know, done like
rounds of raising money withVCs.
I was like, my second thoughtwas, I guarantee you these
(02:14):
people are about to go raisemoney or something, and this is
their, like, publicity tour.
And, um, you know, I, I, yeah.
I feel justified in thatreaction.
Yeah.
Ashley (02:26):
Yeah, that's fair.
So it was funny'cause I thinkwhen you first brought this up,
I was like, oh, what did theydo?
Like I was immediately like,what actually happened?
So since then a lot more hascome out They were able to
obtain they're the only peopleand I, we don't know why, but
they basically asked thiscollection, which had some they
had a skull of a dire wolf.
So they obtained enough geneticmaterial from the bone inside
(02:48):
the ear from one of thesewolves.
And they were able to then buildout and figure out what.
The dire wolf genome would looklike.
And then knowing that you couldgo in and say, okay, here are
the genes that are differentfrom gray wolves, which are a
pretty close ancestor.
And what happens if we modifysome of those genes?
So they did this, they made 20edits in 14 different genes.
(03:12):
That doesn't sound like a lotand one would be, I think,
justified in feeling like, wait,that's only 20 edits to a gray
wolf.
Is that enough to make a direwolf?
And that is kind of the bigquestion in a lot of people's
minds at the moment.
And I think for me, the kneejerk that your knee jerk was
like, oh, startup, my knee jerkwas like, wait, how you claiming
(03:32):
about a species?
Like, how are you gonna saythat?
Because there's a lot of debateover what makes a species like,
is this actually a dire wolf?
Even if it just looks like adire wolf.
So that was kind of my initialannoyance.
Yeah.
Cat (03:45):
Okay.
Yeah, and I think you and I areboth pretty familiar with the
idea that genes exist and youcan do things to them.
Um, and that might not be truefor everybody.
So I think I had a, a knee-jerkreaction too.
That is, is my reaction to everyheadline about genes, which is
just kind of like, oh, we're notdoing a good job telling people
what genes are putting it intocontext.
(04:08):
There's so much hype about genesand you know, there's certain
things that you just see and youknow, as soon as that keyword is
in there, people are gonna thinkeverything about this claim is
real and it's really importantand it's really cool.
And you know, I think that comesfrom a natural place, as you
say, like it is incredible thatwe can know this stuff about
(04:31):
genes.
I think my reaction actuallycame from this deep frustration
that I have that these trulyamazing parts of science are
like being shoved into newsstories and kind of like
manipulated.
And so, you know, I think if itwas just like a total snake oil
thing, it's not that, right?
It's actually, there's lots ofinteresting pieces of this, but
(04:52):
then feeling like the sciencepart of it is not in control of
the story and worrying aboutwhat people take from this and
sort of wondering about who getsto benefit from this.
Uh, like, I don't know the nameof the museum that had the
samples that they took thismaterial from.
Ashley (05:10):
Yeah, that's a good question.
And I don't know offhand either.
We'd have to look that up likeit's not in, it's a really good
point.
Like it's not in the newsreleases about it, right?
Like who actually got this skulland gave them this DNA?
Cat (05:22):
I don't know what you, what you, what you're called if you
do this kind of science, I'msorry.
Like a paleo something
Ashley (05:29):
like paleontologist of some sort.
Cat (05:31):
yeah, like you're an archeologist for these animal
remains.
I mean, maybe there's like awhole history there of
reconstructing the geneticmaterial of, of these animals
and how we understand.
What they are and what they do.
So yeah, there's also this, thisway in which stories about dire
wolves come out of, you know,from companies like this, it
comes out of the ether as ifthey just like, are the only
(05:51):
source of this.
And they're the first peoplewho've ever thought about it.
And, and no one else has everlike imagined, you know,
Ashley (05:58):
Totally.
Yeah.
And this isn't my area ofscience, but I had exactly that
kind of, uh, response to likesome of the early news releases
from Neuralink, which is, youknow, like.
I, I don't even wanna say hisname, but you know, that dude's
company to like dig into thebrain and try to control a
smartphone with it or something.
Um, yeah.
But like my initial thing waslike, wait, we've been doing
(06:20):
this for decades, like, andwe've been translating brain
activity into stuff for decades.
Like back off, dude.
Like, this isn't your rodeo.
Cat (06:29):
Don't.
You show an example of somethingin, in one of your classes about
this.
Ashley (06:33):
I do talk about this.
Yeah, I do talk about thisbecause I'm like, you know, I
want my students to be informedconsumers of information like
this so that when someone walksinto the room and is like, guess
what?
We did this very fancy thing andit sounds really cool that we
could be like, okay, but thatfancy thing you did is built on
decades of federally-fundedresearch.
(06:56):
Not to go back to that, but thisis so true.
And, uh, yeah.
Yeah.
And a ton of time and PhDs, youknow, who, who built the
foundation on which, on whichthis stuff is built
Cat (07:10):
And none of them are getting credit or money
Ashley (07:12):
and they're not getting
Cat (07:13):
you know, or these press releases or reporters talking to
them, even if they, you know, Ithink the question of who, who
we think owns science and wherewe see innovation coming from
and who, who gets to like patentan innovation.
This is, this is like a deeppart of American history and on
our current society, you know,and, um, it's quite messy in
(07:36):
this world of biotech.
Right?
And I remember when we put upour NIH episode, speaking of
science funding, a reply that Igot to that episode from someone
was,"there's plenty of moneybeing spent on big pharma" and
I, I was like, what are youtalking about?
We're talking about, you know,this entire system that is
(07:58):
completely invisible to you.
Ashley (07:59):
mm mm.
Yes.
Cat (08:01):
Yes.
scientists trained atuniversities go into big pharma
and there is money for drugdevelopment, but you're so far
from understanding the fact thatscience is happening.
Way down, you know, at adifferent part of the stream
than the eventual drugdevelopment that yields a
medicine that gets to your door.
And we even made that point inthe episode, but okay.
(08:22):
We've gone a bit far afield, butI, I want you to tell me more
about the science the direwolves.
Ashley (08:26):
Yeah, no, I mean, I, I think that this is like, you
know, one of our.
Um, you know, knee jerk feelingsabout this is like, why are
these people getting all thecredit?
And it's built on a ton ofscience.
And I think you brought up oneother sort of knee-jerk feeling
was, which is like, why is itall about the genes?
And I think that this is reallyinteresting because you think
about a dire wolf living 10,000years ago.
(08:47):
Really different ecosystem,really different world.
And you have to ask thesequestions about even if you were
to perfectly reconstruct thegenome of a dire wolf, if you
raise it in an environmentthat's not the normal ecosystem
of a dire wolf.
Is it actually a dire wolf?
Right.
And these are actually reallyimportant and interesting
(09:08):
questions and like this companyhas admitted that, okay, well
they can't obviously recreatethe ecosystem.
They're, they're keeping thesewolves in some undisclosed
location, um, somewhere.
So they, you know, they don'twant, they don't want people to
know, um,
Cat (09:23):
for the reporters that they sometimes bring to the wolf
compound
Ashley (09:26):
well, I, I guess they drug them and helicopter them in
or something.
Cat (09:29):
Yeah.
Right.
It's like The Gorge that we justwatched.
Ashley (09:32):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Or like Peter Jackson got tomeet the wolves.
Right.
Um.
Cat (09:37):
Not some wolf conservation biologist, you know, who's at
like a national park.
Ashley (09:43):
Well, maybe those people have been there.
I don't know.
But, but you know, the, the CEOtalks about bringing Peter
Jackson, uh, to meet the wolves.
Anyway, so, you know, there'sthese questions about like gene
expression and environment andecosystems, and like, Cat, this
is your world of thought, right?
Which is like, what are theforces that shape these
individuals?
(10:03):
And I think that this issomething also that was
upsetting to you.
'cause you were like, well,what, you know, what about all
the other stuff that isimportant for a wolf to live?
You know?
And I think
Cat (10:15):
Yeah, I mean, I I, was frankly, you know, I, I am
really interested inconservation and questions of
conservation and, and ecologyand our relationship to our own
environment, which I think isvery broken given what's
happening to the planet rightnow.
And I kept asking myself thingslike how is it that we are okay
(10:38):
with all of the wolves that dolive in our current world?
The wolves that are here now,the wolves that actually won out
in their ecological niche.
That's why they're here now.
You know?
And we tell this sort of storyabout de-extinction that
completely doesn't have anyhuman blame in it.
It's just like, oh my gosh,there were these cool big
animals.
Jurassic Park.
(10:59):
We deserve to have them.
It, it's a really interestingquestion, I think when you're
positioning yourself as acompany that just like, just
gets to do shit, you know, and,and a lot of, I mean, people who
spend their whole lives workingon what should we conserve?
How should we conserve it?
Make this point, we need to careabout ecosystems, not just cute
(11:20):
animals or cool animals, or theanimals that can be in a zoo of
a private company, which isessentially what this company's
created.
As soon as you look at it fromthat point of view, it starts to
feel, and you're not looking atthe wolf puppy pictures.
Really cute.
Okay.
Like it's, it's like it's primocontent that they've created
these, like they have realliving, breathing wolf puppies
(11:43):
and you have this response ofjust curiosity, joy, wonder.
It is kind of amazing.
But then you're like, these areanimals that will spend their
whole lives in some privatecompany's paddocks somewhere.
And meanwhile we have realliving members of an ecosystem
out in Montana, out in landsthat, that they have lived in
(12:06):
forever, that are beingmassacred by fences.
And we're not designing, we'renot designing those environments
to keep, you know, thatecosystem healthy.
So I think that contrast is justvery real for me.
Again, I'm not an expert in anyof this.
I'm just like a member of anecosystem, so I care about it.
(12:26):
Yeah.
Ashley (12:26):
No.
Totally.
And I think like, yeah, the, thecontrast between like what we
get excited about and like inpreparation for this episode, I
listened to, you know, someother famous podcasters, I won't
say their name, talk about thisand interview the
Cat (12:43):
Ashley went into the trenches
Ashley (12:45):
I I went to the trenches and like I listened to, you
know, these like two guys justlike drool endlessly over these
wolves and just like, oh my God.
Like, look how majestic that is.
Cat (12:55):
Yeah.
Didn't one of them say, I'mgonna light a cigar and then
we're gonna talk about wolves?
Like, okay, I'm sorry.
The gender was like at 11.
Ashley (13:04):
I was, I was joking to Cat earlier that I was gonna
like be like, just interrupt ourepisode to be like,"Hey, do you
like cigars?" Because that'sliterally what happened on this
episode.
I listened
Cat (13:13):
We should pour some whiskey and talk about wolves.
Ashley (13:17):
Like that is literally the vibe of this conversation.
Right?
And it is so hard to imaginethese two men having the same
conversation about like, youknow, the Endangered Species Act
or the Defenders of Wildlifeorg, right?
Like the people that areactually doing the work to save
the wolves that exist today.
Cat (13:34):
Right.
Listen, if you wanna care aboutpredator animals out there in
the world, you for sure can,because those animals are very
threatened actually.
And like that's, that's a, ahard, sad thing.
And you know, they're like thesefarmers and ranchers.
There's this whole narrativeabout how they need to kill all
these animals because of ourfarms and ranches.
(13:56):
And I'm not disputing that thereare real issues there but what
we've got is, you know, asituation where we're gonna wipe
these animals out.
Ashley (14:06):
Yeah.
Yeah, totally.
And, and there's like real stuffto worry about in terms of the
wolves, like in this countryeven.
So, you know, in the UnitedStates, uh, wolves occupy like
less than 15% of the habitatthey would've occupied, you
know, many years ago.
Um, their, their populations aredwindling.
(14:27):
The gray wolves in particular,which it's worth noting that,
you know, what Colossal did wasthey modified the gray wolf
genome, and gray wolves existthey're real wolves.
There's been some debate overwhether they should be
considered an endangeredspecies.
So, um, several years ago theybecame protected, but now
actually literally like the sameweek that Colossal dropped their
(14:49):
headlines, they're also like nowputting this under threat again.
So they might actually be takenoff the endangered species list
again.
So there are real things toworry about here.
Cat (14:59):
Colossal was cited in one of the statements right by, I
don't remember who, I'd have tolook it up(you
Ashley (15:05):
were
Cat (15:06):
the researcher for this episode, so I'm doing no work)
but, um, Colossal and this wholedire wolf thing was cited in
some member of the currentadministration's statement
saying, we need to take moreanimals off the endangered
species list.
'cause hey look, we can dode-extinction.
Look at cool tech breakthroughs.
That's fucked up.
Ashley (15:28):
Yeah.
Yeah.
The problem is people mistakede-extinction as a way to bring
animals back.
And it's, and it's not, I mean,it is not a conservation
strategy for one.
Like, okay, they made, um, a, afew wolves, right?
The thing we need to do is thinkabout like thousands of wolves.
And also, like, something I wasthinking about this morning was
(15:49):
like, okay, let's imagine evenyou can produce thousands of
dire wolves.
Like where are they gonna live?
How are
Cat (15:56):
want
Ashley (15:56):
Take care of them.
Cat (15:58):
Thousands of dire wolves would be bad.
This is exactly like people whoare saying, let's go to Mars.
And forget about Earth.
Like we can't, they can'tharness that energy that excites
them to build on other planetsto just build here.
We already have cities.
They could improve.
We already have people livinghere they could be helping.
(16:20):
If they genuinely cared aboutall of that, they could turn
that energy to, you know, what'sright in front of us.
And I feel the same way aboutanimals because I'm like,
Colossals not using thisopportunity to go talk about the
gray wolf who's literally a bigpart of this story and is like
rendered completely invisible bythe way we're all talking about
it, and I, I do find that likesociologically, psychologically
(16:43):
very interesting that we're likecapable of just engaging in
these fantasies instead ofasking ourselves, how are we
really stewarding the earthhere?
Ashley (16:53):
Yeah, totally.
And I think that that contrastis really hard with like, okay,
what is an actual conservationeffort and what isn't?
And then there's also thecontrast right now in this
moment with like so much sciencefunding getting cut in this
country and like literally lastweek, the NSF announcing more
cuts with like more to come.
While these companies getmillions of dollars, I mean,
(17:16):
this is like actually probablytheir estimate is like 10
billion.
It's a$10 billion company orsomething in total.
And meanwhile, they're sittingon all this cash and like, look,
here's my honest opinion.
Like I think this science isreally cool.
I love sci-fi.
I think it's interesting tothink about what genetic
(17:37):
modifications can do and change,right?
And, and we do geneticmodification of fruits and
vegetables to make them better.
Like, there is value in thisscience, but is it the value of
massive headlines, billions ofdollars like that I don't know.
And that is the thing that Ithink upsets me as a scientist.
Cat (17:57):
Yeah, and I think you should ask yourself what are we
barreling towards?
A dystopian kind of world ofglam science where there are
like, you know, VC fundedcompanies, produce, results
that, sometimes we use,sometimes we don't.
But like we have no ownership asa public in that process.
(18:20):
The whole structure of it iscompletely different from the
structure of federally fundedscience at universities.
And, you know, you and I haveboth spoken to the fact that
that system's not perfect.
Of course it's not because it'sa human system, but we're
barreling towards this realitywhere we get like science
headlines without scientists,that labs that are actually
(18:41):
funding all the people who studygenes are getting shut down,
that we're not caring about thedata sets of our ecosystem are
all getting shut down.
Like the very routes for us tounderstand all of these
questions are getting shut down.
And meanwhile, we have theselike headlines that have no
people, no culture, no ecology.
(19:04):
They just have like look at thefluffy wolf pictures, you know,
and Game of Thrones, and it'slike free association, glam
science, you know, bullshit.
Ashley (19:15):
Yeah, totally, totally.
And like, I'll give credit wherecredit is due, which is that,
um, you know, last week theyactually put the genome on, an
NIH server where people sharegenomes.
So they're sharing the data.
That's awesome.
That means other scientists canwork with it and asked their own
questions and I think that'sreally great.
They also wrote a preprint thatdescribes the new findings.
(19:37):
So they had a 2021 paper thatgot a lot of press.
So this is building on that.
So like.
There are things Colossal isdoing that I think are
legitimately very scientific andalso in the service of sharing
this science.
Um, So like I'll give themcredit for that.
But I think you're right, likeat the same time.
Like, I would love to see thesepeople with this platform
advocating for science writlarge, like all the science that
(20:00):
they depend on to do their workand for, you know, ecosystems in
this country that we need tothink about, like all of the
stuff we're talking about.
So, yeah, like that's, that'sfrustrating.
Cat (20:11):
All of the things, their activities they're engaging in
that you're giving credit for,were invented by other people
that aren't them.
Are, are like run by gradstudents who are currently
afraid for their whole futures.
I just want us to be really realabout the facts of like who's
experiencing what andabsolutely, like this is an
(20:33):
interesting story and a reasonwe picked it because, you know,
it's actually not just allbullshit.
Like, I mean, I said that twoseconds ago, but you know, we,
we don't really get a lot of joyor substance talking about
things that are just flat outsnake oil, total cons.
I think it's actually veryimportant to look at cases like
(20:54):
this and understand like themany shifting pieces and what
could push us towards more ofone world or more of the other
world.
So I think there is a role forcompanies to play in the
scientific process.
I think that's what we have, youknow?
And I think that there is a rolefor, you know, interesting ways
(21:15):
they can give back.
Um, but there's a lot ofelements here that I just, I
just wish people could pay moreattention to about who gets to
own and profit from what I.
Ashley (21:24):
Totally.
I think the question of profitis huge.
I mean, this.
This company is, is profitingtremendously.
And that's a big question.
Who owns that profit?
Who should get it?
Yeah.
I think you know this, like, youput it really well, just like,
which world are you shifting usto?
And I think that that's likesomething we have to think about
(21:44):
is like in every stage of this,we're moving towards one world
or the other.
And like, you know, we wannalive in a world where the people
have access to science, thescientists are doing the science
and getting paid to do it.
Cat (21:57):
And a world where people have scientific literacy, right?
Which is like a huge problem andsomething you and I are both
engaged in trying to do with ourown work.
So let's talk about this piece.
Like why.
You know, are we so inclined?
Why do we see vanity sciencekind of cycles happen?
What's your take on this as ascience educator?
(22:18):
I mean our listeners areprobably in people who are
interested in science.
Like why would they be listeningto our podcast?
Ashley (22:24):
Yeah,
Cat (22:25):
So what can we give them?
Ashley (22:27):
Yeah, I think this is interesting, like, you know,
because on one hand I can seethe role of a glitzy headline,
getting people sort of excitedabout science, like Sure.
And like when I teach in class,I try to choose examples that I
think people can relate to thatare like exciting, right?
And so I think there's a rolefor that.
However, those examples need tobe about the process of science
(22:53):
and not just about.
Some fun fact, right?
And I think like something thatbugs me here as an educator is
like, there's a differencebetween, fun science facts and
there's like these feeds you canfollow where it's like, oh, did
you know, like, you know, maleseahorses are the ones who like
I.
You know, give birth.
That's a fact, right?
That's not the process ofscience.
(23:13):
People had to understand andstudy and observe seahorses to
like learn about that and nowthey're doing like deeper
science to learn about that.
And so I think there's like thisdistinction between the glitzy
headline thing, which is oftenjust like a science fact, and
actually understanding of thescience process, which is what I
want people to leave with when Ithink about like science
(23:34):
literacy.
Cat (23:36):
Right.
And you know, you are trained asa scientist to find your
dazzling fact because you knowyou're negotiating for
somebody's attention and youknow, there's a really innocent
version of it where you're just,you're trying really hard to
say, Hey, this is cool.
Like look at this, this is cool.
And we all get trained to dothat.
However, the vulnerability ofit, I think is that it kind of
(23:58):
trivializes science and it, itreally leaves you open to
suddenly being the line on someRepublican's poster board that
they're holding up that says,can you believe we spent$2
million on, you know, fish?
And that's so stupid.
And actually if you knew theprocess of science, you would
(24:18):
know that there's some mechanismthat we can only study that
happens in fish.
But it lets us develop a cancerdrug.
I mean, this is the storyalways, always when they hold up
these examples.
But I think this, we've gottenin this kind of really vicious
cycle and kind of, I wouldalmost say abusive relationship
with the media as scientistswhere we just feel like we have
(24:42):
to constantly trivialize ourscience, flatten it, play their
headline game.
And I honestly feel like theworld is so broken down.
The world's so polarizing.
Right now a polarized, we shouldask ourselves, is that game
constantly dragging us back intothe same trap of being discarded
as scientists?
I think it is.
(25:02):
I.
Ashley (25:03):
And I think it also treats audiences like they are.
You know, more dumb orsomething, right?
Like, like the only way you'regonna be interested in this
story is if we tell you webrought back this Game of
Thrones character.
That's not treating youraudience like they're smart.
Like let's actually guide themthrough why this is interesting.
Like what about the question of,you know, what a species
(25:25):
actually is and how muchenvironment changes who we are
and the expression of our genes.
Those are the questions thatare.
Interesting.
Like give your audience that tochew on actually.
Cat (25:37):
Yeah, and we're, we're playing like a buzzfeed listicle
playbook and in a completelydifferent media world.
And I am sick of it.
I'm just sick of it.
And I, I think a lot of, a lotof people out there want a
deeper story.
They want to know, how can I becurious about things?
How can I care about things?
And, and how do I fight thesebattles?
(25:59):
Maybe, why does it feel kindaweird and wrong for all of my
medicine to come from one singlecompany and be manufactured at
one single factory or whatever,you know?
I think that these, thesequestions are like coming
through every area of scienceright now.
Ashley (26:16):
Mm.
So even though we're againstfactoids, I have a factoid for
you, Cat.
Cat (26:20):
Okay.
Ashley (26:22):
Our dog.
Our dog, who we know and love,uh, is dear to us.
Um, he has a Wolfiness score, sowe were asking like, how much do
would we need to geneticallymodify Yeti in order to bring
him to a wolf?
Cat (26:35):
For full, for full context, if you're listening to this, I
think you need to know what Yetilooks like.
He is, we call him anaccidoodle.
He's a rescue, has some poodlein him, and people describe him
as a Muppet.
They say he looks like thedragon from the never ending
story,
Ashley (26:51):
Falkor.
Yeah.
Cat (26:53):
yeah.
And um, like he's a fluffylittle curly mup faced Muppet
who just does not even lookhardly like a dog
Ashley (27:00):
Yeah.
Cat (27:01):
sometimes.
Ashley (27:02):
apparently, apparently his Wolfiness is medium at 0.9%
according to Embark, where wegot his DNA sequenced.
Um.
But speaking of like, sort ofthe frustration of stuff like
this, so, you know, this isobviously a proprietary thing
that they calculate theirWolfiness score is, is literally
what it's called.
They won't tell you like what itis.
(27:23):
So I don't know, like if this isbased on gray wolves or red
wolves or some other thing, adire wolf, who knows?
Um, yeah, but that's, that's thefactoid for today.
Cat (27:34):
How many times do we get like a health score or some
index or some metric and youhave no idea what it is, and
it's just like here.
This is your sleep score.
This is your Wolf score.
This is your ice bath score.
Ashley (27:49):
That's true.
We do this like kind of bullshitreduction of things.
I mean, double-edged swordagain, like sometimes you need a
number and you need to knowwhere you sit.
I just got blood tests like lastweek and they give you these
like nice little scales.
It's like, all right, you're inthe middle.
Or like, uh, my cholesterol'skind of high.
They're kind of at the, at theend of that.
Cat (28:08):
Yeah, but see what they're giving you interpretation, you
know?
And you're like, okay, there's apopulation of people and we know
the range they're giving you.
You actually do, they're,they're telling you what they
measure.
What I'm talking about are theseindexes that are like, we have
aggregated something into thisthing and we're calling The
keyword is always.
That you can watch for is thatthey call it an index and it, it
(28:29):
usually means we have secretsauce and here's your score of
on our index.
And I, I abhorred these things.
I think they're so misleadingfor people and I think it trains
you to actually not ask howthings are measured.
It's like you live in this worldwhere you're surrounded by
numbers, but you have no agencyover any of them.
Ashley (28:49):
Oh man.
Cat (28:52):
here, like you're a biologist trying to learn about
your dog, and we pay for thisservice and you don't even get
the information that you knowyou really could use to
understand it, and this happensagain and again.
Ashley (29:05):
Yeah, I mean they do give you like the genome file
and I did download that and playwith that, but I still don't
know where their Wolfs scorecomes from.
Cat (29:13):
Hmm hmm.
Ashley (29:15):
But yeah, I think this point about indexes is really,
that's really interesting.
So like, do you have a favoriteexample of an index that like, I
don't know, people get, you geta score on, but it's really hard
to interpret.
You just have to like take theirword for it.
Cat (29:29):
all the time in like industry and business, there
are, there are seeminglypsychology based indexes.
Happiness Index, wellbeingindex.
I mean, I, I do live in theworld sometimes of creating
measures that then we aggregate,but I'm really interested in
like what's going into that andwhy, and justifying that.
(29:51):
And I, I try to tie all of mineback to established bodies of
literature.
Um, but I think, I think whatyou see.
Is that the goal of these thingsis to give you the feeling of
being measured rather than likeactual, information that you
then incorporate into yourdecisions.
Yeah, and then it, it makes itreally, really difficult to
(30:13):
compare between things, youknow?
But that's often what those areused as well, like, I mean, I
think probably the most infamousexamples are like personality
measures or, you know, if youever had to go through like a
corporate thing where you'rebeing told you're a blue person
or a green person or, you know,there's just endless examples of
times people have kind of taken,what started as a scientific
(30:35):
idea somewhere, and then theysaid, I'm gonna make this way
more marketable and something,I'm gonna translate it enough
that I can put my name andtrademark onto it.
And now it's like the blueperson method, you know?
Ashley (30:47):
Yeah, totally.
I mean, yeah, maybe there couldbe like a what percent dire wolf
for you, sort of likepersonality score at work.
Cat (30:54):
my God.
Can you imagine?
You know, and then all, everyexecutive will have to be like,
I'm a, I'm a real alpha wolf,
Ashley (31:03):
Yeah.
You don't get to be a leadershipunless you're like at least 10%
dire.
I
Cat (31:06):
That's absolutely right.
Yeah.
And then there's gonna be likedifferent cooler versions that
emerge.
Like
Ashley (31:14):
Yeah.
Cat (31:14):
will post a meme and it's like, did you know that the like
red wolves actually are secretlythe strategic thinkers and it's
gonna be like a whole sortingmechanism.
Ashley (31:25):
Oh yeah.
But it's like all of this, itstrikes me as the same problem
then the same problem is likejust slapping a label on
something without discussing howwe got to the label, what it
means to even have the label,right, what the definition of
the label is, and why do we dothis all the time?
Cat (31:47):
Well, I think it's a very effective way of directing
resources to people who wantresources.
I mean, let's, like why is Colocolos Colossal?
Colossus?
I don't even know.
I don't care.
Colossal doing this.
They're the wealthiestde-extinction company in the
world.
A thing they invented, whichthey also won't define what on
(32:09):
earth is de-extinction.
What's its purpose?
Pretty easy to be the leading,cutting edge, best whatever of a
thing that you also inventedare, are the only player in, I
think these serve likestructural power ends and then
they capitalize on our, our, theway our minds work to create
hierarchies.
(32:30):
I think all of that is sort ofsilly in the example of wolves,
but we're not really givingsilly examples right when it
plays out in people's lives,like.
One of my friends had a baby andshe's a psychologist, and she
texted me and she said, youknow, trying to buy like nature
related things for my baby.
All boy clothes are predatoranimals and all girl clothes are
(32:54):
prey animals.
I mean, that is serving a socialfunction.
It's accomplishing a goal.
It's accomplishing a goal thatis useful for some people.
So I know I sound really like asociologist right now'cause I've
been reading a ton of sociology,but I think that those people
are onto something.
Ashley (33:14):
I think you're right.
I think you're right.
And I think, you know, like whenI hear dudes talking about dire
wolves, it's the same vibe.
It's the same vibe.
Cat (33:26):
Vibe based science is what Ashley's supporting right now.
Vibe based assessment ofscience.
Ashley (33:32):
Wait.
No, no, I'm against.
Well, okay.
Yeah, I, I'm, I'm assessing itbased on a vibe, but we
shouldn't do science based onvibes,
Cat (33:40):
no, no.
I know what you, that's what Imeant.
Oh, you, you might not haveheard of this, babe, which is
that there's this bigconversation going on in
software circles right now, andit's about what somebody called,
vibe coding.
So like coding, just kind ofwith, you know, AI assistance
and, and not really worryingabout it.
And I think it's reallyinteresting, but you, you know,
(34:00):
there is some, there's somewisdom to the vibe
Ashley (34:03):
I see.
Cat (34:04):
is my controversial opinion here.
Ashley (34:06):
Yeah, so, so listener, which has happened to something
that happens a lot in ourhousehold, which is Cat fills me
in on something happening intech.
Um, vibe based
Cat (34:16):
too, online?
Ashley (34:17):
well, that's okay.
One of us has to be, I guess,um, that sounds bad to me.
Like shouldn't we beinterrogating what
Cat (34:25):
No.
Ashley (34:27):
AI generated code is producing.
Cat (34:29):
Yeah, of course there's a bad version of it.
However, I, I always as apsychologist, think that you
can't just be like, bad andgood.
I'm the good one.
I, I think that it's expressinga real thing, which is that
developers are freakingexhausted, honestly.
Simple as that.
And they want to chill a littlebit.
Okay.
And like a lot of the onlinereaction, I think isn't being
(34:51):
compassionate to that.
However, what I was saying waslike, vibe based evaluation of
the scientific stories that arebeing put in front of you, I, I
think, has some merit.
Like if it just feels like, likewe've, we've, like we are in
this world of constantly beingsold bullshit, and you maybe you
have those muscles a little bit,
Ashley (35:12):
Mm.
Cat (35:13):
And if you see a headline and you're getting that, that
signal off of it, maybe that's asource of wisdom.
Ashley (35:19):
Yeah, I mean, I think that that is fine for people who
have years of experience andhard work and expertise behind
them to be able to make thatkind of vibey judgment.
Right.
Cat (35:32):
I don't know.
Ashley (35:33):
I don't trust, like I love my mom, but like my mom
can't judge a dire wolfheadline.
She, you know, she's gonna belike, oh, that's really cool.
They look cute.
Cat (35:42):
I don't know.
I, I believe in the wisdom ofordinary people.
I really do.
Okay.
And I, I know we're in a worldof misinformation.
I know we're in a world of, youknow, this is a, maybe a, this
is a different podcast episode.
I always think my goal is not tomake these people scientists.
My goal is to help them tap intothe ways of evaluating evidence
(36:05):
that I think is everybody'sright and heritage and like,
yeah, you can't do all of it.
It's not right to ask thesepeople to like, have to evaluate
like 19,000 genes or whatever.
You know, there's nicheknowledge they can't have and we
can try to connect them to it.
But I do think there's somethingabout, listen, you can actually,
you have skills to bring to thismoment.
(36:27):
You have wisdom, you have waysin which you understand whether
people are trustworthy or not,you know, and that all, you can
be a good scientific consumer.
With all of that, if you canstart listening to yourself
about it.
Ashley (36:40):
Yeah, that's, that's totally fair.
And, and yeah, mostly I agreewith you.
I think when I think about myrole as an educator, it's like
to get people to that point,like to get people to the point
where they can look at aheadline and, and suss it out.
Cat (36:53):
Well, you're forming scientists and I'm working with
engineers who will never, evernot be engineers, in my opinion.
Ashley (37:01):
Yeah.
But I think, you know, I thinkanother thing that you're
pointing out is, is again, likewhat does it actually mean to do
science?
And like, I think fundamentallyscience is a democratic process.
Like everybody can participatein science, and I'm not just
talking about like citizenscience and that's all really
good, but, but actually, like ifyou.
(37:22):
You, you know, brew coffee andyou are testing the grind size
to see if that impacts thequality of your coffee.
If you grow plants right, andyou're, you're sort doing
experiments, or if you're justobserving the birds or the, bugs
around you like.
This is all science and theprocess of science includes
these processes of observationand changing variables, and
(37:46):
everybody can do that.
And I think everybody candevelop an intuition for that.
And I think the thing we hateabout headlines that cross our
desk that claim big things isit's like.
I don't know.
It's not, it doesn't feelgrounded in that, in the same
way.
Like, and it, it isn'taccessible because, they,
(38:07):
they're the only people thathave access to this genome or
these like sequencingtechnologies and this money, and
it takes it away from peopleactually, like at the end of the
day.
Cat (38:18):
Well, what a contrast to some of the work that you do and
are connected to that thinksabout can we send little tiny
labs to classrooms for peoplewho are in deep poverty and help
them use a microscope to look ata leaf?
'cause that's all they have.
You have so many examples of, ofwork like that that you're
connected to that really isabout democratizing science.
(38:39):
I think where you and Icompletely align whatever debate
we might have about who shoulddo what, we're completely united
in, you need to be like anactive consumer and you deserve
to have agency.
And a lot of this stuff isrendering people like totally w
ithout that agency it'sdisempowering actually, even if
(39:01):
it's glamorous for a second,you're just the zoo visitor
forever.
You're never actually like amember of this ecosystem who
could maybe be a scientist oneday.
You're just the zoo visitor.
Ashley (39:14):
Oh man.
Yeah, I think that that's.
I think that that is it.
That's one of the core thingsthat I think this is like
landing on is like, it feelsinaccessible.
It's actually putting people onthe outside, and like when we
think about the ideal science wewant, we want investment from
(39:34):
the public.
We want, people to know what'sgoing on behind the scenes.
And like when you have companieswith proprietary.
Wolfly wolfiness scores orhidden zoos where they have
their wolves, that doesn't feelright, right?
That feels wrong.
That feels like not the, thepublic investment in science,
(39:55):
which is how we really want todo things openly with input.
Cat (40:00):
I think about like, where did science come from in the
first place?
And I didn't know what sciencewas when I was a kid, but I
remember reading, books about1800s people who went to their
backyards and observed insects,even despite all of the things I
(40:22):
didn't have access to, like Ididn't have, science labs or
know any scientists, having thisbelief that if you just look at
the world long enough, you couldbe a scientist as well.
People deciding they could goout and do this.
And in that, I think maybescience is really our birthright
(40:43):
part of our human legacy and allof this dystopian future that we
can kind of see glimpses of whenwe see this sort of stuff is
about shifting that ownershipaway from humanity and towards
just very specific individualsand groups they just own it
forever and they're theauthority forever.
Ashley (41:03):
Hmm, and that's the bullshit.
Oh my God.
Like, look how majestic that is.
Cat (00:08):
Didn't one of them say, I'm gonna light a cigar and then
we're gonna talk about wolves?
Like, okay, I'm sorry.
The gender was at 11.
Ashley (00:23):
You know what reduced my stress this week?
Cat (00:25):
What's that?
Ashley (00:27):
Reading about dire wolves?
Cat (00:30):
That's funny.
'cause it increased my stress.
Ashley (00:33):
Let's just say it increased my intrigue and
curiosity, which for me as aperson is a stress reducer.
'cause I'm like, this isinteresting.
Cat (00:42):
We were able to activate that.
I think I just activatedannoyance.
But I'm ready to find thecuriosity and the wonder.
Tell me, tell me about direwolves.
Ashley (00:53):
got a mix of things.
We've got a mix of things.
Earlier this month, this companyColossal Biosciences announced
they brought the dire wolf backfrom extinction.
So if you don't know about direwolves, these are uh, species of
wolf that were around about10,000 years ago.
They came to fame through Gameof Thrones and some other
places.
So people just like.
"woo, dire wolves, very cool.".
(01:13):
uh, yeah, This company was like,yeah, we made one.
Here they are.
Some pictures of them and theykind of announced that they had
done this.
And I actually didn't learnabout this first cat.
You were the first person totell me about this.
And I just remember you, I thinkyou opened your phone one day
and you were like, oh, likewhat's happening?
What is this?
Like?
Do you remember that morning?
Cat (01:31):
Yeah, I, I'm, I'm Ashley's conduit to social media a lot of
the time and, um, uh, I don'tremember what I said, but it was
something like.
Can you believe this old manyells at cloud kind of reaction?
Um, yeah.
No, I mean, I, I, I don't likeanything that, that comes out
the gate with like a reallypreposterous, you know, Jurassic
(01:54):
Park feeling claim.
Um, and I, I think that.
I think that I had seen thisplace a little bit before, and
you know what, it just smelledstartup to me as a former
startup founder, and as someonewho's, you know, done like
rounds of raising money withVCs.
I was like, my second thoughtwas, I guarantee you these
(02:14):
people are about to go raisemoney or something, and this is
their, like, publicity tour.
And, um, you know, I, I, yeah.
I feel justified in thatreaction.
Yeah.
Ashley (02:26):
Yeah, that's fair.
So it was funny'cause I thinkwhen you first brought this up,
I was like, oh, what did theydo?
Like I was immediately like,what actually happened?
So since then a lot more hascome out They were able to
obtain they're the only peopleand I, we don't know why, but
they basically asked thiscollection, which had some they
had a skull of a dire wolf.
So they obtained enough geneticmaterial from the bone inside
(02:48):
the ear from one of thesewolves.
And they were able to then buildout and figure out what.
The dire wolf genome would looklike.
And then knowing that you couldgo in and say, okay, here are
the genes that are differentfrom gray wolves, which are a
pretty close ancestor.
And what happens if we modifysome of those genes?
So they did this, they made 20edits in 14 different genes.
(03:12):
That doesn't sound like a lotand one would be, I think,
justified in feeling like, wait,that's only 20 edits to a gray
wolf.
Is that enough to make a direwolf?
And that is kind of the bigquestion in a lot of people's
minds at the moment.
And I think for me, the kneejerk that your knee jerk was
like, oh, startup, my knee jerkwas like, wait, how you claiming
(03:32):
about a species?
Like, how are you gonna saythat?
Because there's a lot of debateover what makes a species like,
is this actually a dire wolf?
Even if it just looks like adire wolf.
So that was kind of my initialannoyance.
Yeah.
Cat (03:45):
Okay.
Yeah, and I think you and I areboth pretty familiar with the
idea that genes exist and youcan do things to them.
Um, and that might not be truefor everybody.
So I think I had a, a knee-jerkreaction too.
That is, is my reaction to everyheadline about genes, which is
just kind of like, oh, we're notdoing a good job telling people
what genes are putting it intocontext.
(04:08):
There's so much hype about genesand you know, there's certain
things that you just see and youknow, as soon as that keyword is
in there, people are gonna thinkeverything about this claim is
real and it's really importantand it's really cool.
And you know, I think that comesfrom a natural place, as you
say, like it is incredible thatwe can know this stuff about
(04:31):
genes.
I think my reaction actuallycame from this deep frustration
that I have that these trulyamazing parts of science are
like being shoved into newsstories and kind of like
manipulated.
And so, you know, I think if itwas just like a total snake oil
thing, it's not that, right?
It's actually, there's lots ofinteresting pieces of this, but
(04:52):
then feeling like the sciencepart of it is not in control of
the story and worrying aboutwhat people take from this and
sort of wondering about who getsto benefit from this.
Uh, like, I don't know the nameof the museum that had the
samples that they took thismaterial from.
Ashley (05:10):
Yeah, that's a good question.
And I don't know offhand either.
We'd have to look that up likeit's not in, it's a really good
point.
Like it's not in the newsreleases about it, right?
Like who actually got this skulland gave them this DNA?
Cat (05:22):
I don't know what you, what you, what you're called if you
do this kind of science, I'msorry.
Like a paleo something
Ashley (05:29):
like paleontologist of some sort.
Cat (05:31):
yeah, like you're an archeologist for these animal
remains.
I mean, maybe there's like awhole history there of
reconstructing the geneticmaterial of, of these animals
and how we understand.
What they are and what they do.
So yeah, there's also this, thisway in which stories about dire
wolves come out of, you know,from companies like this, it
comes out of the ether as ifthey just like, are the only
(05:51):
source of this.
And they're the first peoplewho've ever thought about it.
And, and no one else has everlike imagined, you know,
Ashley (05:58):
Totally.
Yeah.
And this isn't my area ofscience, but I had exactly that
kind of, uh, response to likesome of the early news releases
from Neuralink, which is, youknow, like.
I, I don't even wanna say hisname, but you know, that dude's
company to like dig into thebrain and try to control a
smartphone with it or something.
Um, yeah.
But like my initial thing waslike, wait, we've been doing
(06:20):
this for decades, like, andwe've been translating brain
activity into stuff for decades.
Like back off, dude.
Like, this isn't your rodeo.
Cat (06:29):
Don't.
You show an example of somethingin, in one of your classes about
this.
Ashley (06:33):
I do talk about this.
Yeah, I do talk about thisbecause I'm like, you know, I
want my students to be informedconsumers of information like
this so that when someone walksinto the room and is like, guess
what?
We did this very fancy thing andit sounds really cool that we
could be like, okay, but thatfancy thing you did is built on
decades of federally-fundedresearch.
(06:56):
Not to go back to that, but thisis so true.
And, uh, yeah.
Yeah.
And a ton of time and PhDs, youknow, who, who built the
foundation on which, on whichthis stuff is built
Cat (07:10):
And none of them are getting credit or money
Ashley (07:12):
and they're not getting
Cat (07:13):
you know, or these press releases or reporters talking to
them, even if they, you know, Ithink the question of who, who
we think owns science and wherewe see innovation coming from
and who, who gets to like patentan innovation.
This is, this is like a deeppart of American history and on
our current society, you know,and, um, it's quite messy in
(07:36):
this world of biotech.
Right?
And I remember when we put upour NIH episode, speaking of
science funding, a reply that Igot to that episode from someone
was,"there's plenty of moneybeing spent on big pharma" and
I, I was like, what are youtalking about?
We're talking about, you know,this entire system that is
(07:58):
completely invisible to you.
Ashley (07:59):
mm mm.
Yes.
Cat (08:01):
Yes.
scientists trained atuniversities go into big pharma
and there is money for drugdevelopment, but you're so far
from understanding the fact thatscience is happening.
Way down, you know, at adifferent part of the stream
than the eventual drugdevelopment that yields a
medicine that gets to your door.
And we even made that point inthe episode, but okay.
(08:22):
We've gone a bit far afield, butI, I want you to tell me more
about the science the direwolves.
Ashley (08:26):
Yeah, no, I mean, I, I think that this is like, you
know, one of our.
Um, you know, knee jerk feelingsabout this is like, why are
these people getting all thecredit?
And it's built on a ton ofscience.
And I think you brought up oneother sort of knee-jerk feeling
was, which is like, why is itall about the genes?
And I think that this is reallyinteresting because you think
about a dire wolf living 10,000years ago.
(08:47):
Really different ecosystem,really different world.
And you have to ask thesequestions about even if you were
to perfectly reconstruct thegenome of a dire wolf, if you
raise it in an environmentthat's not the normal ecosystem
of a dire wolf.
Is it actually a dire wolf?
Right.
And these are actually reallyimportant and interesting
(09:08):
questions and like this companyhas admitted that, okay, well
they can't obviously recreatethe ecosystem.
They're, they're keeping thesewolves in some undisclosed
location, um, somewhere.
So they, you know, they don'twant, they don't want people to
know, um,
Cat (09:23):
for the reporters that they sometimes bring to the wolf
compound
Ashley (09:26):
well, I, I guess they drug them and helicopter them in
or something.
Cat (09:29):
Yeah.
Right.
It's like The Gorge that we justwatched.
Ashley (09:32):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Or like Peter Jackson got tomeet the wolves.
Right.
Um.
Cat (09:37):
Not some wolf conservation biologist, you know, who's at
like a national park.
Ashley (09:43):
Well, maybe those people have been there.
I don't know.
But, but you know, the, the CEOtalks about bringing Peter
Jackson, uh, to meet the wolves.
Anyway, so, you know, there'sthese questions about like gene
expression and environment andecosystems, and like, Cat, this
is your world of thought, right?
Which is like, what are theforces that shape these
individuals?
(10:03):
And I think that this issomething also that was
upsetting to you.
'cause you were like, well,what, you know, what about all
the other stuff that isimportant for a wolf to live?
You know?
And I think
Cat (10:15):
Yeah, I mean, I I, was frankly, you know, I, I am
really interested inconservation and questions of
conservation and, and ecologyand our relationship to our own
environment, which I think isvery broken given what's
happening to the planet rightnow.
And I kept asking myself thingslike how is it that we are okay
(10:38):
with all of the wolves that dolive in our current world?
The wolves that are here now,the wolves that actually won out
in their ecological niche.
That's why they're here now.
You know?
And we tell this sort of storyabout de-extinction that
completely doesn't have anyhuman blame in it.
It's just like, oh my gosh,there were these cool big
animals.
Jurassic Park.
(10:59):
We deserve to have them.
It, it's a really interestingquestion, I think when you're
positioning yourself as acompany that just like, just
gets to do shit, you know, and,and a lot of, I mean, people who
spend their whole lives workingon what should we conserve?
How should we conserve it?
Make this point, we need to careabout ecosystems, not just cute
(11:20):
animals or cool animals, or theanimals that can be in a zoo of
a private company, which isessentially what this company's
created.
As soon as you look at it fromthat point of view, it starts to
feel, and you're not looking atthe wolf puppy pictures.
Really cute.
Okay.
Like it's, it's like it's primocontent that they've created
these, like they have realliving, breathing wolf puppies
(11:43):
and you have this response ofjust curiosity, joy, wonder.
It is kind of amazing.
But then you're like, these areanimals that will spend their
whole lives in some privatecompany's paddocks somewhere.
And meanwhile we have realliving members of an ecosystem
out in Montana, out in landsthat, that they have lived in
(12:06):
forever, that are beingmassacred by fences.
And we're not designing, we'renot designing those environments
to keep, you know, thatecosystem healthy.
So I think that contrast is justvery real for me.
Again, I'm not an expert in anyof this.
I'm just like a member of anecosystem, so I care about it.
(12:26):
Yeah.
Ashley (12:26):
No.
Totally.
And I think like, yeah, the, thecontrast between like what we
get excited about and like inpreparation for this episode, I
listened to, you know, someother famous podcasters, I won't
say their name, talk about thisand interview the
Cat (12:43):
Ashley went into the trenches
Ashley (12:45):
I I went to the trenches and like I listened to, you
know, these like two guys justlike drool endlessly over these
wolves and just like, oh my God.
Like, look how majestic that is.
Cat (12:55):
Yeah.
Didn't one of them say, I'mgonna light a cigar and then
we're gonna talk about wolves?
Like, okay, I'm sorry.
The gender was like at 11.
Ashley (13:04):
I was, I was joking to Cat earlier that I was gonna
like be like, just interrupt ourepisode to be like,"Hey, do you
like cigars?" Because that'sliterally what happened on this
episode.
I listened
Cat (13:13):
We should pour some whiskey and talk about wolves.
Ashley (13:17):
Like that is literally the vibe of this conversation.
Right?
And it is so hard to imaginethese two men having the same
conversation about like, youknow, the Endangered Species Act
or the Defenders of Wildlifeorg, right?
Like the people that areactually doing the work to save
the wolves that exist today.
Cat (13:34):
Right.
Listen, if you wanna care aboutpredator animals out there in
the world, you for sure can,because those animals are very
threatened actually.
And like that's, that's a, ahard, sad thing.
And you know, they're like thesefarmers and ranchers.
There's this whole narrativeabout how they need to kill all
these animals because of ourfarms and ranches.
(13:56):
And I'm not disputing that thereare real issues there but what
we've got is, you know, asituation where we're gonna wipe
these animals out.
Ashley (14:06):
Yeah.
Yeah, totally.
And, and there's like real stuffto worry about in terms of the
wolves, like in this countryeven.
So, you know, in the UnitedStates, uh, wolves occupy like
less than 15% of the habitatthey would've occupied, you
know, many years ago.
Um, their, their populations aredwindling.
(14:27):
The gray wolves in particular,which it's worth noting that,
you know, what Colossal did wasthey modified the gray wolf
genome, and gray wolves existthey're real wolves.
There's been some debate overwhether they should be
considered an endangeredspecies.
So, um, several years ago theybecame protected, but now
actually literally like the sameweek that Colossal dropped their
(14:49):
headlines, they're also like nowputting this under threat again.
So they might actually be takenoff the endangered species list
again.
So there are real things toworry about here.
Cat (14:59):
Colossal was cited in one of the statements right by, I
don't remember who, I'd have tolook it up(you
Ashley (15:05):
were
Cat (15:06):
the researcher for this episode, so I'm doing no work)
but, um, Colossal and this wholedire wolf thing was cited in
some member of the currentadministration's statement
saying, we need to take moreanimals off the endangered
species list.
'cause hey look, we can dode-extinction.
Look at cool tech breakthroughs.
That's fucked up.
Ashley (15:28):
Yeah.
Yeah.
The problem is people mistakede-extinction as a way to bring
animals back.
And it's, and it's not, I mean,it is not a conservation
strategy for one.
Like, okay, they made, um, a, afew wolves, right?
The thing we need to do is thinkabout like thousands of wolves.
And also, like, something I wasthinking about this morning was
(15:49):
like, okay, let's imagine evenyou can produce thousands of
dire wolves.
Like where are they gonna live?
How are
Cat (15:56):
want
Ashley (15:56):
Take care of them.
Cat (15:58):
Thousands of dire wolves would be bad.
This is exactly like people whoare saying, let's go to Mars.
And forget about Earth.
Like we can't, they can'tharness that energy that excites
them to build on other planetsto just build here.
We already have cities.
They could improve.
We already have people livinghere they could be helping.
(16:20):
If they genuinely cared aboutall of that, they could turn
that energy to, you know, what'sright in front of us.
And I feel the same way aboutanimals because I'm like,
Colossals not using thisopportunity to go talk about the
gray wolf who's literally a bigpart of this story and is like
rendered completely invisible bythe way we're all talking about
it, and I, I do find that likesociologically, psychologically
(16:43):
very interesting that we're likecapable of just engaging in
these fantasies instead ofasking ourselves, how are we
really stewarding the earthhere?
Ashley (16:53):
Yeah, totally.
And I think that that contrastis really hard with like, okay,
what is an actual conservationeffort and what isn't?
And then there's also thecontrast right now in this
moment with like so much sciencefunding getting cut in this
country and like literally lastweek, the NSF announcing more
cuts with like more to come.
While these companies getmillions of dollars, I mean,
(17:16):
this is like actually probablytheir estimate is like 10
billion.
It's a$10 billion company orsomething in total.
And meanwhile, they're sittingon all this cash and like, look,
here's my honest opinion.
Like I think this science isreally cool.
I love sci-fi.
I think it's interesting tothink about what genetic
(17:37):
modifications can do and change,right?
And, and we do geneticmodification of fruits and
vegetables to make them better.
Like, there is value in thisscience, but is it the value of
massive headlines, billions ofdollars like that I don't know.
And that is the thing that Ithink upsets me as a scientist.
Cat (17:57):
Yeah, and I think you should ask yourself what are we
barreling towards?
A dystopian kind of world ofglam science where there are
like, you know, VC fundedcompanies, produce, results
that, sometimes we use,sometimes we don't.
But like we have no ownership asa public in that process.
(18:20):
The whole structure of it iscompletely different from the
structure of federally fundedscience at universities.
And, you know, you and I haveboth spoken to the fact that
that system's not perfect.
Of course it's not because it'sa human system, but we're
barreling towards this realitywhere we get like science
headlines without scientists,that labs that are actually
(18:41):
funding all the people who studygenes are getting shut down,
that we're not caring about thedata sets of our ecosystem are
all getting shut down.
Like the very routes for us tounderstand all of these
questions are getting shut down.
And meanwhile, we have theselike headlines that have no
people, no culture, no ecology.
(19:04):
They just have like look at thefluffy wolf pictures, you know,
and Game of Thrones, and it'slike free association, glam
science, you know, bullshit.
Ashley (19:15):
Yeah, totally, totally.
And like, I'll give credit wherecredit is due, which is that,
um, you know, last week theyactually put the genome on, an
NIH server where people sharegenomes.
So they're sharing the data.
That's awesome.
That means other scientists canwork with it and asked their own
questions and I think that'sreally great.
They also wrote a preprint thatdescribes the new findings.
(19:37):
So they had a 2021 paper thatgot a lot of press.
So this is building on that.
So like.
There are things Colossal isdoing that I think are
legitimately very scientific andalso in the service of sharing
this science.
Um, So like I'll give themcredit for that.
But I think you're right, likeat the same time.
Like, I would love to see thesepeople with this platform
advocating for science writlarge, like all the science that
(20:00):
they depend on to do their workand for, you know, ecosystems in
this country that we need tothink about, like all of the
stuff we're talking about.
So, yeah, like that's, that'sfrustrating.
Cat (20:11):
All of the things, their activities they're engaging in
that you're giving credit for,were invented by other people
that aren't them.
Are, are like run by gradstudents who are currently
afraid for their whole futures.
I just want us to be really realabout the facts of like who's
experiencing what andabsolutely, like this is an
(20:33):
interesting story and a reasonwe picked it because, you know,
it's actually not just allbullshit.
Like, I mean, I said that twoseconds ago, but you know, we,
we don't really get a lot of joyor substance talking about
things that are just flat outsnake oil, total cons.
I think it's actually veryimportant to look at cases like
(20:54):
this and understand like themany shifting pieces and what
could push us towards more ofone world or more of the other
world.
So I think there is a role forcompanies to play in the
scientific process.
I think that's what we have, youknow?
And I think that there is a rolefor, you know, interesting ways
(21:15):
they can give back.
Um, but there's a lot ofelements here that I just, I
just wish people could pay moreattention to about who gets to
own and profit from what I.
Ashley (21:24):
Totally.
I think the question of profitis huge.
I mean, this.
This company is, is profitingtremendously.
And that's a big question.
Who owns that profit?
Who should get it?
Yeah.
I think you know this, like, youput it really well, just like,
which world are you shifting usto?
And I think that that's likesomething we have to think about
(21:44):
is like in every stage of this,we're moving towards one world
or the other.
And like, you know, we wannalive in a world where the people
have access to science, thescientists are doing the science
and getting paid to do it.
Cat (21:57):
And a world where people have scientific literacy, right?
Which is like a huge problem andsomething you and I are both
engaged in trying to do with ourown work.
So let's talk about this piece.
Like why.
You know, are we so inclined?
Why do we see vanity sciencekind of cycles happen?
What's your take on this as ascience educator?
(22:18):
I mean our listeners areprobably in people who are
interested in science.
Like why would they be listeningto our podcast?
Ashley (22:24):
Yeah,
Cat (22:25):
So what can we give them?
Ashley (22:27):
Yeah, I think this is interesting, like, you know,
because on one hand I can seethe role of a glitzy headline,
getting people sort of excitedabout science, like Sure.
And like when I teach in class,I try to choose examples that I
think people can relate to thatare like exciting, right?
And so I think there's a rolefor that.
However, those examples need tobe about the process of science
(22:53):
and not just about.
Some fun fact, right?
And I think like something thatbugs me here as an educator is
like, there's a differencebetween, fun science facts and
there's like these feeds you canfollow where it's like, oh, did
you know, like, you know, maleseahorses are the ones who like
I.
You know, give birth.
That's a fact, right?
That's not the process ofscience.
(23:13):
People had to understand andstudy and observe seahorses to
like learn about that and nowthey're doing like deeper
science to learn about that.
And so I think there's like thisdistinction between the glitzy
headline thing, which is oftenjust like a science fact, and
actually understanding of thescience process, which is what I
want people to leave with when Ithink about like science
(23:34):
literacy.
Cat (23:36):
Right.
And you know, you are trained asa scientist to find your
dazzling fact because you knowyou're negotiating for
somebody's attention and youknow, there's a really innocent
version of it where you're just,you're trying really hard to
say, Hey, this is cool.
Like look at this, this is cool.
And we all get trained to dothat.
However, the vulnerability ofit, I think is that it kind of
(23:58):
trivializes science and it, itreally leaves you open to
suddenly being the line on someRepublican's poster board that
they're holding up that says,can you believe we spent$2
million on, you know, fish?
And that's so stupid.
And actually if you knew theprocess of science, you would
(24:18):
know that there's some mechanismthat we can only study that
happens in fish.
But it lets us develop a cancerdrug.
I mean, this is the storyalways, always when they hold up
these examples.
But I think this, we've gottenin this kind of really vicious
cycle and kind of, I wouldalmost say abusive relationship
with the media as scientistswhere we just feel like we have
(24:42):
to constantly trivialize ourscience, flatten it, play their
headline game.
And I honestly feel like theworld is so broken down.
The world's so polarizing.
Right now a polarized, we shouldask ourselves, is that game
constantly dragging us back intothe same trap of being discarded
as scientists?
I think it is.
(25:02):
I.
Ashley (25:03):
And I think it also treats audiences like they are.
You know, more dumb orsomething, right?
Like, like the only way you'regonna be interested in this
story is if we tell you webrought back this Game of
Thrones character.
That's not treating youraudience like they're smart.
Like let's actually guide themthrough why this is interesting.
Like what about the question of,you know, what a species
(25:25):
actually is and how muchenvironment changes who we are
and the expression of our genes.
Those are the questions thatare.
Interesting.
Like give your audience that tochew on actually.
Cat (25:37):
Yeah, and we're, we're playing like a buzzfeed listicle
playbook and in a completelydifferent media world.
And I am sick of it.
I'm just sick of it.
And I, I think a lot of, a lotof people out there want a
deeper story.
They want to know, how can I becurious about things?
How can I care about things?
And, and how do I fight thesebattles?
(25:59):
Maybe, why does it feel kindaweird and wrong for all of my
medicine to come from one singlecompany and be manufactured at
one single factory or whatever,you know?
I think that these, thesequestions are like coming
through every area of scienceright now.
Ashley (26:16):
Mm.
So even though we're againstfactoids, I have a factoid for
you, Cat.
Cat (26:20):
Okay.
Ashley (26:22):
Our dog.
Our dog, who we know and love,uh, is dear to us.
Um, he has a Wolfiness score, sowe were asking like, how much do
would we need to geneticallymodify Yeti in order to bring
him to a wolf?
Cat (26:35):
For full, for full context, if you're listening to this, I
think you need to know what Yetilooks like.
He is, we call him anaccidoodle.
He's a rescue, has some poodlein him, and people describe him
as a Muppet.
They say he looks like thedragon from the never ending
story,
Ashley (26:51):
Falkor.
Yeah.
Cat (26:53):
yeah.
And um, like he's a fluffylittle curly mup faced Muppet
who just does not even lookhardly like a dog
Ashley (27:00):
Yeah.
Cat (27:01):
sometimes.
Ashley (27:02):
apparently, apparently his Wolfiness is medium at 0.9%
according to Embark, where wegot his DNA sequenced.
Um.
But speaking of like, sort ofthe frustration of stuff like
this, so, you know, this isobviously a proprietary thing
that they calculate theirWolfiness score is, is literally
what it's called.
They won't tell you like what itis.
(27:23):
So I don't know, like if this isbased on gray wolves or red
wolves or some other thing, adire wolf, who knows?
Um, yeah, but that's, that's thefactoid for today.
Cat (27:34):
How many times do we get like a health score or some
index or some metric and youhave no idea what it is, and
it's just like here.
This is your sleep score.
This is your Wolf score.
This is your ice bath score.
Ashley (27:49):
That's true.
We do this like kind of bullshitreduction of things.
I mean, double-edged swordagain, like sometimes you need a
number and you need to knowwhere you sit.
I just got blood tests like lastweek and they give you these
like nice little scales.
It's like, all right, you're inthe middle.
Or like, uh, my cholesterol'skind of high.
They're kind of at the, at theend of that.
Cat (28:08):
Yeah, but see what they're giving you interpretation, you
know?
And you're like, okay, there's apopulation of people and we know
the range they're giving you.
You actually do, they're,they're telling you what they
measure.
What I'm talking about are theseindexes that are like, we have
aggregated something into thisthing and we're calling The
keyword is always.
That you can watch for is thatthey call it an index and it, it
(28:29):
usually means we have secretsauce and here's your score of
on our index.
And I, I abhorred these things.
I think they're so misleadingfor people and I think it trains
you to actually not ask howthings are measured.
It's like you live in this worldwhere you're surrounded by
numbers, but you have no agencyover any of them.
Ashley (28:49):
Oh man.
Cat (28:52):
here, like you're a biologist trying to learn about
your dog, and we pay for thisservice and you don't even get
the information that you knowyou really could use to
understand it, and this happensagain and again.
Ashley (29:05):
Yeah, I mean they do give you like the genome file
and I did download that and playwith that, but I still don't
know where their Wolfs scorecomes from.
Cat (29:13):
Hmm hmm.
Ashley (29:15):
But yeah, I think this point about indexes is really,
that's really interesting.
So like, do you have a favoriteexample of an index that like, I
don't know, people get, you geta score on, but it's really hard
to interpret.
You just have to like take theirword for it.
Cat (29:29):
all the time in like industry and business, there
are, there are seeminglypsychology based indexes.
Happiness Index, wellbeingindex.
I mean, I, I do live in theworld sometimes of creating
measures that then we aggregate,but I'm really interested in
like what's going into that andwhy, and justifying that.
(29:51):
And I, I try to tie all of mineback to established bodies of
literature.
Um, but I think, I think whatyou see.
Is that the goal of these thingsis to give you the feeling of
being measured rather than likeactual, information that you
then incorporate into yourdecisions.
Yeah, and then it, it makes itreally, really difficult to
(30:13):
compare between things, youknow?
But that's often what those areused as well, like, I mean, I
think probably the most infamousexamples are like personality
measures or, you know, if youever had to go through like a
corporate thing where you'rebeing told you're a blue person
or a green person or, you know,there's just endless examples of
times people have kind of taken,what started as a scientific
(30:35):
idea somewhere, and then theysaid, I'm gonna make this way
more marketable and something,I'm gonna translate it enough
that I can put my name andtrademark onto it.
And now it's like the blueperson method, you know?
Ashley (30:47):
Yeah, totally.
I mean, yeah, maybe there couldbe like a what percent dire wolf
for you, sort of likepersonality score at work.
Cat (30:54):
my God.
Can you imagine?
You know, and then all, everyexecutive will have to be like,
I'm a, I'm a real alpha wolf,
Ashley (31:03):
Yeah.
You don't get to be a leadershipunless you're like at least 10%
dire.
I
Cat (31:06):
That's absolutely right.
Yeah.
And then there's gonna be likedifferent cooler versions that
emerge.
Like
Ashley (31:14):
Yeah.
Cat (31:14):
will post a meme and it's like, did you know that the like
red wolves actually are secretlythe strategic thinkers and it's
gonna be like a whole sortingmechanism.
Ashley (31:25):
Oh yeah.
But it's like all of this, itstrikes me as the same problem
then the same problem is likejust slapping a label on
something without discussing howwe got to the label, what it
means to even have the label,right, what the definition of
the label is, and why do we dothis all the time?
Cat (31:47):
Well, I think it's a very effective way of directing
resources to people who wantresources.
I mean, let's, like why is Colocolos Colossal?
Colossus?
I don't even know.
I don't care.
Colossal doing this.
They're the wealthiestde-extinction company in the
world.
A thing they invented, whichthey also won't define what on
(32:09):
earth is de-extinction.
What's its purpose?
Pretty easy to be the leading,cutting edge, best whatever of a
thing that you also inventedare, are the only player in, I
think these serve likestructural power ends and then
they capitalize on our, our, theway our minds work to create
hierarchies.
(32:30):
I think all of that is sort ofsilly in the example of wolves,
but we're not really givingsilly examples right when it
plays out in people's lives,like.
One of my friends had a baby andshe's a psychologist, and she
texted me and she said, youknow, trying to buy like nature
related things for my baby.
All boy clothes are predatoranimals and all girl clothes are
(32:54):
prey animals.
I mean, that is serving a socialfunction.
It's accomplishing a goal.
It's accomplishing a goal thatis useful for some people.
So I know I sound really like asociologist right now'cause I've
been reading a ton of sociology,but I think that those people
are onto something.
Ashley (33:14):
I think you're right.
I think you're right.
And I think, you know, like whenI hear dudes talking about dire
wolves, it's the same vibe.
It's the same vibe.
Cat (33:26):
Vibe based science is what Ashley's supporting right now.
Vibe based assessment ofscience.
Ashley (33:32):
Wait.
No, no, I'm against.
Well, okay.
Yeah, I, I'm, I'm assessing itbased on a vibe, but we
shouldn't do science based onvibes,
Cat (33:40):
no, no.
I know what you, that's what Imeant.
Oh, you, you might not haveheard of this, babe, which is
that there's this bigconversation going on in
software circles right now, andit's about what somebody called,
vibe coding.
So like coding, just kind ofwith, you know, AI assistance
and, and not really worryingabout it.
And I think it's reallyinteresting, but you, you know,
(34:00):
there is some, there's somewisdom to the vibe
Ashley (34:03):
I see.
Cat (34:04):
is my controversial opinion here.
Ashley (34:06):
Yeah, so, so listener, which has happened to something
that happens a lot in ourhousehold, which is Cat fills me
in on something happening intech.
Um, vibe based
Cat (34:16):
too, online?
Ashley (34:17):
well, that's okay.
One of us has to be, I guess,um, that sounds bad to me.
Like shouldn't we beinterrogating what
Cat (34:25):
No.
Ashley (34:27):
AI generated code is producing.
Cat (34:29):
Yeah, of course there's a bad version of it.
However, I, I always as apsychologist, think that you
can't just be like, bad andgood.
I'm the good one.
I, I think that it's expressinga real thing, which is that
developers are freakingexhausted, honestly.
Simple as that.
And they want to chill a littlebit.
Okay.
And like a lot of the onlinereaction, I think isn't being
(34:51):
compassionate to that.
However, what I was saying waslike, vibe based evaluation of
the scientific stories that arebeing put in front of you, I, I
think, has some merit.
Like if it just feels like, likewe've, we've, like we are in
this world of constantly beingsold bullshit, and you maybe you
have those muscles a little bit,
Ashley (35:12):
Mm.
Cat (35:13):
And if you see a headline and you're getting that, that
signal off of it, maybe that's asource of wisdom.
Ashley (35:19):
Yeah, I mean, I think that that is fine for people who
have years of experience andhard work and expertise behind
them to be able to make thatkind of vibey judgment.
Right.
Cat (35:32):
I don't know.
Ashley (35:33):
I don't trust, like I love my mom, but like my mom
can't judge a dire wolfheadline.
She, you know, she's gonna belike, oh, that's really cool.
They look cute.
Cat (35:42):
I don't know.
I, I believe in the wisdom ofordinary people.
I really do.
Okay.
And I, I know we're in a worldof misinformation.
I know we're in a world of, youknow, this is a, maybe a, this
is a different podcast episode.
I always think my goal is not tomake these people scientists.
My goal is to help them tap intothe ways of evaluating evidence
(36:05):
that I think is everybody'sright and heritage and like,
yeah, you can't do all of it.
It's not right to ask thesepeople to like, have to evaluate
like 19,000 genes or whatever.
You know, there's nicheknowledge they can't have and we
can try to connect them to it.
But I do think there's somethingabout, listen, you can actually,
you have skills to bring to thismoment.
(36:27):
You have wisdom, you have waysin which you understand whether
people are trustworthy or not,you know, and that all, you can
be a good scientific consumer.
With all of that, if you canstart listening to yourself
about it.
Ashley (36:40):
Yeah, that's, that's totally fair.
And, and yeah, mostly I agreewith you.
I think when I think about myrole as an educator, it's like
to get people to that point,like to get people to the point
where they can look at aheadline and, and suss it out.
Cat (36:53):
Well, you're forming scientists and I'm working with
engineers who will never, evernot be engineers, in my opinion.
Ashley (37:01):
Yeah.
But I think, you know, I thinkanother thing that you're
pointing out is, is again, likewhat does it actually mean to do
science?
And like, I think fundamentallyscience is a democratic process.
Like everybody can participatein science, and I'm not just
talking about like citizenscience and that's all really
good, but, but actually, like ifyou.
(37:22):
You, you know, brew coffee andyou are testing the grind size
to see if that impacts thequality of your coffee.
If you grow plants right, andyou're, you're sort doing
experiments, or if you're justobserving the birds or the, bugs
around you like.
This is all science and theprocess of science includes
these processes of observationand changing variables, and
(37:46):
everybody can do that.
And I think everybody candevelop an intuition for that.
And I think the thing we hateabout headlines that cross our
desk that claim big things isit's like.
I don't know.
It's not, it doesn't feelgrounded in that, in the same
way.
Like, and it, it isn'taccessible because, they,
(38:07):
they're the only people thathave access to this genome or
these like sequencingtechnologies and this money, and
it takes it away from peopleactually, like at the end of the
day.
Cat (38:18):
Well, what a contrast to some of the work that you do and
are connected to that thinksabout can we send little tiny
labs to classrooms for peoplewho are in deep poverty and help
them use a microscope to look ata leaf?
'cause that's all they have.
You have so many examples of, ofwork like that that you're
connected to that really isabout democratizing science.
(38:39):
I think where you and Icompletely align whatever debate
we might have about who shoulddo what, we're completely united
in, you need to be like anactive consumer and you deserve
to have agency.
And a lot of this stuff isrendering people like totally w
ithout that agency it'sdisempowering actually, even if
(39:01):
it's glamorous for a second,you're just the zoo visitor
forever.
You're never actually like amember of this ecosystem who
could maybe be a scientist oneday.
You're just the zoo visitor.
Ashley (39:14):
Oh man.
Yeah, I think that that's.
I think that that is it.
That's one of the core thingsthat I think this is like
landing on is like, it feelsinaccessible.
It's actually putting people onthe outside, and like when we
think about the ideal science wewant, we want investment from
(39:34):
the public.
We want, people to know what'sgoing on behind the scenes.
And like when you have companieswith proprietary.
Wolfly wolfiness scores orhidden zoos where they have
their wolves, that doesn't feelright, right?
That feels wrong.
That feels like not the, thepublic investment in science,
(39:55):
which is how we really want todo things openly with input.
Cat (40:00):
I think about like, where did science come from in the
first place?
And I didn't know what sciencewas when I was a kid, but I
remember reading, books about1800s people who went to their
backyards and observed insects,even despite all of the things I
(40:22):
didn't have access to, like Ididn't have, science labs or
know any scientists, having thisbelief that if you just look at
the world long enough, you couldbe a scientist as well.
People deciding they could goout and do this.
And in that, I think maybescience is really our birthright
(40:43):
part of our human legacy and allof this dystopian future that we
can kind of see glimpses of whenwe see this sort of stuff is
about shifting that ownershipaway from humanity and towards
just very specific individualsand groups they just own it
forever and they're theauthority forever.
Ashley (41:03):
Hmm, and that's the bullshit.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.