September 23, 2025 • 47 mins
What is in the This Week in Science Podcast? This Week: Interview with Dr. Michael E. Mann and Peter J. Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., about Science Under Siege. Become a Patron! Check out the full unedited episode of our podcast on YouTube or Twitch. And remember that you can find TWIS in all the podcast directories. […] The post 19 September, 2025 – Interview 1030 – Science Under Siege appeared first on This Week in Science - The Kickass Science Podcast.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Twists. This Week in Science episode number ten thirty,
recorded on Friday, September nineteenth, twenty twenty five. Science under Siege.
Hey everyone, I am doctor Kiki and today on the show,
we're gonna fill your head with the Siege on Science.
(00:22):
But first, thanks to our amazing Patreon sponsors for their
generous support of Twists. You can become a part of
the Patreon community at patreon dot com slash This Week
in Science.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
I've got that kind of mind. I can't get enough.
I want to learn everything. I want to fill it
all up with new discoveries. It happened every day of
the week. There's only one place to go to find
a knowledge. I think I want to.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Know what's happened.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Happens happened this week in Science. Terra Blood's Terra Book Science.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Heyllo and Happy Friday, Science fans. Everyone out there, Welcome
to another episode of This Week in Science, Happy Day
of Science. I'm alone on the show, well not for reels,
because I have some incredible guests and I am so
excited to introduce them to you. We have a special
interview show today speaking with Michael Iman and Peter J. Hotz,
(01:32):
who have written a book, Science Under Siege that is
now available. I've got post it notes, bookmarking special sections,
and things for us to talk about. So as we
get going. This is a short episode. We're just focusing
on the conversation and I really look forward to hearing
what you have to say about this after the fact.
(01:54):
In the meantime, remember you can subscribe to This Week
in Science all places podcasts are found. Look for This
Week in Science. We're on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitch as
a live streaming video program. You can catch us most
nights Wednesday's eight pm Pacific time ish. And if you
want show notes and other information and links to our Patreon,
(02:15):
Zazzle store, past episodes, and YouTube and Facebook and all
those places, go to Twists dot org our website. Please
share Twists today. Okay, introducing our wonderful guests today. Michael Mann,
Presidential Distinguished Scholar in the Department of Earth and Environmental
(02:35):
Science at the University of Pennsylvania, Director of the Penn
Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media. He contributed to
the two thousand and seven Nobel Peace Prize and was
elected to the US Academy of Sciences in twenty twenty,
and lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I know lots of people
who would go Philly right. Peter Hotez is the dean
(02:59):
of the Now School of Tropical Medicine and Professor of
Pediatrics and Molecular Virology and Microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine,
where he's also the co director of the Texas Children's
Center for Vaccine Development. He's an elected member of the
US National Academy of Medicine, and in twenty twenty two
was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work
(03:21):
on the COVID nineteen vaccine. He lives in Houston, Texas.
So these incredible scientists across the country from each other
have come together to write a book. I'd love to
bring them to the stage. Welcome to the show, doctors,
Man and Hotes Thank you for joining me. I'm going
to in this moment move our little twists boundary off
(03:46):
of our stage so that we can see you both
more fully. Okay, both of you. I have watched your
work for years, we've met, we've spoken in the past,
but since then, as I said before the show, it
just seems like it's been a lifetime. We've had many
(04:06):
lifetimes since you know, just a couple of years ago,
how are you both doing, Peter, How is it down
in Texas right now?
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Well, you know it's you know, as Dickens would say,
the best and worst of times. You know, the science
is going well. I mean, we're making discoveries. You know,
we've our COVID vaccine reached one hundred million people, proving
we can bypass the big pharma companies. And that's relevant
because when the anti vaccine dies attacked me, they always
(04:36):
say Michield for the pharma companies, when it's the opposite.
We provided a model so you could bypass the big
farmer companies. And now you know, my first love was
hookworm disease. That's what I worked on for my mdphd
thesis in New York City at Rockefeller University in Cornell,
and now it's working really well in clinical trials. So
that's exciting. And we're doing a number of climate health
(04:58):
initiatives because of as Michael will tell us, you know,
the rising temperatures altered rainfall patterns are bringing back diseases
like dangy and chicken gunya and zecovirus infection and hookworm infection.
To where I am in Texas and the Gulf Coast.
So we're doing a number of climate health early warning systems.
(05:19):
So the science is going great, but the level of
aggression and attacks because of the way I've been speaking
out and about why vaccines don't cause autism. That's how
I got involved because I have a daughter with autism
and talk having years of discussions with mister Kennedy have
put us in a dark place there. So best of the times,
(05:40):
worst times, Michael.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Yeah, Well, it's great to be with you, Kiki, and
we're big fans of what you do. It's so important
to you know, to communicate the science and its implications
to the public, and you do such a wonderful job
doing that with this show. And as Peter said, you
know you have now my first love was not a hookworm.
I have to say that that's what separates us.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
It wasn't my first price, but it is.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
It's sort of it's jarring right now because on the
one hand, you know, the science that we're doing, we're
pushing the frontiers of science ever forward, making amazing discoveries
and the health sciences and the physical sciences, climate modeling,
the way we're now making use of AI and machine
learning to further the science that we do, and that's
(06:31):
certainly true in climate modeling. So on the one hand,
the scientific tools that we have available to us and
the science that we're doing right now is pushing the
boundaries even further forward. At the same time, though, when
it comes to sort of public policy, when it comes to.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
The way that society.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Is interpreting or making use of science, we are going backwards.
Right in the United States right now, a country that
Peter and I talk about this in the book, this
is a country that was built on science. The you know,
the the economic growth that we've seen over the past
century was a consequence of the investments that we made
(07:17):
in basic scientific infrastructure that led to the growth in
science and technology.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
That has propelled us ever forward.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
But at the same time, now we have a federal
government where, you know, the Director of Health and Human
Services are of Kennedy Junior, is an anti vaxxer, is trying.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
To block access to vaccines.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Trying to defund the work that Peter and his colleagues
are doing to develop new vaccines for As Peter said,
the ever worsening pandemics that we're likely to see because
of the interaction between the climate crisis and other factors
that are leading to more frequent and intense pandemics, deadly pandemics.
(07:57):
So and then in climate right, I mean, we're seeing
a dismantling of the environmental progress made over half a
century by Republican as well as democratic administrations, all of
that disintegrating before our eyes because of an anti science,
you know, an anti science.
Speaker 5 (08:16):
Administration that.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Sees itself as basically a promoter of a number of
powerful special interests, the fossil fuel industry and other special interests,
rather than a protector of the people. And and it's
it's worrying, it is it's disconcerting, and it's deadly. And
(08:41):
that's the bottom line. The point that Peter and I
make in this book is that these ever worsening pandemics
are deadly. The climate crisis is deadly. And now misinformation
and disinformation which makes it impossible for us to act,
makes this even more deadly.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, I mean, that's that's the sort of the top
line of the book. That there's not two existential threats
to humanity, there are three. The two that we talk about,
of course, are pandemic threats and the climate crisis. But
now the third one that now unfortunately you may have
equal weight, is this massive ecosystem of anti science disinformation
(09:17):
that blocks our ability to respond to it. So it's
a three legged tripod.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
It is a three legged tripod, but it seems as though.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
A three headed monster. We've used different analogies for this.
We can't quite decide on the right one.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Or it's the misinformation disinformation monster with that's eating or
that is, you know, destroying the ability to defend or
to exactly.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
Eating something like that.
Speaker 5 (09:48):
It's bad.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
It's attacking not only the science, but it's attacking the
scientists and portraying us as public enemies or cartoon villains.
And so it's created this sort of very dark situation.
And and and this is why we were I was
so excited when when you invited us, because because you know,
(10:11):
I worry about the young people, right, the young scientists
who you know, you know here at Baylor they look
at me like Moses in the desert. You know, why
did you bring us here? And well, you know.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
You can see the golden calf in the back.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
Right right right exactly, And and and the point is
there is there is there is a path of Light Forward,
and Michael was really good about teaching me about this
concept of doomism. You know that we you know, just
to throw up our hands say there's nothing we can
do is not true. There are always things we can do,
and we work hard in the book to to do that.
(10:48):
And it's not about moving to France. It's there are
things that we can do in the United States. And
as a young scientist you still have a very bright future,
but you're going to have to be very strategic and deliberate.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
Let me just say it's two sided.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
I've learned so much from working with Peter. This is
one of the most enjoyable ventures in my life. Was
is the friendship that we've developed in this joint, joint
effort to you know, at a moment that we.
Speaker 5 (11:13):
Both see is absolutely critical to the future of our civilization.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
So in in all of this, you know, there is
this the seed of internal strife within academia for years
that when you become the scientist who is engaging with
the public ala Carl Sagan or you know, any of
the public scientist figures over the many years, suddenly you're
(11:39):
not as credible or good of a scientist anymore. That
you've given up some academic rigor by doing that. How
not the attacks from outside, but what has the response
to you been, you know, from each of your distinctive fields.
And so Peter will like if you could answer that first.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Yeah, no, it's a really important question. I'm glad you
asked it, you know, and this is Martin Luther King.
One said, not that I'm comparing ourselves to Martin Luther King,
but you know he talks about it's not just the
words of the enemies, but the silence of the friends.
And and I think that that is especially in the
in the biomedical science, is because the academic health centers
(12:21):
are fiercely protective of their institutional brand. And and you know,
Baylor College of Medicine text Children's Hospital are better than most,
but you know they don't often like their docs and
scientists speaking out or you kind of get this thing
whereas well, you're an academic, you're free to speak out
dot dot dot, but don't screw this up and get
(12:42):
the institution in trouble. And of course, if you're out
there in the public domain enough, as we all know,
you will screw it up. And you wi look at
the institution in trouble and you need to know you
have the backing and the institution. So it creates this
kind of sort of damocles that has a very chilling effect.
And the reason that's so terrible is is that young scientists,
especially become intimidated and speaking out or don't feel comfortable
(13:05):
doing it, and that creates a vacuum, so that lets
the bad actors weaponize what we do and it portrays
us as public enemies or cartoon villains. And and then
I'll say one more thing and then stop, which is
I don't have a lot of evidence to support that,
but I like you know this. There's an in our area.
There's a great policy group called Research America. They're based
(13:27):
in the DC area, and they track these sort of
trends and they ask the American people every couple of years,
can you name a living scientist and can you name
an institution where biomedical research is conducted? And the answer
is always the same. Seventy five percent of Americans cannot
name a living scientist. Then most Americans can't name an
institution or biomedical research is conductor. And that's my design.
(13:50):
And when they do finally mention someone, you know, the
first stallonium, Einstein or Jonas Sault not realizing they've moved on.
And then who.
Speaker 6 (14:01):
A long time ago, a friend Phil and I who
was a one an engineer, but he's not down in
the trenches, you know, scientists like Peter or myself, you know.
Speaker 5 (14:13):
Uh, And so there is this is not.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
Struggling over you know, major revisions of papers from reviewer
to and yeah, you don't get discussed in all the
scientific meanings. So we're invisible and that allows them to
portray us as you know, shadowy figures and white coats,
plotting all sorts of nefarious.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Things because you're actually doing your work like you're you're
trying to get money to support it and then doing
it which usually is an a laboratory and not in
front of a mind.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that, because, as Peter said,
they there's this effort, there's this vacuum right when we're
not out there speaking to the public. Then that leaves
a vacuum for the bad actors to fill with sort
of caricatures, to villainize, vilify us, and present caricatures of us,
and to sort of communicate these various myths and talking
(15:08):
points like these scientists, they are just in it for
the grant money, as if that the grant money goes
to our pockets. No, it funds our research programs, it
funds our graduate students, it pays for publications.
Speaker 5 (15:21):
But the public.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Doesn't know these things. And if we're not out there
not just explaining the science, but explaining how science actually works,
it leaves this dangerous vacuum. And that's where Peter and
I are, you know, doing what we can to sort
of fill that vacuum. But we need other voices and
we need to be out there making sure that there's
space for younger scientists to come into you know, into
(15:44):
this world of communication, to feel like they can do
so safely, that they have the support of the scientific community.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
It's so critical.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, I mean, I mean for instant. Me give you
an example. So one of the talking heads on Fox News,
who now has a leadership position in this current administration,
and you know, would go after me and would go
after me on Fox News. Did you say, of course
Hotels is in the secret cabal with Fauci because he
has funding, some funding from the National Institutes of Allergy
(16:15):
and Infectious Diseases of the NIH and it was so
disingenuous because the whole microbiology department at his university depends
on that in aid funding. But the point is science
literacy is you know, but it gave me a good idea.
Both Michael and I have good idea that science literacy
is not just about informing people about the second law thermodynamics,
(16:35):
but it's also.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
The person law science.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Yeah, but you know, what is a scientific grant? How
does it work? What do scientists do? And and you know,
and what does it mean to be a scientist? A
presented scientific means why we don't advance science by debating
crack pots? That all has to be advanced as part
of this science literacy, I think.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Yeah, And I'm just reflecting on like in the book,
you talk about being you know, basically invited to debate
RFK Junior on on vaccine issues, on autism issues in
a public sphere, and how you did not take the
bait even though everybody who had a you know, a
side to kind of pull you into, to try and
(17:21):
use all of the social pressures they could to bring
you into it. I thank you for standing strong because
that's the kind of.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Thing thank you for. Thank you to Michael for being
my brock theory. That's that's really how he got connected because.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
Right at you and because you know, I was just
gonna say one of my favorite sections of the book,
the title debate Me bro and thank You.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
It takes to a scary place when you know, Joe
Rogan and Elon Musk and Kennedy are all banging up
on you, and you know it's every every follower on
Twitter except the ones following Taylor Swift or just you know,
all on you at once, and you're like, what the
heck is going on here? So but you know, this
is why Michael was such an amazing resource, because you know,
(18:06):
the attacks on climate science preceded the attacks medicine a decade,
two decades, and he was really able to, you know,
help me put it in perspective and say, well, you know,
been there, done that, this is this is how this works.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
It was PTSD right for me right decades after you know,
we had been we in in the world of climate science.
Speaker 5 (18:28):
When we published a hockey stick curve in the.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
Late nineteen nineties and it came under attack because it
was this sort of iconic graph. So I had been
through this two and a half decades ago, and then
we get into sort of the COVID era and it's
PTSD for me because I see, you know, scientists, wonderful
people like Peter, like Tony Fauci being attacked using exactly
the same tactics in many cases some of the same
(18:51):
organizations and individuals behind those attacks. And I felt like
it was important to reach out and we established this
friendship and it's and it's been wonderful to have this experience,
to sort of do this sort of vulcan mind meld,
to put our respective experiences together and to see what
(19:12):
we can synthesize from them. And that's what the book
is really about.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Yeah, And in the book you also refer to Merchants
of Doubt by Naomi Orreski's and she was one of
the writers who really brought to public awareness the tactics
that are being used. And how you know, we have
big tobacco, big sugar, big oil, you know, all and
these big money interest groups that are really you know,
(19:38):
working to subdue or to you know, to control public opinion.
And now we see, like you said, this this coming together,
this this weaving together now of all these various lines
of propaganda which of course the propaganda playbook came from
the CIA back in like you know, but it was
(20:02):
like a.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Was owned by the tobacco industry and then the gun lobby.
We see the same and now that in the in
the fossil fuel industry ran with it, and the sort
of the health freedom you know, anti vax community ran
with it as well. And that's what was so instructive
for Peter and me, you know, to compare notes and
to understand it's the same tactics, it's the same people.
Speaker 5 (20:26):
It's remarkable.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
And then merging with it was a was a new
money making force. Posts, the posts, the merchants of douct book,
and that is a very lucrative health and wellness influencer enterprise.
And if you ever wondered why they're always anti parasitic
drugs hydroxychloroquin I've remected and then ben dissolve, it's because
(20:49):
you can buy them up in bulk and they're cheap,
and then you can repackage and jack up the price
and you sell it with a telehealth visit and it's
a half. It's the health and all this influencer empire's
like Cafe trillion dollar empire and the lat But for
the model to work, you've got to denigrate things that
actually work, like vaccines, and again portray the scientists like
(21:13):
myself and others as as enemies. And and you see
some of the most aggressive attacks are coming from that
health and wellness influence. And now mister Kennedy has adopted
that in his language, because in the past when I've
spoken to him, he didn't talk about supplements in this
but now he says, well, you can either get the
measles pumps rebella vaccine during our measles epidemic in Texas
(21:35):
that hit four states, or you can get you know
what turns out to be a useless cocktail of supplements
like vitamin abe, desinide, and clarithromycin. You're wondering where did
that come from? Well, that came from the health wellness
influencer empire.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Yeah. I mean we should have learned long ago that
if you have a doctor telling you things, or somebody
who's an expert telling you certain things and then wanting
to sell you a solution, they're very likely not really
telling you all the right things.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
It's called snake.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
Oil, but like you said, it's a multi trillion dollar
economic driver. And it's even bigger than the pharmaceutical industries now,
so the Make America Healthy Again empire is bigger money
and there's more in it than there is the supposed
(22:28):
big pharma.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Bigger industry than that is the fossil fuel industry. And
so there you have it.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
There you have it. That's the there are two.
Speaker 4 (22:36):
You know that the economic models are a little different here,
but fundamentally it's about bad actors making huge profits at
the expense of people and the planet.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yeah, and in this book, you you lay out of
your five p's which you have been telling people about
and writing about, and you've got describe in full in
the book. And so some of these bad actors, if
one of you, I would like to talk about how
how they all tie together, like because they are separate,
(23:08):
but I feel like that's the now is the weaving
of them, right, It's.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
All start with William Shatner.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
We're talking about bad actors.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
No, sorry, you know, we're actually talking about different kind
of bad actors here, just so people understand bad.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
I love.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
You especially as early Twilight Zone episodes those are just wonderful.
But yeah, I mean so yeah, we we we name
and shame right, because we felt it was important to
do that. So we've got plutocrats. We've got petro states.
In the United States right now is a petro state.
Our politics are driven by the fossil fuel industry to
(23:48):
a large extent.
Speaker 5 (23:49):
We've got petro dollar.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
Absolutely, we've got propagandists and pros the ones we've talked
about are making money from pedaling misinformation and disinformation one
way or another. And then we've got the press. And
we're not just talking.
Speaker 5 (24:02):
About the the the.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Murdoch you know media empire, the right wing media, which
has done so much damage in both of these domains,
but even the legacy media, the you know, the New
York Times, the Washington Post that engage in what Peter
and I describe as a performative neutrality, pretending, for example,
and platforming on the pages, on their editorial pages, on
(24:25):
their off ed pages. You know, the Labe hypothesis, as
if this is you know, every bit as credible as
what the science actually suggests yonautic origins, and Peter, you know,
I know has that's where Peter, you know, Peter's experiences
were sort of very instructive here in that area.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Yeah, I mean, I think the bigger picture. You know
that also along with the financial motivation is the political motivation,
and you could understand why a petri state would want
to go after climate science and science climate scientists. It's horrible,
but it makes sense. It's less obvious why they would
attack vaccines and pandemic preparedness until you realize you know
(25:14):
this is you know this. Sometimes a petro state will
or a authoritarian government, and often too often they're one
and the same, will target the intelligentsia and science and
scientists for political gain. And we look at that historical
twentieth century record and when Stalin through the Mendelian geneticist
(25:37):
nicola I Vaveloff, the one of the top geneticists in
the world, into the Gulag, where he ultimately perished from
exposure and starvation to Gulag hospital in order to promote
the pseudoscience Lamarchian theories of a non scientist, trophy Lysenko
claimed he could soak the wheat and snow and toughen
it up and get it ready for the winter, even
(26:00):
though that didn't work and it caused massive famine and
killed millions of people in Ukraine and the Soviet Union
during the thirties and forties. It didn't matter because that
was a means for political control. And that's one of
the things we really worry about right now that's happening
that you know, as Michael started out this talking about
(26:24):
we are a nation built on the greatness of our
research universities and institutions that you know, gave us the
Manhattan Project and victory in the Cold War, and victory
against AIDS and cancer and all those other good things.
But they have a flip on its side for political
control that takes it to a very dark place. And
(26:45):
the closest that we could come to it was to say,
this is what Stalin did during the thirties. It's what
they did in Weimar, Germany to some extent as well.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
This whole what's happening now is what has happened before
will happen again. Those who don't learn from history are
doomed to repeat it. If you never get taught history,
well there you go.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
So if history doesn't repeat, it certainly does rhyme. And
we're seeing the rhyming of history right now here in
the United States.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Yeah, and I years back we came up with the
National science standards, and I was very excited about the
inquiry based education standards that were being implemented. And there
were several states that decided not to implement the standards,
and there are reasons why, and they seem to be
certain states that are still doing things a particular way.
(27:38):
And yet now it may not matter because the education
itself is being dismantled undermined.
Speaker 5 (27:50):
How will we.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Be able to address these ideas of understanding science where
we need people to understand how science works, why we're
doing it. How are we going to address that if
the educational conduit that funnel, if if that channel is undermined,
(28:12):
if we don't if there's you know, it's just if
people get curious or they end up on an internet
rabbit hole watching YouTube videos like this one.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
No, yeah, well, I mean.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
And in the book, you know, we we sort of
talk about the sort of micro strategies for dealing with
that and the macro strategies, and the final chapter is
really sort of the what the big picture? What do
we need to do? There are lots of things we've
talked about. Some of them scientists need to be out there.
The invisible scientist is part of the problem. We need
to create a culture where scientists feel free, you know,
(28:48):
feel empowered to be out speaking to the public, helping
inform the public. We need support. We need the scientific societies.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
We need the.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Scientific institutions to back the scientists when they're attacked, when
they're vilified.
Speaker 5 (29:03):
By bad actors in the way that they.
Speaker 4 (29:04):
Are, because that becomes a disincentive, especially the young scientists,
in participating in the public conversation. But then we sort
of step back in the end. For all the things
to happen that we need to happen, we need policy makers.
We need politicians who care about those things, who care
about us, who care about science and science based policy.
And the only way that's going to happen is if
(29:26):
we turn out in elections and we vote for those politicians. Otherwise, unfortunately,
we get the situation that we have right now in
the United States where we have a federal government, and
that's an executive branch, a Congress, and a Supreme Court
that is working together to undermine everything that we have
tried to do for decades, whether it's dealing with the
(29:49):
climate crisis, dealing with pandemics, or any of the other
major challenges that we face.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Any thoughts on this, Peter.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Yeah, what Michael says is absolutely right. And you know,
I'm sure some of your viewers, you know, are saying, well,
wait a minute. I didn't become a scientist to become
a media star and to be out in the public domain.
I want to I want to do science right. I
want to do my experiments and write my papers and
(30:19):
talk to my colleagues. And you know what, that's totally fine.
I think, you know, no one should feel compelled or
that they feel like they have to do it. But
I think what we're saying is there's a subset, maybe
not a big one, but a significant one nonetheless, especially
among young people who whose commitment to public services and
(30:42):
are an all time high, and we have to provide
outlets for them to do that and maybe offering training
opportunities to do that. Also getting incentivized for promotion and
a career advancement. You know, I get evaluated like everybody
else does. And I don't see patients anymore, but know I,
you know, what are they asked me about. They asked
me about my grants and my h papers preferably and
(31:06):
what they call high impact journals whatever that is these days,
or they ask me about my grants or my papers
and high impact journals or my grants in high impact journal.
Basically that's it, right the journals that right, right, right right,
there's there's nothing. There's nothing there you know about you
know the time I spent doing things like this or
(31:28):
and and you know what am I doing in the
public communication realm, and and and so the message gets
sent is that stuff's not important. Hey, you want to
do it, and you want to waste your time doing
that kind of stuff. Fine, We've got to change that
culture in scientific training and career advancement to say, wait
a minute, this is this is almost as important or
as important as is your next paper. And because because
(31:52):
the future is at stake, according.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
To the futures at stake, in the future is uncertain.
I would love to know, like currently, couple of very
recent uh things that happened in the news just this
week we had and Peter, I'm going to uh direct
this question at you, specifically the Vaccine Review Board for
(32:16):
the CDC, the A C I P, which has been
stacked with vaccine skeptics, deniers, with people from that great
economic force of the health industry and wellness industry. They
have they've voted to change the MMR schedule for for
(32:39):
vaccination this last week, but they've pushed off the hepatitis
decision for for newborns. Do you have any any thoughts about,
you know, the the process that's that's happening.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Yeah, I mean the the it's a continuance. So this
started mister Kennedy he assumed office his Health and Human
Services secretary. He started out with some saying terrible things
about people on the autism spectrum. And and that's how
I got involved because I have a daughter with autism.
(33:13):
And then it was about several years ago I got
this call from my assistant and said, hey, I got
these two gentlemen on the phone. One is named doctor
Anthony Fauci and the other one's name doctor Francis Collins.
You speak with them? And I said, yeah, I think so,
And they, you know, and asked me to speak to
(33:33):
Bobby Kennedy, you know, for which I did for a
year and saw how deeply dug in he was. But
that led me to write the book Vaccines did Not
Cause Rachel's Autism. And it's been off to the races
ever since. And and and so he's he started right
out with the bang, you know, revisiting the autism leeks.
Then during our terrible measles epidemic, he started pushing supplements.
(33:57):
Then he's tearing down MRN a technology in favor of
an older technology that is far more problematic. So what's
going on at a CIP Advisory Committee immanization practices is
a continuum. Now he's going to come back to autism,
I think in a week or two, and he's going
to say he's found the cause of autism, which if
you know anything about the complex interplay of autism genetics
(34:21):
and you know potential environmental exposures all in early fetal
brain development, you would know that that's absolutely ridiculous. So
it's so you know, rather than just coming specifically on
what ac IP is saying, which is totally ridiculous. Remember
this is part of a systematic effort to destroy our
HOTO vaccine infrastructure and with it, our pandemic preparedness. Uh
(34:46):
and and we'll weaken our whole nation's biosecurity.
Speaker 5 (34:50):
There's more.
Speaker 4 (34:52):
There's more, because just a few weeks ago, our FK
Junior was actually pair climate denial talking.
Speaker 5 (35:02):
Points as well.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
Specifically claiming that wind mills they call them wind mills,
although obviously we're not talking about milling grain. They're talking
about wind turbines.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
And usually offshore sometimes, you know, these.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
Are wind turbines are supposedly killing whales and there's no
science to support that. The scientific community has been very
clear that there is no connection there.
Speaker 5 (35:27):
But it's part of the assault.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
On clean energy, on renewable energy, uh, you know, in
service of the fossil fuel industry and uh. And it
is you know, and and it is coordinated at the
highest levels of our government. Now it's entirely bad faith.
And so here we see sort of equal opportunity, an
(35:50):
equal opportunity assault by the same individual RFK Junior on
both sort of climate action, clean energy, and obviously on
public health as well.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
And along those lines we have the deregulation efforts, so
the carbon carbon dioxide emissions being a problem for industry
through the e p A. Uh, they want to get
rid of that ruling. And so the earlier summer report
that was put together again by and a committee of
(36:23):
five people who are well known for being climate skeptics,
or we.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
Don't even call them skeptics because skepticism is a good
thing in science.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
But they're I know, I know, I hate it. It's
pseudo it is pseudoscience. There, I'm trying to know the
right word to say.
Speaker 4 (36:40):
Now, because we call climate deniers if they're denying the basics.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
Climate propa anti climate science propagandists is really what they are,
because they're cherry picking data. They are, you know, and
it's this is it's propaganda. And I'm going to take
the pros propaganda using the yes.
Speaker 4 (37:01):
I mean something unprecedented I have never seen in my
entire career. It was so egregious that the US National
Academy of Science is just the other day issued a
report specifically addressing the false claims that were made in
this so called EPA report written by these climate contrarians,
(37:22):
and I have never seen Peter can tell you we both.
I'm a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He's
a member of the National Academy of Medicine. These reports
go through several stages of peer review, there's a there
is a long process, and for them to have turned
out a report in a matter of weeks is unprecedented,
(37:42):
and it speaks to the Academy stepping up and saying
this is too dangerous for us to not respond as
rapidly as we possibly can, more rapidly than we've ever
responded to anything before.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
And the response to that report that is four times
longer than the original report, It has more references, it
is it's an incredible piece of work, and it's a
wonderful response. But what came back was this, oh yeah, okay, yeah,
we'll get rid of that. That committee that we'll see
(38:18):
about that report. Of course, we'll take a look at it,
and of course it.
Speaker 4 (38:21):
Is done wrong.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
But what they did is they of course opened.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
Up the debate exactly.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
And it's coming back to this word debate that we
started with earlier talking about Peter's you know, the invitation
to it. And I think this is where the misconstruing
right and the miss the the using of words that
have multiple meanings or can be interpreted different ways. It's
(38:48):
where as scientists, we need to be talking to each
other the way that you both are that, as you said,
we need to support scientists who want to be talking
to people. How do we teach younger scientists? What do
we tell younger scientists now how to respond to this
because now his game is on.
Speaker 3 (39:10):
Well, one of the things that I say is, you know,
I can't think of many instances where science was advanced
through debate, especially through with someone with no scientific qualifications
and has an intent to deceive. I mean, you know,
we had in the Salve Physics conferences in the nineteen
(39:30):
twenties who had Einstein having public discussions with Neils Bohr
at those meetings. But those were two brilliant physicists, you know,
who had differing views, who were trying to figure things out,
who respected each other. That's very different from you know,
going on the Joe Rogan Show and watching Bobby Kennedy
(39:51):
just make it up as he goes along. And you know,
as Michael, I think who first pointed out to me.
The minute you do that, you've lost ninety percent of
the battle because you've platformed now someone with crackpot ideas
and given them equal weight. And that in itself is
the victory right right and there, And that's the danger
(40:11):
of that false bove.
Speaker 4 (40:12):
Yeah, the nerd in me likes to frame this in
terms of Baysian statistics and priors. You get up on
the stage with the science denier, you've given the audience.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
A prior of fifty to fifty.
Speaker 4 (40:24):
In other words, you've told them to start out, assume
that each of these positions are equally credible, and the
best that you can possibly do over the course of
that thirty minute or whatever debate would be to actually
bring the audience somewhere close to where the weight of
science actually stands. That's the best that you can hope
(40:45):
to do. So you've almost sort of lost by getting
up there. Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be
refuting the myths the untruths that are being promoted. We
do because there are honest people who get caught in between.
They hear the rhetoric from science deniers, they think there's
some debate, they think there's uncertainty, and so they sort
(41:08):
of throw up their hands and then the bad actors
win because they don't need to win the debate, They
just need to create enough uncertainty that there's stasis, that
there's business as usual, that there's no policy action. Now,
good friend of ours, Bill Nye, I think Bill is
the perfect person to debate these science deniers because it's
not Anthony Fauci getting up there, it's not Peter getting
(41:29):
up there. It's Bill ny one of the most likable
people on the planet, that so many people learn to
love science from watching when they were young. That's incredibly
charismatic and incredibly skilled in that sort of forum. Bill
should be doing those sorts of debates, and he does,
and he wins them. But the rest of us do
(41:50):
have to refute the misinformation. We do have to push back,
and there are various ways to do that. But just
getting up on the stage with a science denier in
general is not.
Speaker 5 (42:00):
A good strategy.
Speaker 4 (42:01):
I think it was Peter who gave me this anecdote
before it was a colleague of his who once said,
you know a scientist who said, if I debate you,
it's going to look really good on your resume and
really bad on mine. And that sort of really underscores
what we're talking about here.
Speaker 3 (42:16):
And it doesn't mean you can't be out there in
the public domain. And I've said, look, I'll go on
the Joe back on the Joe Rogan Show as I
had before, I'm just not going to do the platform,
you know, mister, And because I think that would I
think that's very dangerous. It also, you know, sends the
wrong message to young scientists about how we do signs.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
I think that's so important in this last moment, I've
already kept you longer than half an hour, so I
appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (42:43):
We enjoyed it.
Speaker 3 (42:45):
Discussion.
Speaker 1 (42:46):
It's so wonderful to talk with you, and I of
course I would have so I just want to talk
talk talk about all this stuff. But your time is
so valuable and the work you're doing is valuable. Do
you have any last moment comments for for my audience,
for people who might read your book, Peter, I.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Think the message is our ability to solve scientific problems
is in an all time high. You know, just in
my field alone, between the acceleration of technologies and the
use of information science, including AI, there's almost no infectious disease.
(43:26):
We can't make a vaccine too, and same with even
cancer vaccine. Now we're moving into the cancer vaccine space
that we've got the m R and a technology working
so efficiently. And not to let the bad guys turn
you away from solving big problems. You can still solve
big problems. You're going to have to be more strategic
(43:48):
in your career because I do think we will see
the clients and government support for science and so seeking alternatives,
whether it's through biotech, through the private sector, through private Philanthie,
it's going to make it tougher, but it's still very dual.
Speaker 4 (44:05):
And Michael, yeah, and I guess my message would be
just sort of to the person on the street, to
the average person out there. It all feels so overwhelming
sometimes that you know, Peter.
Speaker 5 (44:17):
Alluded to this earlier. It's easy for us to.
Speaker 4 (44:19):
Fall victim to sort of doom and despair, and that's
a win for the other side. That's a win for
the forces of anti science, because if we get throw
up our hands in defeat, then they win. And so
we have to recognize, and this is true for both
pandemics and the climate crisis, that there is urgency unlike
we've ever seen before, no question about it. But we
(44:41):
also have agency. It's not too late for us to
make a difference here.
Speaker 1 (44:47):
The best time to start is now. Yesterday would have
been great, but now it's fine. It's just keep going, everybody,
let's do this. Thank you for writing your book, Science
under Siege. Everyone. It is available now and if you
head out to places like bookshop dot org, your local
(45:08):
library or maybe Powell's bookstore. If you are in the
Portland area like I am, you know you'll be able
to find this wonderful book. And I actually do really
recommend this book for people who are considering want to
understand the modern dynamic of what's happening, and also who
(45:30):
might be considering going into science communication, because it's good
to know what you're going to have to deal with,
and I think this book sets the landscape for you
so you'll have a place to start. Thank you both
so much for your work.
Speaker 3 (45:44):
Yeah, thank you, We really appreciate it. It was a
great discussion. The time went by fast. It's so fast.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
Oh my gosh, I'm.
Speaker 4 (45:50):
Like it again. We would love to come back and
do it again sometimes. So thank you.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
There there are many more places to go with this.
Thank you very much everyone. Thank you for watching. This
is this week in Science. Thanks for being here, for
chatting in the chat room, and thank you for being
interested in the value of science. Please share with your
friends out there, because the more we talk about the
value of science, the stronger we will all be. Find
(46:16):
us again next Wednesday, a Pianish specific time for more
This week in Science, It's all in your head.
Speaker 7 (46:25):
This Week in Science This week in Science, This week
in Science, This week in Science. It's the end of
the world, So I'm setting up shop. Got my banner refurled.
It says the scientist is in. I'm gonna sell my advice,
(46:46):
tell them how to stop and robots with a simple device,
all REVERSI all the warming with a wave of my hands,
and it will coffee.
Speaker 5 (46:55):
Here is a couple of grass.
Speaker 7 (46:59):
This week's science is coming your way, so everybody listens
to what I say.
Speaker 3 (47:05):
I use the scientific method for all that it's worth,
and I'll broadcast my.
Speaker 5 (47:10):
Opinion all over the.
Speaker 2 (47:14):
Well.
Speaker 3 (47:14):
It's this week in science, This week in science.
Speaker 7 (47:18):
This week in science, Science, Science, Science, Science, Science, This
week in science, This weekend Science, This week in science,
This week in science, This week in Science, This week
in Science, This week in Science, This week in Science,
This is Twists. This Week in Science episode number ten thirty,
recorded on Friday, September nineteenth, twenty twenty five. Science under Siege.
Hey everyone, I am doctor Kiki and today on the show,
we're gonna fill your head with the Siege on Science.
(00:22):
But first, thanks to our amazing Patreon sponsors for their
generous support of Twists. You can become a part of
the Patreon community at patreon dot com slash This Week
in Science.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
I've got that kind of mind. I can't get enough.
I want to learn everything. I want to fill it
all up with new discoveries. It happened every day of
the week. There's only one place to go to find
a knowledge. I think I want to.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Know what's happened.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Happens happened this week in Science. Terra Blood's Terra Book Science.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Heyllo and Happy Friday, Science fans. Everyone out there, Welcome
to another episode of This Week in Science, Happy Day
of Science. I'm alone on the show, well not for reels,
because I have some incredible guests and I am so
excited to introduce them to you. We have a special
interview show today speaking with Michael Iman and Peter J. Hotz,
(01:32):
who have written a book, Science Under Siege that is
now available. I've got post it notes, bookmarking special sections,
and things for us to talk about. So as we
get going. This is a short episode. We're just focusing
on the conversation and I really look forward to hearing
what you have to say about this after the fact.
(01:54):
In the meantime, remember you can subscribe to This Week
in Science all places podcasts are found. Look for This
Week in Science. We're on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitch as
a live streaming video program. You can catch us most
nights Wednesday's eight pm Pacific time ish. And if you
want show notes and other information and links to our Patreon,
(02:15):
Zazzle store, past episodes, and YouTube and Facebook and all
those places, go to Twists dot org our website. Please
share Twists today. Okay, introducing our wonderful guests today. Michael Mann,
Presidential Distinguished Scholar in the Department of Earth and Environmental
(02:35):
Science at the University of Pennsylvania, Director of the Penn
Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media. He contributed to
the two thousand and seven Nobel Peace Prize and was
elected to the US Academy of Sciences in twenty twenty,
and lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I know lots of people
who would go Philly right. Peter Hotez is the dean
(02:59):
of the Now School of Tropical Medicine and Professor of
Pediatrics and Molecular Virology and Microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine,
where he's also the co director of the Texas Children's
Center for Vaccine Development. He's an elected member of the
US National Academy of Medicine, and in twenty twenty two
was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work
(03:21):
on the COVID nineteen vaccine. He lives in Houston, Texas.
So these incredible scientists across the country from each other
have come together to write a book. I'd love to
bring them to the stage. Welcome to the show, doctors,
Man and Hotes Thank you for joining me. I'm going
to in this moment move our little twists boundary off
(03:46):
of our stage so that we can see you both
more fully. Okay, both of you. I have watched your
work for years, we've met, we've spoken in the past,
but since then, as I said before the show, it
just seems like it's been a lifetime. We've had many
(04:06):
lifetimes since you know, just a couple of years ago,
how are you both doing, Peter, How is it down
in Texas right now?
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Well, you know it's you know, as Dickens would say,
the best and worst of times. You know, the science
is going well. I mean, we're making discoveries. You know,
we've our COVID vaccine reached one hundred million people, proving
we can bypass the big pharma companies. And that's relevant
because when the anti vaccine dies attacked me, they always
(04:36):
say Michield for the pharma companies, when it's the opposite.
We provided a model so you could bypass the big
farmer companies. And now you know, my first love was
hookworm disease. That's what I worked on for my mdphd
thesis in New York City at Rockefeller University in Cornell,
and now it's working really well in clinical trials. So
that's exciting. And we're doing a number of climate health
(04:58):
initiatives because of as Michael will tell us, you know,
the rising temperatures altered rainfall patterns are bringing back diseases
like dangy and chicken gunya and zecovirus infection and hookworm infection.
To where I am in Texas and the Gulf Coast.
So we're doing a number of climate health early warning systems.
(05:19):
So the science is going great, but the level of
aggression and attacks because of the way I've been speaking
out and about why vaccines don't cause autism. That's how
I got involved because I have a daughter with autism
and talk having years of discussions with mister Kennedy have
put us in a dark place there. So best of the times,
(05:40):
worst times, Michael.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
Yeah, Well, it's great to be with you, Kiki, and
we're big fans of what you do. It's so important
to you know, to communicate the science and its implications
to the public, and you do such a wonderful job
doing that with this show. And as Peter said, you
know you have now my first love was not a hookworm.
I have to say that that's what separates us.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
It wasn't my first price, but it is.
Speaker 4 (06:10):
It's sort of it's jarring right now because on the
one hand, you know, the science that we're doing, we're
pushing the frontiers of science ever forward, making amazing discoveries
and the health sciences and the physical sciences, climate modeling,
the way we're now making use of AI and machine
learning to further the science that we do, and that's
(06:31):
certainly true in climate modeling. So on the one hand,
the scientific tools that we have available to us and
the science that we're doing right now is pushing the
boundaries even further forward. At the same time, though, when
it comes to sort of public policy, when it comes to.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
The way that society.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Is interpreting or making use of science, we are going backwards.
Right in the United States right now, a country that
Peter and I talk about this in the book, this
is a country that was built on science. The you know,
the the economic growth that we've seen over the past
century was a consequence of the investments that we made
(07:17):
in basic scientific infrastructure that led to the growth in
science and technology.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
That has propelled us ever forward.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
But at the same time, now we have a federal
government where, you know, the Director of Health and Human
Services are of Kennedy Junior, is an anti vaxxer, is trying.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
To block access to vaccines.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Trying to defund the work that Peter and his colleagues
are doing to develop new vaccines for As Peter said,
the ever worsening pandemics that we're likely to see because
of the interaction between the climate crisis and other factors
that are leading to more frequent and intense pandemics, deadly pandemics.
(07:57):
So and then in climate right, I mean, we're seeing
a dismantling of the environmental progress made over half a
century by Republican as well as democratic administrations, all of
that disintegrating before our eyes because of an anti science,
you know, an anti science.
Speaker 5 (08:16):
Administration that.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Sees itself as basically a promoter of a number of
powerful special interests, the fossil fuel industry and other special interests,
rather than a protector of the people. And and it's
it's worrying, it is it's disconcerting, and it's deadly. And
(08:41):
that's the bottom line. The point that Peter and I
make in this book is that these ever worsening pandemics
are deadly. The climate crisis is deadly. And now misinformation
and disinformation which makes it impossible for us to act,
makes this even more deadly.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, I mean, that's that's the sort of the top
line of the book. That there's not two existential threats
to humanity, there are three. The two that we talk about,
of course, are pandemic threats and the climate crisis. But
now the third one that now unfortunately you may have
equal weight, is this massive ecosystem of anti science disinformation
(09:17):
that blocks our ability to respond to it. So it's
a three legged tripod.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
It is a three legged tripod, but it seems as though.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
A three headed monster. We've used different analogies for this.
We can't quite decide on the right one.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Or it's the misinformation disinformation monster with that's eating or
that is, you know, destroying the ability to defend or
to exactly.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
Eating something like that.
Speaker 5 (09:48):
It's bad.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
It's attacking not only the science, but it's attacking the
scientists and portraying us as public enemies or cartoon villains.
And so it's created this sort of very dark situation.
And and and this is why we were I was
so excited when when you invited us, because because you know,
(10:11):
I worry about the young people, right, the young scientists
who you know, you know here at Baylor they look
at me like Moses in the desert. You know, why
did you bring us here? And well, you know.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
You can see the golden calf in the back.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
Right right right exactly, And and and the point is
there is there is there is a path of Light Forward,
and Michael was really good about teaching me about this
concept of doomism. You know that we you know, just
to throw up our hands say there's nothing we can
do is not true. There are always things we can do,
and we work hard in the book to to do that.
(10:48):
And it's not about moving to France. It's there are
things that we can do in the United States. And
as a young scientist you still have a very bright future,
but you're going to have to be very strategic and deliberate.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
Let me just say it's two sided.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
I've learned so much from working with Peter. This is
one of the most enjoyable ventures in my life. Was
is the friendship that we've developed in this joint, joint
effort to you know, at a moment that we.
Speaker 5 (11:13):
Both see is absolutely critical to the future of our civilization.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
So in in all of this, you know, there is
this the seed of internal strife within academia for years
that when you become the scientist who is engaging with
the public ala Carl Sagan or you know, any of
the public scientist figures over the many years, suddenly you're
(11:39):
not as credible or good of a scientist anymore. That
you've given up some academic rigor by doing that. How
not the attacks from outside, but what has the response
to you been, you know, from each of your distinctive fields.
And so Peter will like if you could answer that first.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Yeah, no, it's a really important question. I'm glad you
asked it, you know, and this is Martin Luther King.
One said, not that I'm comparing ourselves to Martin Luther King,
but you know he talks about it's not just the
words of the enemies, but the silence of the friends.
And and I think that that is especially in the
in the biomedical science, is because the academic health centers
(12:21):
are fiercely protective of their institutional brand. And and you know,
Baylor College of Medicine text Children's Hospital are better than most,
but you know they don't often like their docs and
scientists speaking out or you kind of get this thing
whereas well, you're an academic, you're free to speak out
dot dot dot, but don't screw this up and get
(12:42):
the institution in trouble. And of course, if you're out
there in the public domain enough, as we all know,
you will screw it up. And you wi look at
the institution in trouble and you need to know you
have the backing and the institution. So it creates this
kind of sort of damocles that has a very chilling effect.
And the reason that's so terrible is is that young scientists,
especially become intimidated and speaking out or don't feel comfortable
(13:05):
doing it, and that creates a vacuum, so that lets
the bad actors weaponize what we do and it portrays
us as public enemies or cartoon villains. And and then
I'll say one more thing and then stop, which is
I don't have a lot of evidence to support that,
but I like you know this. There's an in our area.
There's a great policy group called Research America. They're based
(13:27):
in the DC area, and they track these sort of
trends and they ask the American people every couple of years,
can you name a living scientist and can you name
an institution where biomedical research is conducted? And the answer
is always the same. Seventy five percent of Americans cannot
name a living scientist. Then most Americans can't name an
institution or biomedical research is conductor. And that's my design.
(13:50):
And when they do finally mention someone, you know, the
first stallonium, Einstein or Jonas Sault not realizing they've moved on.
And then who.
Speaker 6 (14:01):
A long time ago, a friend Phil and I who
was a one an engineer, but he's not down in
the trenches, you know, scientists like Peter or myself, you know.
Speaker 5 (14:13):
Uh, And so there is this is not.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
Struggling over you know, major revisions of papers from reviewer
to and yeah, you don't get discussed in all the
scientific meanings. So we're invisible and that allows them to
portray us as you know, shadowy figures and white coats,
plotting all sorts of nefarious.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Things because you're actually doing your work like you're you're
trying to get money to support it and then doing
it which usually is an a laboratory and not in
front of a mind.
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that, because, as Peter said,
they there's this effort, there's this vacuum right when we're
not out there speaking to the public. Then that leaves
a vacuum for the bad actors to fill with sort
of caricatures, to villainize, vilify us, and present caricatures of us,
and to sort of communicate these various myths and talking
(15:08):
points like these scientists, they are just in it for
the grant money, as if that the grant money goes
to our pockets. No, it funds our research programs, it
funds our graduate students, it pays for publications.
Speaker 5 (15:21):
But the public.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Doesn't know these things. And if we're not out there
not just explaining the science, but explaining how science actually works,
it leaves this dangerous vacuum. And that's where Peter and
I are, you know, doing what we can to sort
of fill that vacuum. But we need other voices and
we need to be out there making sure that there's
space for younger scientists to come into you know, into
(15:44):
this world of communication, to feel like they can do
so safely, that they have the support of the scientific community.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
It's so critical.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, I mean, I mean for instant. Me give you
an example. So one of the talking heads on Fox News,
who now has a leadership position in this current administration,
and you know, would go after me and would go
after me on Fox News. Did you say, of course
Hotels is in the secret cabal with Fauci because he
has funding, some funding from the National Institutes of Allergy
(16:15):
and Infectious Diseases of the NIH and it was so
disingenuous because the whole microbiology department at his university depends
on that in aid funding. But the point is science
literacy is you know, but it gave me a good idea.
Both Michael and I have good idea that science literacy
is not just about informing people about the second law thermodynamics,
(16:35):
but it's also.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
The person law science.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Yeah, but you know, what is a scientific grant? How
does it work? What do scientists do? And and you know,
and what does it mean to be a scientist? A
presented scientific means why we don't advance science by debating
crack pots? That all has to be advanced as part
of this science literacy, I think.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Yeah, And I'm just reflecting on like in the book,
you talk about being you know, basically invited to debate
RFK Junior on on vaccine issues, on autism issues in
a public sphere, and how you did not take the
bait even though everybody who had a you know, a
side to kind of pull you into, to try and
(17:21):
use all of the social pressures they could to bring
you into it. I thank you for standing strong because
that's the kind of.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Thing thank you for. Thank you to Michael for being
my brock theory. That's that's really how he got connected because.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
Right at you and because you know, I was just
gonna say one of my favorite sections of the book,
the title debate Me bro and thank You.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
It takes to a scary place when you know, Joe
Rogan and Elon Musk and Kennedy are all banging up
on you, and you know it's every every follower on
Twitter except the ones following Taylor Swift or just you know,
all on you at once, and you're like, what the
heck is going on here? So but you know, this
is why Michael was such an amazing resource, because you know,
(18:06):
the attacks on climate science preceded the attacks medicine a decade,
two decades, and he was really able to, you know,
help me put it in perspective and say, well, you know,
been there, done that, this is this is how this works.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
It was PTSD right for me right decades after you know,
we had been we in in the world of climate science.
Speaker 5 (18:28):
When we published a hockey stick curve in the.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
Late nineteen nineties and it came under attack because it
was this sort of iconic graph. So I had been
through this two and a half decades ago, and then
we get into sort of the COVID era and it's
PTSD for me because I see, you know, scientists, wonderful
people like Peter, like Tony Fauci being attacked using exactly
the same tactics in many cases some of the same
(18:51):
organizations and individuals behind those attacks. And I felt like
it was important to reach out and we established this
friendship and it's and it's been wonderful to have this experience,
to sort of do this sort of vulcan mind meld,
to put our respective experiences together and to see what
(19:12):
we can synthesize from them. And that's what the book
is really about.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Yeah, And in the book you also refer to Merchants
of Doubt by Naomi Orreski's and she was one of
the writers who really brought to public awareness the tactics
that are being used. And how you know, we have
big tobacco, big sugar, big oil, you know, all and
these big money interest groups that are really you know,
(19:38):
working to subdue or to you know, to control public opinion.
And now we see, like you said, this this coming together,
this this weaving together now of all these various lines
of propaganda which of course the propaganda playbook came from
the CIA back in like you know, but it was
(20:02):
like a.
Speaker 4 (20:04):
Was owned by the tobacco industry and then the gun lobby.
We see the same and now that in the in
the fossil fuel industry ran with it, and the sort
of the health freedom you know, anti vax community ran
with it as well. And that's what was so instructive
for Peter and me, you know, to compare notes and
to understand it's the same tactics, it's the same people.
Speaker 5 (20:26):
It's remarkable.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
And then merging with it was a was a new
money making force. Posts, the posts, the merchants of douct book,
and that is a very lucrative health and wellness influencer enterprise.
And if you ever wondered why they're always anti parasitic
drugs hydroxychloroquin I've remected and then ben dissolve, it's because
(20:49):
you can buy them up in bulk and they're cheap,
and then you can repackage and jack up the price
and you sell it with a telehealth visit and it's
a half. It's the health and all this influencer empire's
like Cafe trillion dollar empire and the lat But for
the model to work, you've got to denigrate things that
actually work, like vaccines, and again portray the scientists like
(21:13):
myself and others as as enemies. And and you see
some of the most aggressive attacks are coming from that
health and wellness influence. And now mister Kennedy has adopted
that in his language, because in the past when I've
spoken to him, he didn't talk about supplements in this
but now he says, well, you can either get the
measles pumps rebella vaccine during our measles epidemic in Texas
(21:35):
that hit four states, or you can get you know
what turns out to be a useless cocktail of supplements
like vitamin abe, desinide, and clarithromycin. You're wondering where did
that come from? Well, that came from the health wellness
influencer empire.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Yeah. I mean we should have learned long ago that
if you have a doctor telling you things, or somebody
who's an expert telling you certain things and then wanting
to sell you a solution, they're very likely not really
telling you all the right things.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
It's called snake.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
Oil, but like you said, it's a multi trillion dollar
economic driver. And it's even bigger than the pharmaceutical industries now,
so the Make America Healthy Again empire is bigger money
and there's more in it than there is the supposed
(22:28):
big pharma.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Bigger industry than that is the fossil fuel industry. And
so there you have it.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
There you have it. That's the there are two.
Speaker 4 (22:36):
You know that the economic models are a little different here,
but fundamentally it's about bad actors making huge profits at
the expense of people and the planet.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Yeah, and in this book, you you lay out of
your five p's which you have been telling people about
and writing about, and you've got describe in full in
the book. And so some of these bad actors, if
one of you, I would like to talk about how
how they all tie together, like because they are separate,
(23:08):
but I feel like that's the now is the weaving
of them, right, It's.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
All start with William Shatner.
Speaker 5 (23:15):
We're talking about bad actors.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
No, sorry, you know, we're actually talking about different kind
of bad actors here, just so people understand bad.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
I love.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
You especially as early Twilight Zone episodes those are just wonderful.
But yeah, I mean so yeah, we we we name
and shame right, because we felt it was important to
do that. So we've got plutocrats. We've got petro states.
In the United States right now is a petro state.
Our politics are driven by the fossil fuel industry to
(23:48):
a large extent.
Speaker 5 (23:49):
We've got petro dollar.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
Absolutely, we've got propagandists and pros the ones we've talked
about are making money from pedaling misinformation and disinformation one
way or another. And then we've got the press. And
we're not just talking.
Speaker 5 (24:02):
About the the the.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Murdoch you know media empire, the right wing media, which
has done so much damage in both of these domains,
but even the legacy media, the you know, the New
York Times, the Washington Post that engage in what Peter
and I describe as a performative neutrality, pretending, for example,
and platforming on the pages, on their editorial pages, on
(24:25):
their off ed pages. You know, the Labe hypothesis, as
if this is you know, every bit as credible as
what the science actually suggests yonautic origins, and Peter, you know,
I know has that's where Peter, you know, Peter's experiences
were sort of very instructive here in that area.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Yeah, I mean, I think the bigger picture. You know
that also along with the financial motivation is the political motivation,
and you could understand why a petri state would want
to go after climate science and science climate scientists. It's horrible,
but it makes sense. It's less obvious why they would
attack vaccines and pandemic preparedness until you realize you know
(25:14):
this is you know this. Sometimes a petro state will
or a authoritarian government, and often too often they're one
and the same, will target the intelligentsia and science and
scientists for political gain. And we look at that historical
twentieth century record and when Stalin through the Mendelian geneticist
(25:37):
nicola I Vaveloff, the one of the top geneticists in
the world, into the Gulag, where he ultimately perished from
exposure and starvation to Gulag hospital in order to promote
the pseudoscience Lamarchian theories of a non scientist, trophy Lysenko
claimed he could soak the wheat and snow and toughen
it up and get it ready for the winter, even
(26:00):
though that didn't work and it caused massive famine and
killed millions of people in Ukraine and the Soviet Union
during the thirties and forties. It didn't matter because that
was a means for political control. And that's one of
the things we really worry about right now that's happening
that you know, as Michael started out this talking about
(26:24):
we are a nation built on the greatness of our
research universities and institutions that you know, gave us the
Manhattan Project and victory in the Cold War, and victory
against AIDS and cancer and all those other good things.
But they have a flip on its side for political
control that takes it to a very dark place. And
(26:45):
the closest that we could come to it was to say,
this is what Stalin did during the thirties. It's what
they did in Weimar, Germany to some extent as well.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
This whole what's happening now is what has happened before
will happen again. Those who don't learn from history are
doomed to repeat it. If you never get taught history,
well there you go.
Speaker 4 (27:07):
So if history doesn't repeat, it certainly does rhyme. And
we're seeing the rhyming of history right now here in
the United States.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Yeah, and I years back we came up with the
National science standards, and I was very excited about the
inquiry based education standards that were being implemented. And there
were several states that decided not to implement the standards,
and there are reasons why, and they seem to be
certain states that are still doing things a particular way.
(27:38):
And yet now it may not matter because the education
itself is being dismantled undermined.
Speaker 5 (27:50):
How will we.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Be able to address these ideas of understanding science where
we need people to understand how science works, why we're
doing it. How are we going to address that if
the educational conduit that funnel, if if that channel is undermined,
(28:12):
if we don't if there's you know, it's just if
people get curious or they end up on an internet
rabbit hole watching YouTube videos like this one.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
No, yeah, well, I mean.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
And in the book, you know, we we sort of
talk about the sort of micro strategies for dealing with
that and the macro strategies, and the final chapter is
really sort of the what the big picture? What do
we need to do? There are lots of things we've
talked about. Some of them scientists need to be out there.
The invisible scientist is part of the problem. We need
to create a culture where scientists feel free, you know,
(28:48):
feel empowered to be out speaking to the public, helping
inform the public. We need support. We need the scientific societies.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
We need the.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Scientific institutions to back the scientists when they're attacked, when
they're vilified.
Speaker 5 (29:03):
By bad actors in the way that they.
Speaker 4 (29:04):
Are, because that becomes a disincentive, especially the young scientists,
in participating in the public conversation. But then we sort
of step back in the end. For all the things
to happen that we need to happen, we need policy makers.
We need politicians who care about those things, who care
about us, who care about science and science based policy.
And the only way that's going to happen is if
(29:26):
we turn out in elections and we vote for those politicians. Otherwise, unfortunately,
we get the situation that we have right now in
the United States where we have a federal government, and
that's an executive branch, a Congress, and a Supreme Court
that is working together to undermine everything that we have
tried to do for decades, whether it's dealing with the
(29:49):
climate crisis, dealing with pandemics, or any of the other
major challenges that we face.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Any thoughts on this, Peter.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
Yeah, what Michael says is absolutely right. And you know,
I'm sure some of your viewers, you know, are saying, well,
wait a minute. I didn't become a scientist to become
a media star and to be out in the public domain.
I want to I want to do science right. I
want to do my experiments and write my papers and
(30:19):
talk to my colleagues. And you know what, that's totally fine.
I think, you know, no one should feel compelled or
that they feel like they have to do it. But
I think what we're saying is there's a subset, maybe
not a big one, but a significant one nonetheless, especially
among young people who whose commitment to public services and
(30:42):
are an all time high, and we have to provide
outlets for them to do that and maybe offering training
opportunities to do that. Also getting incentivized for promotion and
a career advancement. You know, I get evaluated like everybody
else does. And I don't see patients anymore, but know I,
you know, what are they asked me about. They asked
me about my grants and my h papers preferably and
(31:06):
what they call high impact journals whatever that is these days,
or they ask me about my grants or my papers
and high impact journals or my grants in high impact journal.
Basically that's it, right the journals that right, right, right right,
there's there's nothing. There's nothing there you know about you
know the time I spent doing things like this or
(31:28):
and and you know what am I doing in the
public communication realm, and and and so the message gets
sent is that stuff's not important. Hey, you want to
do it, and you want to waste your time doing
that kind of stuff. Fine, We've got to change that
culture in scientific training and career advancement to say, wait
a minute, this is this is almost as important or
as important as is your next paper. And because because
(31:52):
the future is at stake, according.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
To the futures at stake, in the future is uncertain.
I would love to know, like currently, couple of very
recent uh things that happened in the news just this
week we had and Peter, I'm going to uh direct
this question at you, specifically the Vaccine Review Board for
(32:16):
the CDC, the A C I P, which has been
stacked with vaccine skeptics, deniers, with people from that great
economic force of the health industry and wellness industry. They
have they've voted to change the MMR schedule for for
(32:39):
vaccination this last week, but they've pushed off the hepatitis
decision for for newborns. Do you have any any thoughts about,
you know, the the process that's that's happening.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Yeah, I mean the the it's a continuance. So this
started mister Kennedy he assumed office his Health and Human
Services secretary. He started out with some saying terrible things
about people on the autism spectrum. And and that's how
I got involved because I have a daughter with autism.
(33:13):
And then it was about several years ago I got
this call from my assistant and said, hey, I got
these two gentlemen on the phone. One is named doctor
Anthony Fauci and the other one's name doctor Francis Collins.
You speak with them? And I said, yeah, I think so,
And they, you know, and asked me to speak to
(33:33):
Bobby Kennedy, you know, for which I did for a
year and saw how deeply dug in he was. But
that led me to write the book Vaccines did Not
Cause Rachel's Autism. And it's been off to the races
ever since. And and and so he's he started right
out with the bang, you know, revisiting the autism leeks.
Then during our terrible measles epidemic, he started pushing supplements.
(33:57):
Then he's tearing down MRN a technology in favor of
an older technology that is far more problematic. So what's
going on at a CIP Advisory Committee immanization practices is
a continuum. Now he's going to come back to autism,
I think in a week or two, and he's going
to say he's found the cause of autism, which if
you know anything about the complex interplay of autism genetics
(34:21):
and you know potential environmental exposures all in early fetal
brain development, you would know that that's absolutely ridiculous. So
it's so you know, rather than just coming specifically on
what ac IP is saying, which is totally ridiculous. Remember
this is part of a systematic effort to destroy our
HOTO vaccine infrastructure and with it, our pandemic preparedness. Uh
(34:46):
and and we'll weaken our whole nation's biosecurity.
Speaker 5 (34:50):
There's more.
Speaker 4 (34:52):
There's more, because just a few weeks ago, our FK
Junior was actually pair climate denial talking.
Speaker 5 (35:02):
Points as well.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
Specifically claiming that wind mills they call them wind mills,
although obviously we're not talking about milling grain. They're talking
about wind turbines.
Speaker 1 (35:14):
And usually offshore sometimes, you know, these.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
Are wind turbines are supposedly killing whales and there's no
science to support that. The scientific community has been very
clear that there is no connection there.
Speaker 5 (35:27):
But it's part of the assault.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
On clean energy, on renewable energy, uh, you know, in
service of the fossil fuel industry and uh. And it
is you know, and and it is coordinated at the
highest levels of our government. Now it's entirely bad faith.
And so here we see sort of equal opportunity, an
(35:50):
equal opportunity assault by the same individual RFK Junior on
both sort of climate action, clean energy, and obviously on
public health as well.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
And along those lines we have the deregulation efforts, so
the carbon carbon dioxide emissions being a problem for industry
through the e p A. Uh, they want to get
rid of that ruling. And so the earlier summer report
that was put together again by and a committee of
(36:23):
five people who are well known for being climate skeptics,
or we.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
Don't even call them skeptics because skepticism is a good
thing in science.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
But they're I know, I know, I hate it. It's
pseudo it is pseudoscience. There, I'm trying to know the
right word to say.
Speaker 4 (36:40):
Now, because we call climate deniers if they're denying the basics.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
Climate propa anti climate science propagandists is really what they are,
because they're cherry picking data. They are, you know, and
it's this is it's propaganda. And I'm going to take
the pros propaganda using the yes.
Speaker 4 (37:01):
I mean something unprecedented I have never seen in my
entire career. It was so egregious that the US National
Academy of Science is just the other day issued a
report specifically addressing the false claims that were made in
this so called EPA report written by these climate contrarians,
(37:22):
and I have never seen Peter can tell you we both.
I'm a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He's
a member of the National Academy of Medicine. These reports
go through several stages of peer review, there's a there
is a long process, and for them to have turned
out a report in a matter of weeks is unprecedented,
(37:42):
and it speaks to the Academy stepping up and saying
this is too dangerous for us to not respond as
rapidly as we possibly can, more rapidly than we've ever
responded to anything before.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
And the response to that report that is four times
longer than the original report, It has more references, it
is it's an incredible piece of work, and it's a
wonderful response. But what came back was this, oh yeah, okay, yeah,
we'll get rid of that. That committee that we'll see
(38:18):
about that report. Of course, we'll take a look at it,
and of course it.
Speaker 4 (38:21):
Is done wrong.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
But what they did is they of course opened.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
Up the debate exactly.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
And it's coming back to this word debate that we
started with earlier talking about Peter's you know, the invitation
to it. And I think this is where the misconstruing
right and the miss the the using of words that
have multiple meanings or can be interpreted different ways. It's
(38:48):
where as scientists, we need to be talking to each
other the way that you both are that, as you said,
we need to support scientists who want to be talking
to people. How do we teach younger scientists? What do
we tell younger scientists now how to respond to this
because now his game is on.
Speaker 3 (39:10):
Well, one of the things that I say is, you know,
I can't think of many instances where science was advanced
through debate, especially through with someone with no scientific qualifications
and has an intent to deceive. I mean, you know,
we had in the Salve Physics conferences in the nineteen
(39:30):
twenties who had Einstein having public discussions with Neils Bohr
at those meetings. But those were two brilliant physicists, you know,
who had differing views, who were trying to figure things out,
who respected each other. That's very different from you know,
going on the Joe Rogan Show and watching Bobby Kennedy
(39:51):
just make it up as he goes along. And you know,
as Michael, I think who first pointed out to me.
The minute you do that, you've lost ninety percent of
the battle because you've platformed now someone with crackpot ideas
and given them equal weight. And that in itself is
the victory right right and there, And that's the danger
(40:11):
of that false bove.
Speaker 4 (40:12):
Yeah, the nerd in me likes to frame this in
terms of Baysian statistics and priors. You get up on
the stage with the science denier, you've given the audience.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
A prior of fifty to fifty.
Speaker 4 (40:24):
In other words, you've told them to start out, assume
that each of these positions are equally credible, and the
best that you can possibly do over the course of
that thirty minute or whatever debate would be to actually
bring the audience somewhere close to where the weight of
science actually stands. That's the best that you can hope
(40:45):
to do. So you've almost sort of lost by getting
up there. Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be
refuting the myths the untruths that are being promoted. We
do because there are honest people who get caught in between.
They hear the rhetoric from science deniers, they think there's
some debate, they think there's uncertainty, and so they sort
(41:08):
of throw up their hands and then the bad actors
win because they don't need to win the debate, They
just need to create enough uncertainty that there's stasis, that
there's business as usual, that there's no policy action. Now,
good friend of ours, Bill Nye, I think Bill is
the perfect person to debate these science deniers because it's
not Anthony Fauci getting up there, it's not Peter getting
(41:29):
up there. It's Bill ny one of the most likable
people on the planet, that so many people learn to
love science from watching when they were young. That's incredibly
charismatic and incredibly skilled in that sort of forum. Bill
should be doing those sorts of debates, and he does,
and he wins them. But the rest of us do
(41:50):
have to refute the misinformation. We do have to push back,
and there are various ways to do that. But just
getting up on the stage with a science denier in
general is not.
Speaker 5 (42:00):
A good strategy.
Speaker 4 (42:01):
I think it was Peter who gave me this anecdote
before it was a colleague of his who once said,
you know a scientist who said, if I debate you,
it's going to look really good on your resume and
really bad on mine. And that sort of really underscores
what we're talking about here.
Speaker 3 (42:16):
And it doesn't mean you can't be out there in
the public domain. And I've said, look, I'll go on
the Joe back on the Joe Rogan Show as I
had before, I'm just not going to do the platform,
you know, mister, And because I think that would I
think that's very dangerous. It also, you know, sends the
wrong message to young scientists about how we do signs.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
I think that's so important in this last moment, I've
already kept you longer than half an hour, so I
appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (42:43):
We enjoyed it.
Speaker 3 (42:45):
Discussion.
Speaker 1 (42:46):
It's so wonderful to talk with you, and I of
course I would have so I just want to talk
talk talk about all this stuff. But your time is
so valuable and the work you're doing is valuable. Do
you have any last moment comments for for my audience,
for people who might read your book, Peter, I.
Speaker 3 (43:04):
Think the message is our ability to solve scientific problems
is in an all time high. You know, just in
my field alone, between the acceleration of technologies and the
use of information science, including AI, there's almost no infectious disease.
(43:26):
We can't make a vaccine too, and same with even
cancer vaccine. Now we're moving into the cancer vaccine space
that we've got the m R and a technology working
so efficiently. And not to let the bad guys turn
you away from solving big problems. You can still solve
big problems. You're going to have to be more strategic
(43:48):
in your career because I do think we will see
the clients and government support for science and so seeking alternatives,
whether it's through biotech, through the private sector, through private Philanthie,
it's going to make it tougher, but it's still very dual.
Speaker 4 (44:05):
And Michael, yeah, and I guess my message would be
just sort of to the person on the street, to
the average person out there. It all feels so overwhelming
sometimes that you know, Peter.
Speaker 5 (44:17):
Alluded to this earlier. It's easy for us to.
Speaker 4 (44:19):
Fall victim to sort of doom and despair, and that's
a win for the other side. That's a win for
the forces of anti science, because if we get throw
up our hands in defeat, then they win. And so
we have to recognize, and this is true for both
pandemics and the climate crisis, that there is urgency unlike
we've ever seen before, no question about it. But we
(44:41):
also have agency. It's not too late for us to
make a difference here.
Speaker 1 (44:47):
The best time to start is now. Yesterday would have
been great, but now it's fine. It's just keep going, everybody,
let's do this. Thank you for writing your book, Science
under Siege. Everyone. It is available now and if you
head out to places like bookshop dot org, your local
(45:08):
library or maybe Powell's bookstore. If you are in the
Portland area like I am, you know you'll be able
to find this wonderful book. And I actually do really
recommend this book for people who are considering want to
understand the modern dynamic of what's happening, and also who
(45:30):
might be considering going into science communication, because it's good
to know what you're going to have to deal with,
and I think this book sets the landscape for you
so you'll have a place to start. Thank you both
so much for your work.
Speaker 3 (45:44):
Yeah, thank you, We really appreciate it. It was a
great discussion. The time went by fast. It's so fast.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
Oh my gosh, I'm.
Speaker 4 (45:50):
Like it again. We would love to come back and
do it again sometimes. So thank you.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
There there are many more places to go with this.
Thank you very much everyone. Thank you for watching. This
is this week in Science. Thanks for being here, for
chatting in the chat room, and thank you for being
interested in the value of science. Please share with your
friends out there, because the more we talk about the
value of science, the stronger we will all be. Find
(46:16):
us again next Wednesday, a Pianish specific time for more
This week in Science, It's all in your head.
Speaker 7 (46:25):
This Week in Science This week in Science, This week
in Science, This week in Science. It's the end of
the world, So I'm setting up shop. Got my banner refurled.
It says the scientist is in. I'm gonna sell my advice,
(46:46):
tell them how to stop and robots with a simple device,
all REVERSI all the warming with a wave of my hands,
and it will coffee.
Speaker 5 (46:55):
Here is a couple of grass.
Speaker 7 (46:59):
This week's science is coming your way, so everybody listens
to what I say.
Speaker 3 (47:05):
I use the scientific method for all that it's worth,
and I'll broadcast my.
Speaker 5 (47:10):
Opinion all over the.
Speaker 2 (47:14):
Well.
Speaker 3 (47:14):
It's this week in science, This week in science.
Speaker 7 (47:18):
This week in science, Science, Science, Science, Science, Science, This
week in science, This weekend Science, This week in science,
This week in science, This week in Science, This week
in Science, This week in Science, This week in Science,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
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.