Advertise on podcast: Two Brad For You

Biology can be beautiful and disgusting all at once. This is why I loved studying biology and parasites, and why I am captivated by the story of screwworm. Screwworm is a nasty parasite that is making a come back in North America and in this episode we'll dive into the story of screwworm and hear from Dr. Phillip Kaufman, Head of the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M. He breaks down how screwworm returned and why that's a major problem. I love this story because it demonstrates the power of adaptation and how studying a parasite like screwworm through the lens of adaptation helps us find ways to fight back. Takeaways: The New World Screwworm's return exemplifies the intricate relationship between parasitism and adaptation in biological systems.Understanding the ecological impact of the New World Screwworm is crucial for livestock management and prevention of economic losses.The sterile insect technique has proven effective in controlling the screwworm population, highlighting innovative approaches to pest management.The cooperation between countries is vital in managing the spread of pests and diseases, as exemplified by the efforts to eradicate the screwworm.The complexities of insect life, particularly parasitic species, provide insights into the adaptability and resilience of organisms in various environments.The return of the New World Screwworm serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining vigilance in ecological monitoring and research.New World Screwworm Outbreak | New World Screwworm | CDCCOPEG – Comisión Panamá – Estados Unidos para la Erradicación y Prevención del Gusano Barrenador del GanadoNew World Screwworm: Rise, Fall and ResurgencePhillip Kaufman - Department of Entomology - Texas A&M This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

In this episode, I'm joined science-communication researcher Miguel Vissers for a funny, honest, and wildly insightful look at how science actually reaches the public—and why it so often goes wrong. Check out the links below to see Miguel's work and check back for updates as one of the pieces of research we discuss will be available soon. We start with the question, why science needs its own communication field and whether this is a unique case. We also cover Miguel's area of expertise and look at how press releases shape the news you see—sometimes a little too directly. The conversation also touches on lessons learned during the pandemic regarding transparency, trust, and mixed messaging. Why scientists, journalists, governments, and influencers all talk past each other. And finally… how Joe Rogan went from “gateway to science curiosity” to “uh oh.” Takeaways: The podcast episode delves into the intricacies of science communication, particularly its role in bridging the gap between scientific research and public understanding. The challenges faced by scientists in conveying their findings effectively. The balance that science communicators must maintain between promoting scientific advancements and critically evaluating the implications of such research for society. The necessity of transparency in science communication, especially in light of the public's increasing skepticism towards scientific authorities and findings. This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo. Surfing the COVID-19 news waves - Journal of Science CommunicationMiguel Vissers on LinkedInBE Sci Comm - BE SciComm is a community of science communicators, bringing together researchers, journalists, press officers, communication officers, policy makers, designers, event organizers, students, and anyone interested in science communication. About Miguel Vissers | University of AntwerpIt’s the science, stupid! by Miguel Vissers for Big Bang Magazine - A warning against scientism and a proposal for science communication focused more on scientific process(es) than scientific facts

Science isn’t just happening in labs in the U.S. or Europe — it’s a human story unfolding everywhere. In this episode, Brad talks with Dr. Patience Kiyuka, a Kenyan scientist and National Geographic Explorer, about what it really means to do science for and with the communities it serves. From fighting malaria to battling misinformation, Dr. Kiyuka shares how African scientists are changing global research — and why authentic communication matters as much as discovery itself. If you think science is a cold, mechanical process, this conversation will change your mind. Nature: Africa needs to invest in science communication — here’s how KEMRI - Dr. Kiyuka Dr Patience Kiyuka | Engage and Inspire Today This is the only link you need to subscribe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

Humor feels like a universal language—but can it really help people understand science? In this episode researchers Hauke Riesch and Bruno Pinto discuss the surprising limits of using jokes to teach science and what happens when scientists try to get laughs while explaining complex ideas. They discuss the psychology of humor, the risks of being “too funny,” and what it means for trust, emotion, and connection in science communication today. From stand-up scientists and late-night hosts to cultural differences in humor, they unpack what works, what doesn’t, and why communication is about more than just being funny. Takeaways: The episode delves into the intersection of humor and science communication, exploring whether humor enhances retention of scientific information. Guests Hauke Reich and Bruno Pinto discuss their research on the impact of humor in popular science articles and its effects on audience engagement. The conversation highlights the subjective nature of humor, acknowledging that what is funny for one person may not resonate with another. The guests emphasize the need for more research on humor in international contexts to better understand its efficacy across different cultures. The discussion suggests that while humor may not always improve knowledge retention, it can enhance the enjoyment of scientific content, making it a valuable tool in communication. Ultimately, the episode underscores the importance of tailoring humor to the audience and context for effective science communication. Hauke RieschBruno PintoDoes Humor in Popular Science Magazine Articles Increase Information Retention and Receptiveness in Science Education?Are audiences receptive to humour in popular science articles? An exploratory study using articles on environmental issues This is the only link you need to subscribe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

The discussion today centers on the pressing issue of science communication and the alarming erosion of public trust in scientific endeavors. Our guest, Alex Kirkpatrick, a distinguished scholar in science communication from Washington State University and Cornell Engineering, offers a novel perspective by examining the dynamics between scientists and the public, particularly through the lens of identity and perceived threat. We delve into the inadequacies of the prevalent knowledge deficit model, which assumes that simply imparting scientific knowledge will foster acceptance and trust. Kirkpatrick's research highlights how a scientist's strong identification with their profession can inadvertently lead to negative perceptions of non-scientists, consequently hindering effective communication. This episode promises to illuminate the intricate interplay between identity, communication, and trust in science, providing valuable insights for both scientists and communicators alike. Takeaways: The podcast discusses the critical issue of trust in science and the communication breakdown between the scientific community and the public. Alex Kirkpatrick's research reveals how scientists' strong in-group identity impacts their perception of non-scientists as a deficient out-group. The knowledge deficit model in science communication assumes that simply providing more information will foster trust and understanding, which is fundamentally flawed. The study emphasizes the importance of perceived threat in shaping scientists' attitudes towards non-scientists and their communication strategies. Scientist versus nonscientist: identity, threat, derogation and agreement with the knowledge deficit hypothesis among STEM students in the US - In essence, the knowledge deficit hypothesis (KDH) of science communication assumes perceived deficiencies in public attitudes toward science can be addressed through nonscientists receiving more scientific information from experts. Despite counterevidence, the KDH is a popular assumption among scientists in the US and shapes science communication efforts. This study explores the role of identity and intergroup threat in shaping this assumption by surveying a sample of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) college students in the US.Alex Kirkpatrick - Cornell Engineering This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

Is science political? Yes, and that's not an inherently a bad thing. In this episode I try to unpack my thinking on why science is political and more specifically where and why political influences enter the picture. From here I explore how an understanding of these influences can improve scientific research and also ruminate on how this affects science communication aimed at two important audiences: politicians and we the people. Science is a human endeavor and is subject to all the foibles of human behavior. It's also an amazing example of what humans are capable of. By understanding how it works and why we should care we can maximize the good it does. Scientists are building giant ‘evidence banks’ to create policies that actually workWhy we need a body to oversee how science is used by governmentsAdvising governments about science is essential but difficult. So train people to do itScience-policy advisers shape programmes that solve real-world problemsTrust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries | Nature Human BehaviourSocietal Preparedness Insights - Global Listening ProjectVetting Scientific Sources - The Open NotebookScience could solve some of the world’s biggest problems. Why aren’t governments using it?Science’s big problem is a loss of influence, not a loss of trust This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

In this episode, we dive into the weird world of nanomaterials and their game-changing role in sustainable technology and space exploration. My guest is Connor Boland, a researcher a Dublin City University. He breaks down how everyday substances like gypsum or pencil lead are transformed into high-tech nanostructures with applications for electronics, engineering, or space travel. He also explains how this can be down with minimal environmental impact. In some cases only requiring a kitchen blender. It's all part of his philosophy for doing cutting-edge science that’s not just innovative but does no harm for the planet. From eco-friendly advancements to responsible research, we explore why sustainability should be at the core of scientific breakthroughs. Get ready to rethink what’s possible and discover how these futuristic materials could shape the world and space in ways you never imagined.

We broke the century mark and to celebrate we're revisiting the topic of mental health and social media. This time I turn the focus on myself and two good friends as we take a critical look at our own usage and how we feel it impacts our own mood and behavior, for better or worse. To add a professional and scientific element to the show we compare our habits to published research on the correlation between social media use, irritability, depression, anxiety and mental health.

Disease has profoundly shaped human history, influencing major events such as wars, colonization, and migration, while simultaneously being impacted by human behaviors and societal decisions. This conversation dives into the intricate relationship between pathogens and people, exploring how ecological changes and human activities create environments conducive to the spread of diseases. Environmental historian John McNeill and disease ecologist Elizabeth Blackmore discuss key historical moments where diseases like yellow fever and malaria played critical roles in military outcomes and societal transformations. They challenge common narratives about the rapid spread of diseases during colonization, arguing instead for a more nuanced understanding of how pathogens interact with human populations over time. By unpacking these dynamics, the episode emphasizes the importance of accurate storytelling in preparing for future encounters with infectious diseases. How Disease Really Spread in The Americas - NautilusTransoceanic pathogen transfer in the age of sail and steam - PNASElizabeth Blackmore, Yale UniversityJohn McNeill, Georgetown University

The great science broadcaster and author Jay Ingram joins me once again to talk about science that goes mainstream. Why does do some topics jump out of dedicated science news channels and how should critics respond? Is there any good way to present the process behind science and why is that crucial for critiques of misleading stories. These are some of the topics we explore and Jay provides some positive examples of efforts to communicate the changing nature and long term vision of scientific research. We pose many questions about how best to tell science stories and not all were answered but just like research, communication is an ever evolving thing as well. Let me know what you think about science media and where you'd like to see change. This is the only link you need to subscribe to Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing CommissionYes, Social Media Really Is a Cause of the Epidemic of Teenage Mental Illness - Jonathan HaidtThe great rewiring: is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?Unsettled science on social media - ScienceDefy Dementia Podcast

Today we delve deep into the fascinating world of the placebo effect, exploring its implications in medical treatments and the ethics surrounding its use. Dr. Helena Hartman, a neuroscientist, joins the show to talk about how expectations can significantly influence treatment outcomes. Hartman shares her research insights into pain, empathy and placebo and the importance of expectation in driving placebo effects. We also talk about the work being done by the Treatment and Expectations group uncovering the complex interplay between expectation, treatment efficacy, and the ethical dilemmas that arise when discussing placebo in a clinical context. Hartman emphasizes the importance of transparent communication with patients regarding the use of placebos and the potential benefits they can offer when patients are informed about their effects. We also discuss the challenges posed by wellness influencers who may mislead the public into thinking that they can heal themselves through mental power alone, neglecting the necessity of real medical interventions. Hartman highlights the importance of finding a balance between promoting the benefits of medical treatments and avoiding the pitfalls of over-hyping the placebo effect, especially in the age of misinformation. Finally we take an intriguing examination of side effects and their unexpected role in enhancing the efficacy of treatments. Hartman discusses a study showing that mild side effects from placebos can actually boost the perceived effectiveness of treatment, tying back to the central theme of expectation. This leads to a broader conversation on the implications for future medical practices, particularly in the realm of psychedelics, where the challenges of maintaining placebo control are complex. This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo. Side-effects are often a curse. Can they also be a blessing? Accessible scientific results and exciting fictional stories in one.What can psychedelic drugs teach us about placebo-controlled trials?Treatment and Expectations Group - Find out and join in / TRR 289

In June an independent advisory committee recommended the FDA not approve MDMA assisted therapy for PTSD. This came as a surprise to many working in and following the field of psychedelic assisted therapy. It also raised questions as to where the field is at and what challenges still exist. To provide some context and perspective on this decision and some of the specific criticism raised during the hearing Henrik Jungaberle, a psychedelic and public health researcher in Berlin joined the show. This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo. The MIND FoundationMethodological challenges in psychedelic drug trials: Efficacy and safety of psilocybin in treatment-resistant major depression (EPIsoDE) – Rationale and study design - ScienceDirectTreatment with psychedelics is psychotherapy: beyond reductionism - The Lancet PsychiatryMeasuring psychotherapeutic processes in the context of psychedelic experiences: Validation of the General Change Mechanisms Questionnaire (GCMQ) - Journal of Psychopharmacologyent...Was the FDA Panel Right to Recommend Against MDMA Approval? - MedPage TodayPsychiatric Drug Developers Make Recommendations Following Lykos Adcomm - BioSpaceAn emotional public hearing on MDMA: ‘Today you will vote on whether my friends live or die’

In this episode we have two interesting news stories from the unrelated worlds of infectious disease and psychedelic research. What's all the fuss with H5N1 moving into cows and is my milk safe? Plus a breakdown of a fascinating set of experiments aimed at answering whether MDMA increases empathy and why this could influence how doctors prescribe the drug in the future. This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo. Listen to Two Brad For You Podcast: 'Mainstreaming' Psychedelic Drugs to Treat Mental Health - Brad van Paridon for Undark MagazineMDMA enhances empathy-like behaviors in mice via 5-HT release in the nucleus accumbensThe H5N1 Outbreak Is Not a Test Run, It's a Warning ShotUS to test ground beef in states with bird-flu outbreaks in dairy cowsU.S. dairy farm worker infected as bird flu spreads to cows in five statesScientists call new measures to control bird flu in cows ‘a drop in the bucket’

Have you ever thought about how knowledge, sometimes thought of as facts, get from the scientists, to journalists, to the articles and videos on your screen? Turns out there is a pipeline taking science discoveries from the lab to the news media. This pathway is a useful and well-used system but it is not without problems. Information can be distorted as it is translated and passed on and the fact checks you might assume are present sometimes aren't. My guest Elisa Nelissen is a Ph.D. researcher at KU Leuven the studying this pipeline and science media. Having worked as a press officer, freelance communications specialist and now academic she has worked at many stages along the knowledge pipeline. Our conversation was wide ranging and touched on how knowledge moves from the lab to the newsroom, the different incentives that distrot this message along the way. We discussed motivations for communicating science, what audiences are looking for when consuming science news, and the challenges of fitting science news into mass media structures. This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

Ants and other eusocial insects have taken group living to the extreme and while we may not think of these animals as representative of human societies studying the fundementals of the evolution of and consequences of social living using ants makes a lot of sense. My guest Yuko Ulrich is a behavioral ecologist and group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Jena, Germany. She joined me to discuss how she uses a unique ant species, commonly known as the clonal raider ant, to ask basic questions regarding evolution and behavior. She explains why the clonal raider ants are such a useful model system and discusses the results from two studies that look at the evolution of group living itself and how an individuals behavior within a group affects their risk for disease. This conversation really highlights the importance of experimental biology for asking and answering questions that may seem obvious but that must answered before we can discover exactly why group living is so succesful or understand how groups evolved to defend against disease. It was also a nice reminder that working together in the face of an outbreak offers unique defenses solitary individuals don't have. Finally, we touch on what happens when the parasite takes things to the extreme and manipulates host behavior. That's right, zombie parasites. Links to both of the studies discussed can be found below. Fitness benefits and emergent division of labour at the onset of group living | NatureBehavioural individuality determines infection risk in clonal ant colonies | Nature Communications This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out. If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here. Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo. Listen to Two Brad For You Support this Podcast