Tom writes:

A suggested place to look for a host for ‘Science in an age of Politics’

I think you would find these two sympathetic.

Two ‘Leftist Bros’ Dive Into Conservatism to ‘Know Your Enemy’ – The New York Times

Despite being described in the linked article as ‘leftist’, I don’t think they are. 

They are indeed extremely critical of the right, but not in a knee-jerk or partisan way, and they are literate and thoughtful in a way which I think you will very much like.

Their area of expertise is definitely politics rather than science.  

I don’t know if anyone is both, but if there is such a person I think it likely they would be able to point you to them.

Tom

=====

Very often when your listeners respond they very warmly express appreciation.

This is for very good reason.

Your erudition, seriousness of purpose and lightheartedness gives me hope for humanity.

TWIV is one of the treasures of our civilisation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Susan writes:

Hi! In your last episode you asked who we’d suggest for a guest to discuss the intersection of politics and science. You had Laurie Garrett on before discussing aspects of public health.  I think she would be an interesting future guest to discuss many of these topics as it pertains to the recent SCOTUS decisions etc. As always, I love your suite of shows and always learn so much from all of you! Thanks for all that you do to keep us sane in a mad, mad world!

Best,

Susan

Mollie writes:

Hi TWiV team,

When I heard your recent call out for recommendations for experts on the politicization of science, I wanted to write to suggest a colleague, the journalist Naomi Klein. Klein is an investigative journalist whose most recent bestselling book Doppelganger covers this topic extensively. (The book is excellent, by the way- if you haven’t read it, I highly recommend.) She is faculty in my department, and I’m happy to help provide contact information if you’re interested in trying to book her for the show.

Thanks again for all the work that you do.

Best,

Mollie

Glenn writes:

Doctors,

As scientists I am surprised that you would accept the Reuters story at face value and without serious questions. I think the last few years have shown us that most media narratives need to be accepted with caution.

When I went back and read the original story you referenced this week I was struck by an astounding lack of information to support the reporter’s thesis of a Pentagon misinformation campaign against the Chinese vaccine.  

First off the “confirmation source” cited was a so-called senior defense official without a name. Sounds suspicious, but fine, sources often don’t want to be identified. I’m curious as to why this individual came forward, if they did, and why. And how senior?  And senior where? Chief of the custodial staff?  Such vagaries detract immediately from authenticity and becomes a serious red flag. We’ve spent the better part of the last decade being assured the media’s sources were impeccable when in fact they had been bought and paid for; including “senior intelligence officials”.

Then the story reported that multiple Tweets were posted ostensibly surreptitiously by the Pentagon without a single example. Granted they did say they had been taken down. But without that evidence, all of this is just unsubstantiated rumor and so far you’ve had to take all of the “evidence” on faith of the reporter’s  honesty and professionalism and lack of bias.

I know for a fact that none of my instructors or mentors would have accepted any thesis or dissertation of mine based on this kind of evidence. I’m sure none of you would either.

Finally I can think of at least one “player” who could and would have benefitted and planted such a story to discredit our government.

Personally I find it difficult to believe that the Pentagon would have done this kind of campaign as policy. Yes, it is possible, and possibly by an unauthorized faction. But as you pointed out, as an attenuated virus, Sinovac was not a great vaccine. So there might be at least two alternative stories here.

One that the Reuters story itself was fabricated and planted to discredit us. We’ve seen that done a lot lately.

Or second that some entity was cautioning against the use of the Chinese vaccine because of its limited efficacy. Not seeing the Tweets it’s not possible to determine what the actual wording was.

Scientists, to maintain absolute credibility, need to avoid any possible hint of a lack of objectivity. We are “Caesar’s Wives”.  As academics we are so constantly bombarded with viewpoints that it is difficult to remain totally and infallibly objective.

However, I so respect all of you for your expertise and knowledge that I hold you to that very high standard.

Respectfully,

Glenn Short, DDS, PhD

Walt writes:

Re: Jon’s letter in Ep1127

Jon wrote “I seem to remember that it was our politicians creating the poor relations, which didn’t help our investigating team.…this doesn’t excuse a horrible action”

He and perhaps others might like to consider…

① geopolitics has always been a game, like pro basketball, played with sharp elbows. There is no first foul

② we won’t understand the Trump Admin “antagonism” of China without understanding its roots

In ☞2018☜, Bolton came into the White House and on his first day eliminated the NSC office of biodefense, squeezing out its leader. The rationale was that the only biological threats needing White House-level coordination were “state actor” (ie, biowar) ones.

This wasn’t new to the “paleo-conservative” Bolton; it goes back at least to Reagan’s Cold War rhetoric. But early in 2020 it provided freshly-plowed ground for alt-right claims of COVID being a biowar effort, claims that our NatSec types picked up that same year, claims that morphed into a “lab leak” origin, and obviously continue to this day with suspicion of intent still attached, unspoken.

You may recall that early in 2020, Trump praised Xi for his very competent handling of COVID. It was only later, when Trump saw the disease as a greater threat to his reputation, that the scapegoating of the CCP’s Virus and scientists who’d worked with WIV, began.

Flint writes:

Hi,

I just discovered your podcast.  Thanks for sharing information in that format.

My comment is about the answer to Alina’s question during the Q & A of the June 28 podcast.  She references an article in Biomedicines “Spikeopathy:….  The respondent relied on authority to negate the claims made in the study and did NOT – as Alina requested – consider the article specifically.  I studied it briefly and I think to reference a source about misinformatiion in science should have at least been included in the answer, to allow Alina to see why that article should not have been published.  Or else in 2 sentences explain how the problems in that psychiatrist’s review of literature should not have made publication. 

I know many of the patients who come to primary care medicine for their 20 minute office visits have spent at least that much time on misinformation to inform their decision to forego our advice.  They need tools to sort valid information from misinformation.

Respectfully,

Flint Orr, MD

Internal medicine, primary care

Ken writes:

Honored Professors,

I don’t expect this message to be read on the show, but I want to provide some feedback that might boost the impact of your vital mission of science communication.  After four-plus years of enthusiastic listening, I know that each of you is not only expert in your fields, but passionate about sharing your love of science.  That is why I was disappointed on TWIV 1127 when Dr. Racaniello didn’t acknowledge that the participation of citizens and politicians is absolutely necessary to letting the public understand the contributions of science.  In her letter, Mifi articulated well about the perception of lay listeners when you dismiss the role of active oversight.  Dr. Dove acknowledged the relevance and value of Mifi’s feedback, but Dr. Racaniello instead doubled-down on his prior concern about the intrusion of politics into science.  I firmly agree that expertise must be paramount, but you must realize that statements denying the importance in a democratic society of regulatory controls, you are just reinforcing the talking points that elitist Ivory Tower dwellers have too much sway.  Definitely raise the concern of partisan dicta, but please take every opportunity to talk about how scientists are part of society, not separate.  Your mission of sharing the value of the scientific approach as well as its applications is incredibly laudable – please maximize the impact of every piece of content you share.

Thank you for all you do!

Ken

Ian writes:

Dear Dr. Racaniello and TWiV team,

As a fellow virologist, I want to thank you for your steadfast support for the field and your commitment to science communication.  

As I was listening to the podcast from June 30 and June 23, I paid particular attention to your discussion about the House budget bills and public statements about “gain of function” research given my previous positions in government dealt directly with this topic.  I hoped that you would expand your comments beyond the fact that “gain of function” is too broad of a term for policy actions, and share with your listeners that there in fact is a specific definition of research that is considered “risky” enough for additional oversight.  Moreover, there is a revised policy framework that defines such research and articulates the additional oversight, checks, and balances that would follow. This revised policy was published on May 6 by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and it directly addresses many of the concerns that the representatives in the House cite as concerns.  

I do not recall if the podcast ever mentioned this revised policy framework or the fact that the concerns being raised by the House bills and other critics have already been addressed by policy makers.  If you have, then great.  If not, I would encourage you all to become familiar with the definition and share it as a critical piece of science communication on this topic.  

Dr. Racaniello, I recall being in the room for your past comments to the NSABB on this subject.  I believe you’ll find that the Implementation Guide that accompanies the revised policy directly speaks to the distinction between experiments that seem scary to non-scientists but are not dangerous, and those should warrant an extra layer of careful consideration by scientists and other experts.  

For additional context, this policy was drafted with input from the NSABB, feedback from a public Request for Information, and 2+ years of analysis and policy assessments.  The principal authors were Ph.D virologists and molecular biologists.

Best regards,

Ian

Genie writes:

Hi, Vincent,

Thanks for the great podcasts, especially the one where you and the crew went point by point and refuted The NY Times’ terrible article.

Here is a poem that isn’t right for the podcast, but I just thought I’d share it:

The Gaslighter vs. the Old Man Up Past His Bedtime

On the left, a man vigorously telling right-wing lies.
On the right a man unable to make coherent replies.
What matters most, truth or clear thinking?
As we watched, our hearts were sinking.
Only hope is the cloud of witnesses
That can sustain a state of witlessness.

Best,

Genie

Fernando writes:

Hi TWiV scholars,

I know Vincent is a bit grumpy about all the space picks, but here’s another one to complement Brianne’s water-on-Mars story: Kelly and Zach Weinersmith’s book A City on Mars, which digs deeply and very entertainingly (zany drawings included!) into the physical, biological, psychological, social, economic, and political challenges of extraterrestrial settlement. TL;DR: water supply is just a small piece of the puzzle.

Thank you for the science, the good advice (no pig or cow hugging), and the fun!

— F