Latest / Why We Do What We Do / How to Kill Science

Transcript

How to Kill Science · Why We Do What We Do

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: You're listening to Why we do what we do? Welcome
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: to Why we do what we do. I am your
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: extinct scientist host Abraham.
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: And I'm your looking for another career host Shane.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: We are a psychology podcast. We talk about the things
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: that humans and non human animals do, and today we're
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: going to be talking about some terrible things that might
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: happen to destroy science and our country. And so this
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: is about how to kill science.
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, So I think that this is going
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: to be an important message for anybody who is working
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: in a science field, working in a stemmed field, anything
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: like that that goes well, science isn't political. Science doesn't
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: care about politics, Yes it does, and we're going to
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: talk about that because I think as a scientist you
• 0:58
  Speaker 2: would be irresponse to ignore politics because it does impact
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: so much of what we do.
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, even if you believe science doesn't care about politics,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: the politics care about science and they're about the there
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: are gonna be the ones about to pull the trigger,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: to swing the blade, to drop the trapdoor under the noose.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Insert yes execution metaphor here, because that's where we're going.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: But if you're joining us for the first time, then
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: welcome We hope you enjoy with you here in this discussion.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: We're not generally all doom and gloom. Generally, I think
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: we're actually quite cheerful and fun. That's true, but we
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: do have to face the realities of this world from
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: time to time. If you are a returning person, then
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: welcome back. I'm glad we didn't scare you away in
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: the past. Maybe we will today. We're not trying to,
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: but it could happen. Thank you for joining us either way,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: And if you'd like to support us, you can join
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: us on Patreon, leave us a rating and a review,
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: like subscribe, tell a friend, etc. I'll talk more about
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: those at the end of this discussion. But this episode
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: publishes in the middle of the year. We're now like,
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: we're right in it. We're in the bell curve of
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: the year, if you will.
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: Uh huh.
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: It is June tenth, so happy ballpoint pen Day.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: Ooh. It is also Herbs and Spices Day.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: Like Herbs and Spices. It is too National black Cow Day.
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: Yes it is. It's also and this makes sense, it's
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: National Iced Tea Day. It's real hot.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, seriously, it is America the Beautiful Week. Moving on,
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: MM hmm.
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a bedbug awareness week.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: I'm aware, all right. It is Meet a Mate Week. Cool.
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: Oh, sure, go meet that mate, Meet a meat. It
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: is National Automotive Service Professional Week, so happy Automotive Service
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: Professional Week to my brother.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: Cool. National Body Piercing Week. Sweet.
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: Okay, all right. It's National Frozen Yogurt Week.
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, National Little League Baseball Week. That makes sense
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: for the beginning of June. That.
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah. It's Pet Appreciation Week. I appreciate my pets.
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: Same, yeah, I do it all year. It is shampoo week.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: We did a mini maybe our first mini on shampoo
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: or it was like in the first couple.
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I would say very early on. So I
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: also do shampoo every week.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: Same, same, all right. But we are not here to
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: just discuss holidays to just figure you know, you're here
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: and you probably celebrate one of those holidays. That's not true,
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: But in spirit of fun, we're just gonna list those
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: things off so that you know, and you can wish
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: somebody a happy National Black Cow Day on your way
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: to work or something. Anyway. Yeah, we are talking about
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: how to kill science. So let's jump in with our
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: opening information that you need to have here. Which is
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: that the Trump administration is proposing a massive, sweeping overhaul
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: to the system for federal grants and research. The claim
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: of the recently released four hundred and twelve page proposal,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: The claim that they're making is that these changes will
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: cut down un waste, fraud, and abuse. However, the document
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: actually spells out a plan for the government to have
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: complete control over scientific research and findings.
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: That should be concerning. Yeah, obviously, like if you've listened
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: to the show, then you know that we have a
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: particular bias against this particular administration. However, you don't have
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: to take our word for it. We're going to tell
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: you exactly what it says based on objective, Like we're
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: going to have quotes, we're going to have direct points,
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: we're going to have It's not going to be like
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: we hate this administration. It's gonna be like, no, this
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: is what this actual document says. As scientists, we always
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: try to be charitable, we always try to approach this
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: from this space, and we're going to read those key
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: sections from the proposal and comment on them because I
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: think it's important to know what but exactly they're saying
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: in this document that is publicly available to read.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it is. Well, there's a link to this document
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: in the notes, and there is also a way for
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: the public to share their thoughts about this, and we're
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: going to share ours, and I would encourage you listeners
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: to share os as well. But first we need to
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: get into a little background about what is all happening here,
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: and that will, I think help set the context for
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: why this matters and the significance of it. But is
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: there anything that I'm missing that or you'd like to
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: add before we jump into this discussion here.
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. I think we got it.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: Okay. So the document in question we're describing here was
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: published by the Office of Management and Budget or OMB,
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: which is now as of twenty twenty five, headed by
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: right wing Christian nationalist Russell Vatt, who was also the
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: lead architect of the Heritage Foundation's Project twenty twenty five.
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: You may have remember hearing about this during the election
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four. This is a massive document that
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: outlines the Conservative's plan to convert the United States into
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: a dictatorship. And you think I'm being hyperbolic, and I
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: am not. No, it essentially proposed that we make the
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Handmaid's Tail universe a real place and that that is
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: here in the United States. Yeah, it is basically just that.
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah. And many of the many of the policies that
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: have been implemented since the administration has taken control have
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: aligned with the overall outcomes of Project twenty twenty five. Yeah,
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: it's all there in writing. It's plain sight, it's real bad.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's aggressively disquieting.
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: Aggressively bad. Yeah. Yeah. So the Trump administration is a
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: point in several politicians, corporate shills, TV personalities another aggressively
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: underqualified lunatics to several key positions at the top of
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: government agencies, including the National Institute of Health ANDIH, which
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: oversees the distribution of funds for tens of thousands of
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: research grants every year. And again, I know that that
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: might sound aggressive, but doctor Oz is not qualified for
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: the position he's in now. RFK is not qualified for
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: the position that he's in now. Arguably Pambondi was not qualified.
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: The people that are in his cabinet and in his
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: administration are not qualified for the positions that they're in.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Objectively, yeah, very much, objectively, like they don't have experience,
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: they don't have education. They fired all of the people
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: who are in charge of the vaccine panel and appointed
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists and like YouTube personalities, people with little education,
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: no degrees, no experience. They were just from the supplement
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: industry who wanted to push an anti vaccine agenda. They've
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: have gutted the CDC. People have otherwise resigned from their
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: positions because of the pressure they were facing to do
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: super illegal, unethical stuff. So those are the kinds of
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: people who currently head a lot of those departments.
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Historically, the United States has been one of the largest
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: and most profound leaders in scientific research and discovery in
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: the last In fact, the economic rise of the United
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: States and it's a set to being one of the
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: most powerful countries in the world, is entirely correlated with
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: and a result of the fact that the government started
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: pouring enormous amounts of money into scientific research and making
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: a real commitment to science as a process.
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I just read this book Following to Earth,
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: and it was about the space program, the moon landing
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: programs and all that, and the polo programs, And one
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: of the things that was a recurring theme was that
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: during certain administrations, the funding kept getting cut, so they
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: were having to figure out new ways to be able
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: to achieve the research they were trying to do while
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: funding was being cut for scientific aeronautical research. And wouldn't
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: you know it that the administration that was doing all
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: the cutting was a Republican conservative administration. And he makes
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: that abundantly clear in that book while he's working on
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: these programs. So importantly, politicians at the time also understood,
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: and it's not the Space program, but kind of what
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: we're at now. Politicians understood that the best people to
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: facilitate the distribution of resources to scientific endeavors and to
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: regulate the quality of those studies where people who are
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: experts in the subject matter. That's a lot of where
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: the kind of grant program started in these scientific programs began.
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: What that means is experts in medicine reviewed research proposals
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: for medicine medical research. People who are experts in law
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: enforcement reviewed and supported research proposals around law enforcement. People
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: who are experts in energy production review and support research
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: and energy production. So people who are experts in psychology
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: review and support proposals for psychological research, et cetera, et
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: cetera et cetera. People who are in the field of
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: the people who are reviewing, who are making decisions, who
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: are issuing the grants, those types of things, like people
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: who know the actual science and subject of what they're reviewing.
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they are experienced, they are educated, They are often
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: researchers themselves. They have been doing the work, so they
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: understand the kinds of things that make the most sense
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: and with things don't make sense, and how to support
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: further advancement. And that has been, if not the reason
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: science has been so successful in this country, and historically
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: it is at least one of the most important reasons,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: right that this has worked. Because it's not just enough
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: to pour a bunch of money into science, as we'll
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: actually see in a second, it is that that science
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: needs to be independently governed by the scientists.
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: They are the ones who monitor and track these because
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: they know what they're doing. The other important thing about this,
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: and the reason I just mentioned as being independent, is
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: that these experts are not subject to or influenced by
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: the government. Obviously, people have political leanings and whatnot, but
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: the government can't just come in and tell these people
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: what to do about grants and research and science and
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: that sort of thing or else as a risk that
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: the government could also control the narrative about what research
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: has to say and say instead what the government wants
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: it to say. And the importance of this really could
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: not be overstated. Other countries have done this, they've taken
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: control of the scientific narrative. You have such scientific strongholds
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: as I ran Russia, Germany in the nineteen forties, and
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: North Korea. I call those scientific strongholds facetiously because those
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: are not scientific strongholds. These are places where they quashed, quelled,
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: and destroyed people's research if it didn't align with the
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: government's policies or their government's ideas about what they want
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: the truth to be about things. And we've also seen
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: what happens when authoritarian and communist governments try to control
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: the narrative of scientific research. Chernobyl is one example. The
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: government had a specific agenda. It didn't want to accept
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: certain truths and realities about what was going on, and
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: so instead of doing the right thing, they caused a
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: giant meltdown that could play destroyed the landscape and killed
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: tons of people. Yep, that's what happens when the government
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: makes decisions about things that are science based instead of scientists.
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: But scientific research becomes essentially nothing when you depend on
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: politicians to try and be in control of these systems.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: It's untrustworthy, it's ignored by the rest of the world,
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: and is a giant waste of time, effort, and money.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Kind of like ads, Okay, we're back. We've been describing
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: essentially the way to have science work and be effective
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: and facilitate a country to be a flourishing nation.
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: Yes, so at this point, you know, we've been kind
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: of talking about, like, you know, the problem with government
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: control over science, and we've seen those examples and really
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: what it is yielded, which is not great results. The
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: point is, the smart decision was and always has been
• 13:02
  Speaker 2: to put experts in charge of helping to drive innovation
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: forward in their respective fields. You need experts in the
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: field to know the field well enough to make decisions
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: and being scientifically literate about the field to be able
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: to make decisions about where that research could or should
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: or maybe would benefit from going. This has worked extremely well,
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: probably better than they could have even predicted, because scientists
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: know what they are doing and politicians are stupid at
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: best at best to be charitable. Yeah, they're not smart
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: people in terms of at least these respective fields, and
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: like this expertise, that's not where they're experts. They're experts
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: in policy and maybe backchannel deal baking, but certainly not
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: the science part of it. So now, of course, conservative
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: politicians set a whole new low when it comes to stupid,
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: and Christian nationalism represents the kind of stupid that didn't
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: seem possible for human beings. We digress again, so let's
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: get back on track.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so the Trump administration had been appointing all of
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: these shills and figureheads to these positions where they're going
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: to do the government's bidding, but the courts were blocking
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: their ability to curtail and control math the narrative of
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: scientific research. And so this proposal we're discussing today, by
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: the OMB, this was developed to rewrite government policy about
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: funding scientific research. So for the next section of this discussion,
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: a lot of what we're going to be doing is
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: quoting news sources directly and the proposal itself directly, and
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: commenting on what these people are saying about what is
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: going on here. And this doesn't follow any particular order,
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: it's just sort of highlights about what's in this. As
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: we mentioned, it's four hundred and twelve pages, so it's
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: quite long. We're not going to read the whole thing
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: to you because that would turn this into a thirty
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: hour podcast, but we will get into some of the
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: key chunks that we need to discuss.
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, I mean, let's go and start with this
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: first ballpoint, and I'm going to read this directly. So
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: this is a direct quote. The Office of Management and
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: Budget's omb proposed rule is in escalation of the administration's
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: relentless attacks on independent science. This is a quote from
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: Jewels Barbody Dashes of the Center for Science and Democracy
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: at the Union of Concerned Scientists in a statement that
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: they put out. And then it goes further. It says,
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: quote it replaces scientific merit with a political loyalty test
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: and could be used to silence research that is politically
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: inconvenient for the administration. End quote. Now Barbodi a Daches
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: actually warns that the proposal would quote give politically connected
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: industries a functional veto over research that might reveal risks
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: associated with products and practices. End quote. You know when
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: I read that, and you kind of hear that, my
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: first thought is, oh, like this is where data centers
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: are going to be a real problem, because if they
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: are creating a substantial amount of pollution in certain communities
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: and they have to do water research about whether polluted
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: water from data centers is creating diseases in these communities
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: or something like that, like that research could be kiboshed.
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: It could be immediately shut down because it doesn't benefit
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: when data centers are making money for the government or
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: something along those lines, so or for you know, people
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: in those spaces. So like I could see that being
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: an example of like, oh, there's a health risk going on,
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: it doesn't benefit the government or the government's values per se,
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: and we're gonna go ahead and we're not going to
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: approve that research because it doesn't align with our goals.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, And I'm realizing now that I've sort of jumped
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: ahead a little bit by starting with the criticism here,
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: let's actually describe fairly clearly what the proposal is as
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: part of this. Yeah, So one of the features of
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: the new proposal is that they want to end international
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: research collaboration.
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: Which is insane, Like that's insane. We are a.
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: Global community at this point, Like, yes, we have individual countries,
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: but everything that we do affects everybody else in the world,
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: and vice versa. The things that they do affect us.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: There are not issues really that are so geographically bound
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: that they don't apply to other places in the world.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: So international research collaboration is just a thing that you
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: need to do or else what are you doing? So
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: with the current rules, they want to essentially end that
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: their sort of policy is domestic first, which who knows
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: what that even means, right, Like basically you have to
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: say just America thirty times in your proposal, and they
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: for them to even consider it. They do say they'll
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: consider in an international collaboration on a case by case basis,
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: but it's really going to be does it support the
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: agenda of the president and the current administration whether or
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: not that that collaboration would be even considered. So they
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: really want to stop that, which, by the way, like
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: this is long standing scientific practice is to do international
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: collaboration because that is the best way to move forward,
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: is to get as many people involved as possible and
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: sort of share knowledge.
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: Right, Okay.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: Another thing that they want to cut here is scientists
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: generally can use part of the funding that they get
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: from grants to pay for a time conferences. So most
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: scientists work at academic institutions, maybe not most, A lot
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: of scientists who are doing research work at academic institutions
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: where they apply for federal grants. There are also private
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: companies who have scientists who also apply for and receive
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: federal grants. There's like a lot of different ways that
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: grants get distributed to various scientific entities. But the point
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: is the conferences represent an opportunity for scientists to show up,
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: present their work to each other and learn new things
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: and continue to disseminate and advance the field. A lot
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: of conference attendants is paid for by institutions from grant
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: funding specifically, and that includes funding students to go to
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: these conferences. Well, they would like to essentially cut completely
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: any funding that could be used to go to spend
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: on going to conferences. It would only be allowed if
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: participation in the event was expressly approved by the funding
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: agency and written into the grant, regardless of whether the
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: conference was a noun after the point where they could
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: have asked for that funding to go to that. So
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: it does not consider anything like that Because when people
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: write grants and the funds for grants, they have to
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: set aside how those funds are going to be used,
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: and things like continuing education and research are part of
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: what they have to write. So they're basically saying you
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: can't do that anymore.
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: And then something that we don't spend enough time talking
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: about is that conferences are one of the best ways
• 19:23
  Speaker 2: to disseminate new research and information and like bite sized chunks. Yeah,
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: and fast and fast. I mean you can get a
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: lot you know. I know, you just got back from
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: a conference. I go to conferences all the time. Yeah,
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: and between the two of us, I'm sure we go
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: to hundreds of conferences constantly. But when we think about that,
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: like every one of the hours that you're there is
• 19:42
  Speaker 2: an opportunity to learn some new science, right. And so
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: so if I'm on a research grant, I'm going to
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: go to a conference that is related to my research
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: grant that is going to offer me different insights about
• 19:53
  Speaker 2: the particular subject that I'm looking at or I'm interested in.
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: And now you have basically cut off a space where
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: information can low freely. That's essentially what this is saying
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: is like, no, you can't go to that at least
• 20:04
  Speaker 2: under this grant, so pay for it out of your
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: own pocket, which is sometimes not affordable, and you can
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: go you can go this conference. But they're basically saying, no,
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: you can't go to those anymore.
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, conferences are extremely expensive to put on, extremely expensive,
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: Like you would not even believe how expensive they are,
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: and they do not tend to make a very significant
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: profit from people attending those conferences, so they often charge
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: hundreds of dollars sometimes for attendance from professionals. Now often
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: students get an express discount, and like people who are
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: maybe like sustained members, I don't know. There's like various
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: ways to tier the membership system to try and facilitate
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: people who have fewer resources available. But part of the
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: reason that they can exist is because they kind of
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: subsidize those lower tiers by charging higher prices to people
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: who have grant funding that can help pay for those conferences.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: So all of that ensures that that dissemination can continue.
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, most definitely, they're trying to not just cut this.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: Off at the knees. They were trying to set it
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: on fire and throw in the trash, like it would
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: just does not exist any longer. This would greatly greatly
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: affect professional conferences. And importantly, when these conferences happen, they
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: usually set up in a city and they usually rent
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: a conference or they like get conference space. They set
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: up a hotel block, there's rental cars, there's flights the amount,
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: and then thousands and thousands of people show up to
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: this thing and they bring with them money, Like they
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: go to this place and they buy dinner, they buy food,
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: they go sight seeing, and they're paid for hotel rooms,
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: they're paying taxes in this city. So cutting off a
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: funding source for going to these not only hurts the conference,
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: it also hurts the cities that would have held that
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: conference and all the travel industry and tourism industry that
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: would have supported the people who go to that conference
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: as well.
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: So it is basically just taking the economy and shoving
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: a knife in its gut and being like take that.
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: Hah, yeah, it's absurd.
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: And with that, I say, insert ad into this podcast.
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: Take that.
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: Ha, Okay, we're back. We've been talking about the conference.
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: That's a very small part of this. But the fact
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: that they're trying to essentially end conferences or cut them
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: down to extremely bare bones. The overall rules for overhead
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: cost rates for research grants would not change in this
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: particular situation. So we have to really quickly describe grant structure,
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: which sounds really boring, but I can summarize it, I
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: think fairly cohesively. So understand that like a lot of
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: the scientists who applied for these are at universities of
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: some kind, private, public, whatever. They're at universities, and the
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: university has to pay that researchers, that scientists salary. They
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: often have to set them up with the lab. They
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: have to pay for their internet and their equipment and
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: their desks, and like, they have to pay a lot
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: of money to keep a researcher and a research team
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: in their space. So when a researcher brings in grants,
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: then the university takes a percentage of that grant to
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: help offset the cost that they've invested in having that
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: person there doing research in the first place. It's called
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: an indirect cost. Okay, you take a place like you
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: and R A common indirect cost you'll see is about
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: thirty percent. So if they get a one million dollar
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: grant for something, the university is going to take approximately
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: three hundred thousand dollars of that grant to cover the
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: cost of paying for that researcher and their research space
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: and equipment and everything to be there. Right, it sounds
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: like a lot and it is, but you know they
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: still then have seven hundred thousand dollars to do what
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: and that's they plan for that, Like they budget for
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: We're going to apply for this grant knowing this is
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: how much of that money we will get that we
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: will then spend on these things, and they write they
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: plan that all out, and that's called the indirect cost.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: Some universities have in direct costs as high as seventy percent.
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: That does feel extreme to me, But you know, I
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: don't know what their actual operating overhead costs are, Like
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: I'm sure they're massive.
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: Well, and it probably depends on the research it very much,
• 24:10
  Speaker 2: does you know, Like it depends on the equipment that's needed.
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: Like you know, there's a different like like we kind
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: of talk, we come from a behavior analysis standpoint where
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: it's like we need to have like maybe rat cages
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: and stuff like that sometimes if we're doing a rat lab,
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: but like we don't work in a space where we
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: need a telescope that can see planets in other solar systems, right,
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: So like that's a very different cost set.
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Or like if you need a lab with a
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: lot of chemicals, you need a ton of safety equipment
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: and protocols and emergency things. It's going to be so
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: expensive to operate a lab for chemists then for baby analysts,
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: and so the expense to the university is much much higher.
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: So they're probably going to claim a higher indirect cost.
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: So it varies I think by grant by funding source
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: a little bit. But there's gonna be like university policy
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: around this as well. Yeah, last year they tried to
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: cap indirect costs at fifteen percent. This would murder many
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: universities ability to fund scientists on the campus if they
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: did that. That part failed, and they're not including that
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: exact thing in this next round of this. What they
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: are calling on is for favoring distributing grants to institutions
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: that have lower indirect costs, and for prohibiting money going
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: to publication costs, which I'll come back to that a second.
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: And less such costs this is a direct quote from
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: the document, and less such costs are expressly required by
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: statute or approved in advanced by the federal agency on
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: a case by case basis. That's another important part we
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: need to get to. So one quick thing. These grants
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: are largely funded by tax dollars, pretty much entirely funded
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: by tax dollars, and so when this research happens, a
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: lot of people have argued, if our tax dollars paid
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: for this, this should be made publicly available. The problem
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: is the sources that publish that research also have to
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: pay for their costs, and so they will often not
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: make research publicly available. And that's kind of the deal.
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: They're like, you publish your research here, we want your
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: research here, and then people who buy subscriptions to our
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: journal can have access to that research, or people can
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: buy these articles directly for sometimes hundreds of dollars. Well,
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: what a grant can do is have costs from the
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: funding of the grant that go to pay the publication
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: for that so it becomes an open access article and
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: anybody can read it. I do think in an ideal world,
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: tax funded research should be always publicly available. And I
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: understand the complicated nuance of having private publishing companies who
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: have to make sure that they can cover their overhead,
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: but that's just a thing to make sure that you know,
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: is there what this would do. This is largely going
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: to punish ivy leagues and like large institutions. That's one
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: of the effects. But that also means it's going to
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: go to universities that have lower indirect costs. Why do
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: they have lower indirect costs? Probably because they don't have
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: as much stuff that they that they can provide to
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: the researchers. They don't have to pay for us, right,
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: so they don't have state of the art equipments, they
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: don't have cutting edge technology. They're like operating off of
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: like Windows ninety five Dell PC that that takes up
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: an entire closet, you.
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: Know, right, and honestly, like what that does is at
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: first you might be going, well, why does research need
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: the state of the art equipment? Because we need to
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: be as current as possible with our research, and at
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: the end of the day, like having less quality equipment
• 27:24
  Speaker 2: or less access to equipment or any of that stuff
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: is going to reduce the quality of the research at large,
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: or it's going to prevent the research from happening at all,
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: which is a different problem, exactly right, exactly, So the
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: proposal from the OMB also aims to replace the peer
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: review process with the judgment of non expert political appointees
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: sworn to carry out the wishes of President Donald Trump.
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: I say that sentence, and I cannot believe that it
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: is a real sentence that I had to say out loud. Yeah,
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: we did an episode on peer review, and we explicitly say, like,
• 27:54
  Speaker 2: is it the best process that we could possibly have?
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: Absolutely not, but it is certainly better than having non
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: experts political appointees who have a particular political agenda reviewing research.
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: That is I mean, that is Orwellian.
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, to put it nicely, Yeah, And that's what I
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: was saying in terms of we need to come back
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: to what they mean by on a case by case
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: basis is that they're now saying like, no longer does
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: peer review matter, like at all, it doesn't matter. Essentially,
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: what's going to happen is all of these grants get
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: signed off by a political appointee and just as you said,
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: their job description is do what the president tells you
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: to do with research, right, that means they're only going
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: to fund research that look looks like it carries out
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: the agenda of the current political administration, that looks like
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: it's going to shine that administration in a positive light,
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: and that has a narrative that is in line with
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: what the administration is trying to push as a narrative,
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: and that these political appointees who are not experts at all,
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: Like they're explicitly not choosing experts for this role. They
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: are choosing people who are politicians, very stupid politicians, maybe
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: not even politicians, but like personalities, corporate shills, people who
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: have a vested interest in carrying out their agenda and
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: do not know a fucking thing about science. Yeah, those
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: the people who will be making decisions about research dollars
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: and research proposals.
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: It's a group of people who rules against conflicts of
• 29:25
  Speaker 2: interests have being written about the reason we prevent conflicts
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: of interest in research are because of people like this
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: they're talking about bringing in, Yes, like, you do not
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: want Andrew Wakefield being the responsible person for reviewing vaccine research,
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: absolutely not God, and that's what he's doing. That's what
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: he's doing. You do not want doctor Oz being the
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: quote unquote peer reviewer for herbal vitamin supplements that treat cancer,
• 29:48
  Speaker 2: like that he's gonna approve it because he has a
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: vested interest in that industry.
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: Right exactly, these people who don't know what they're doing,
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: and all this creates is a way for the government
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: to have complete control over what the outcomes of scientific
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: research look like. Another direct quote here, This is from
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: somebody describing this. Her name is Elizabeth Genexi Genexy. What
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: she says is, quote, what OMB is proposing is not
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: a reform of grants management. It is a complete political
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: funding life cycle. And this was a former NIH program
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: official who had read the rules and was providing an
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: analysis of what this was. Because they're claiming that they're
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: reforming grant management, that's not what they're doing. What they're
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: doing is completely eliminating the structure of science that guided
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: this process and replacing it with a presidential agenda driven
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: apparatus that is no longer science. It is a propaganda machine.
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: Yes, and that should be very concerning to everybody who
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: hears this. Now there are other quotes. Another quote that
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: came out was that a lot of grant decisions are
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: based on the knowledge of experts in a field in
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: a particular field, so grant decisions are reviewed by people
• 31:06
  Speaker 2: in the field who make decisions about that. I just
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: got done reviewing like seven grants from a university. Like
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: I got to do some grant reviews. And the reason
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: I was asked to do grant reviews is because I'm
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: a behavior analyst reviewing behavior analytic grants. That makes sense,
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: So like I'm an expert in a field of behavior
• 31:21
  Speaker 2: analysis who is doing grant reviews. Grant reviews are supposed
• 31:24
  Speaker 2: to be from the experts, not in a situation, and
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: they should not be reviewed based on whether it meets
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: an ideological agenda. Merit reviews are all about making sure
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: that the research and the grants and the proposals meet
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: the rigor and standards of the science, replacing it with
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: a decision making model that is primarily politically idealized, it
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: follows a certain ideology. It's going to result in really bad,
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: really bad studies, really poorly designed studies, bad science, fake
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: science being refunded, being researched, and being published as truth.
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: It's going to create a body of literature that is
• 32:03
  Speaker 2: not replicable, that is not verifiable, that is wasting money
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: and time on stuff that we already know doesn't work,
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: Like facilitated communication, like the fact that vaccines cause autism,
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: which they don't. We know all those things do not work.
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: But this is just going to outcate money and waste
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: time and resources for research. It's going to be bad
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: science exactly.
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: And the great irony of the people who are in
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: charge saying that everything should be a meritocracy, that everything
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: should be merit based, is they are exactly destroying a
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: merit based system, right they say merit based, and what
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: they advocate is nepotism and loyalty. Merit is not factor
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: in whatsoever and the things that they do not at all. Yeah,
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: and merit does not factor into our choice to run ads. Okay,
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: we're back. We've been talking about this fact that one
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: of the major changes is shifting the decision making apparatus
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: to political appointees who are selected explicitly and expressly to
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: carry out the agenda of the president. Senior appointees at
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: federal agencies would be the ones to actually sign off
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: on the awards and would ban collaboration with foreign researchers.
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: They would cut federal support for publication of those studies
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: when they're done. They are explicitly not going to fund
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: anything that has certain verbiag in it that they don't like.
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: If it says things like diversity, they would pretty much
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: outright reject it. Says anything about equity, it would outright
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: reject it. They made a list of words that you're
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: not supposed to use, including women and women. Why you're
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: just not supposed to say those words. You are limited
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: in whether or not you can say anything about race whatsoever.
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: And they're only going to allow it if it conveys
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: the narrative that they want to tell. Like you might
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: start seeing a bunch of research that says, oh, racism
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: isn't real and never was real, and that's not even
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: a thing, and like that would be something that they
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: would okay to be published because that's in line with
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: the narrative they're trying to spin.
• 34:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and you would hope, you know, I was thinking
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: about this, and you know, you would hope that scientists
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: with integrity would never publish research that was so harmful.
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: But then you have people like Jordan Peterson who would
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: publish stuff like this, yeah, and is not a reputable
• 34:20
  Speaker 2: scientist and walks around pretending to be a scientist. And
• 34:23
  Speaker 2: that's who these grants are going to go to. Yes,
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: is these grants are going to go to people like
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: Jordan Peterson and doctor Oz.
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, psychopaths who who have an agenda and don't know
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: what they're doing.
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. The other important part of this regulation that
• 34:35
  Speaker 2: we're talking about is that over the last several years,
• 34:39
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump has put out some executive orders that are
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: pretty just awful and dumb and just absolutely fit the
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: Project twenty twenty five agenda. This proposal would actually give
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: legal weight to some of those executive orders, because something
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: that people don't talk about enough is that a lot
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: of his executive orders are being shut down because they're
• 34:57
  Speaker 2: not legal. Right, So, like an executive order doesn't mean
• 35:00
  Speaker 2: that it immediately applies. It means that it applies for
• 35:02
  Speaker 2: a period of time until it gets challenged in court
• 35:04
  Speaker 2: and then somebody goes, oh, by the way, you can't
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: call it the Trump Kennedy Center because you don't have
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: that executive authority, you see, an idiot. Right. Courts are
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: doing that a lot more than people realize. So Donald
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: Trump is losing time after time in courts. But if
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: this proposal, this regulation, this proposed regulation is accepted and
• 35:21
  Speaker 2: is codified and goes in the law as promulgated or
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: whatever terms you want to use. It gives weight to
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: a lot of the executive orders that he put out
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: last year that banned research on diversity, equity, and inclusivity. Right,
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: So going back to what you were just saying, you
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: can't say those words, and now there's a legal precedent
• 35:36
  Speaker 2: to back that up. If this proposed regulation goes through,
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: it provides tighter oversight by political appointees, not peer reviewers,
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: not researchers, political appointees, and they will actually prevent research
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: agencies from this is a direct quote from quote promoting
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: a woke policy agenda that did not reflect the values
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: of the vast majority of the American public end quote.
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: Get about that is so it's so ridicult, it's so absurd,
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: But this is what they're putting into law or trying to.
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so that's essentially. I think the thing to really
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: understand about this is the sort of major aspects of this,
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: and there's a lot. There's a lot in this proposal.
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: There's one more thing that I want to address, because
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: we've mentioned this indirect cost cap that they sort of
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: have potentially said that like we're going to make sure
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: this goes to universities with lower and direct costs, and
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: some people scientists are kind of like, oh, that could
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: actually be a good thing. And the thing is, like,
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: as you said, as we've mentioned, the grant system I
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: think is not perfect. I do think there are ways
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: that it could be improved to ensure that the way
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: money is spent makes sense. I do think that grant writers, generally,
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: the ones that I have met at least, are very responsible,
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: very thoughtful, intelligent people who are doing their best to
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: use those funds in a very responsible way right And
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: where things go wrong it is because of other things
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: that get in the way of that. And I understand
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: the need to have like some consideration around percentages on this,
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: and that it's possible there are some universities who abuse
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: that to some extent. Some scientists are also aware of
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: the fact that, like, it does feel icky sometimes to
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: like get a super large grant and have almost all
• 37:24
  Speaker 1: of that grant go to the university and then you're
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: left with very little to actually do your research. And
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: so they could be seen that and be like, well,
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: that could be a good thing. Don't let the silver
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: lining of this undercut the massive significance of us throwing
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: away science and just digging a shallow grave for it
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: and throwing it in, right, because like this proposal would
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: significantly disrupt any scientific research, Like there would be little
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: and what little existed would suck. It would be so
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: it would be useless. They would be ignored by the
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: rest of the world. Right So, and would be easily disprovable.
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: Although you wouldn't be able to do that research in
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: the United States. I think understanding that just because there's
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: one thing in here that might kind of help make
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: sense a little bit, it's not worth it. It's like
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: throwing a cherry into a pile of diarrhea. I'm like,
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: just because there's a cherry, and it doesn't mean I'm
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: gonna eat that pile of diarrhea. Like it's still a
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: pile of diarrhea. Yeah, it also happens to have a
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: cherry in it.
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah. This is a dark ages indicator. Yeah, this type
• 38:28
  Speaker 2: of rhetoric, this type of belief around like dismantling systems
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: of science. It's a dark age is indicator, like we
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: are well on our way if we're not already like
• 38:35
  Speaker 2: well in it.
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that is kind of where we're going. So there
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: is something I think that I want to get into
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: really quick just understanding a little bit about government structure
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: and what that all means, because we sort of alluded
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: to this before. I'm going to describe a type of
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: government and see if you can figure out which one
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: it is. This is a government that is controlled by
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: a single party, with state controlled command economy and the
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: suppression of political dis Individual freedoms are limited, and the
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: government controls things like manufacturing and production by having ownership
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: in those processes those types of entities. And the government
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: also controls the flow of information in the narrative. They
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: suppress any discussion in the news and research, et cetera.
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: And they criticize and silence critics, stripping them of funding,
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: imprisoning them, deporting them if they can. That's a kind
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: of government that exists. What kind of government is that?
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: Hmmmm, good question. Is it one where the leader goes
• 39:33
  Speaker 2: by big brother?
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: That is a form that this can take.
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean, if this sounds like authoritarianism, you're right.
• 39:41
  Speaker 2: I mean, if this sounds like communism, you're also right.
• 39:44
  Speaker 2: In practice, these forms of government are basically the same.
• 39:46
  Speaker 2: Our government is turning into this. Historically, the government has
• 39:50
  Speaker 2: influenced the private sector through policy, regulation, subsidies, and bailouts.
• 39:54
  Speaker 2: But now the government has an eight point nine billion
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: dollar stake in Intel, a fifteen percent stake in Navidia,
• 40:00
  Speaker 2: a four hundred million dollar stake in a rare earth
• 40:04
  Speaker 2: mining company, and government board representatives in Nippon Steel. This
• 40:08
  Speaker 2: is communism. This is authoritarianism headed by a cognitively impaired,
• 40:13
  Speaker 2: murderous megalomaniac. We are, for lack of a better term,
• 40:18
  Speaker 2: because of Trump, and definitely because of the people who
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: want him empower and who are using him. I mean,
• 40:23
  Speaker 2: you could make the argument that he is a monster
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: in his own right, and he absolutely is, but there
• 40:28
  Speaker 2: are also monsters who may be worse, who are hiding
• 40:31
  Speaker 2: in the shadows, who are absolutely using him for their
• 40:33
  Speaker 2: own gain as well. So like, and they're all people
• 40:36
  Speaker 2: who hate science, especially science that helps people. All they
• 40:40
  Speaker 2: care about is money, power and authority, and under this administration,
• 40:44
  Speaker 2: that's what they're getting.
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, for the people on the right who
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: say they hate communism, this is communism. Our government now
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: owns private equity in private companies and therefore has some
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: controlling interest in what they do. That's what communism does
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: the government is appointing political appointees to control the flow
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: of information. That is both authoritarianism and communism. They are
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: suppressing individual freedoms and suppressing discussion and limiting dissent, criticizing
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: and silencing critics, disappearing people. That is authoritarianism and communism.
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: More authoritarism than the communism, but they both do it.
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: Like that's where we're currently at, Like is we are
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: headed in that way? And I kind of want to
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: end with like, this is what happens when Republicans get control.
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: There's only been a handful of times in the history
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: of this country. I was looking at like sort of
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: a political map when the Republicans had control over all
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: three bodies of government, the executive branch, the legislative branch,
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: and the judicial branch. The cut Republicans controlled the House
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: of Representatives, they control the Senate, they control the Presidency,
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: they control the Supreme Court. They have complete control. And
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: this is what happens when they get in control. They
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: turn the government into a dictatorship, some revolting hybrid of
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: fascism and communism, and so so so many scientists are
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: going to lose their jobs should this policy come to
• 42:03
  Speaker 1: pass because they will no longer be able to operate
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: and do the work that they've been doing unless they
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: are doing the bidding of the president. And that should
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: be extremely alarming, like upsettingly extremely alarming. H this should
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: just not be a thing that could possibly happen here.
• 42:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's absurd. It's like watching the movie Idiocracy. Yeah,
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: but like at the very least, like this is so
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: much worse because it's happening in real time and it's
• 42:36
  Speaker 2: you just just the monsters are exposed over and over
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: and over again. It's just it's really unbelievable.
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: Ads are like watching Idiocracy. Okay, we're back, we've been
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: I guess, concluding our sort of thoughts here on this
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: new proposal on what's going on here. Yeah, I cannot
• 43:03
  Speaker 1: being believed something like this could possibly happen in this
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: country in my lifetime. I can't believe it that we're here.
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: I can't believe that some whole, useless, pathetic for brains,
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: derelic waste of life have risen to the point where
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: they could successfully pull this off. Just reflecting on this,
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: looking over this, like, I can't believe that the American
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: people are so fkingullible and uninformed and misinformed that we
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: would not only let this happen, but actively fking choose it. Yeah,
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: that's where we're looking at right now.
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's infuriating.
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: It is unbelievable that we could be at this place
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: right now. Holy you guys, what the is going on?
• 43:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah?
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: I want to be careful to understand that, like most
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: people do not agree with this, but we got enough
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: people to agree with this to get us here in
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: the first place. And to those people, this is on
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: your shoulders.
• 44:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, at this point in time, we've
• 44:04
  Speaker 2: already lost our status in the world stage as a
• 44:06
  Speaker 2: research powerhouse or as a place where we could be
• 44:10
  Speaker 2: a beacon of some kind of knowledge in the world.
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: We've lost that and are likely to only fall further
• 44:16
  Speaker 2: due to the incomprehensibly stupid decisions of this administration. And
• 44:20
  Speaker 2: I say stupid, but I think there's also like stupid
• 44:23
  Speaker 2: and intentionally violent or intentionally anti science decisions that this
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: administration is making.
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: It's like corruption and self serving and counterproductive. Like there
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: are smart people in this administration. They're doing horrible things.
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: And I call, you know, I call it stupid because
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: I think it's shortsighted, but like they are, actually they
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: know what they're doing. They're just choosing to end the world.
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, And if this goes through, this country will
• 44:52
  Speaker 2: be plunged into a steep decline into the dark ages.
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: We will be joining the ranks of North Korea and Afghanistan,
• 44:57
  Speaker 2: a state of terror ruled by oppressive religious fanatics where
• 45:00
  Speaker 2: no one has any freedom. The true goal of the
• 45:03
  Speaker 2: Republican Party, which it has always been, Yeah, it has
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: always been that, and they have always told.
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: Us so, politics aside, because, as we sort of said, scientists,
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: science generally speaking is while it is made up of
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: individuals who often have a political agenda, the overall or
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: the overarching direction and flow of science is not political.
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: Sometimes scientific findings are more supportive of policies that a
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: conservative would prefer. Sometimes they are more supportive of findings
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: that a liberal would prefer. And it's just going to
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: report on whatever it finds. And it can't do that
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: if it's being told what to report by the people
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: who are holding the purse strings now, right, So this
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: would effectively kill science in the United States. Fortunately, other
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: countries have stepped up to really increase their funding and
• 45:57
  Speaker 1: contributions to science. France and Spain have been pushing a
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: lot to fund a lot of scientific research, and a
• 46:05
  Speaker 1: lot of people are leaving the country who are scientists
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: to go to those countries because they're very friendly to
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: people who are experts and know what they're doing. So
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: they'll probably become more or less the powerhouses of scientific
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: research moving forward. And good for them, I guess, But
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: really for us in the United States.
• 46:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, real bad. It's a real bad situation now.
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: Most of the time when there are proposals of this nature,
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: there's a pretty long window of time that people can
• 46:32
  Speaker 1: weigh in and share their thoughts. This is a public thing,
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: so you listener can do this if you'd like. The
• 46:39
  Speaker 1: President of the Council and Government Relations states that this
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: is an unusually short period of time for such wide changes.
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: But we have forty five days from when this was announced,
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: which was I think May twenty ninth or twenty eighth,
• 46:52
  Speaker 1: something like that, that this was announced, forty five days
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: to comment on these proposed regulations, and at the time
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: that you hear this will have very very little. That
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: means that the final day for public comment is July thirteenth,
• 47:06
  Speaker 1: So do not wait, if you would like to share
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: your thoughts on this, I'm putting the links in here.
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: You can go to a portal. It's at Federal Register
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: dot gov. But if you just google, I don't remember
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: what I googled, but if you google something about this,
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: like the OMB grant proposal thing in public comment, you
• 47:24
  Speaker 1: should be able to find it in some capacity. If
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: you just google any of those words. Many of the
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: news sites have links to the specific portal you can
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: go and leave comments. I know I will be doing this. Yeah,
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: my hope that Shane will be doing this. I expect
• 47:35
  Speaker 1: that many of our listeners can and also would have
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: an interest in doing this. Tell them to GoF with
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: this nonsense. Yeah, obviously do it and not those words.
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: They need to hear this message, but like they need
• 47:47
  Speaker 1: to hear that this is not something we're okay with.
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: Not that that's going to stop them, it probably won't,
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: but they need to hear it as much as possible.
• 47:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, Okay.
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: I think that is what we have to say about
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: this god awful nightmare that we live in.
• 48:05
  Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm not sure what else I say right now,
• 48:07
  Speaker 2: other than please speak up like it can be hard.
• 48:11
  Speaker 2: It can be scary, but please speak up.
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: It makes a difference, Yes, it does, and share this episode.
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: I mean, I know I say that selfishly to like
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: get us out there, but like this is something people
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: need to hear as well. We are reporting on exactly
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: what is being said on here, and yes we icinged
• 48:27
  Speaker 1: on a lot of our opinions about it, but the
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: point is, like we're not making this up. This is
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: what is probably gonna happen, and it represents a dangerous,
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: dangerous move in this country that will royally guss for
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: decades to come. Yes, absolutely, Okay, great, well, thanks to
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: all those who got us here. If you would like
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: to tell us your thoughts on this, you can email
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: us directly infowwdwwdpodcast dot com. We look forward to hearing from.
• 48:56
  Speaker 1: You can also leave us a message on the social
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: media platforms. That is great too. If you are joining
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: us for the first time. You may not know this,
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: but at the end of our discussions we do some
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: fun recommendations that are unrelated to our topic at hand.
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: It's it's a good time. We just you know, we
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: enjoy it. I think we think people enjoy it. It's cool,
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: it's fun. First, I'd like to say that. As I mentioned,
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: if you'd like to support us, you can join us
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: on Patreon. If you do, you get poonus content, add
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: free episodes, early episodes, and I will read your name
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: in the list of supporters who help us make this
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: show a show. So thank you so much too, Mike,
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: m Megan, Mike T, Justin, Kim Brad, Stephanie, Brian, Ashley, Kiara,
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: and Charlie for all that you have done for helping
• 49:36
  Speaker 1: us stick around and be a podcast. You are the best.
• 49:39
  Speaker 2: You are truly the loveliest.
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: Indeed, you can also support us by leaving us a
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: rating and a review. Go click those five stars or
• 49:47
  Speaker 1: ten stars, however many stars it'll let you click. It
• 49:49
  Speaker 1: just makes you feel good, It helps us, it helps
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: the algorithm. It's all good stuff. That's just one way
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: you can support us non financially. You can also tell
• 49:57
  Speaker 1: a friend to make sure you subscribe to catch all
• 49:59
  Speaker 1: future episodes, and then like or whatever share this. Go subscribe,
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: Go tell friends. Okay. Also, thank you to my team
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: of people for helping me make this podcast exist. Writing
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: in fact checking from Shane and myself. Thank you for
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: recording with me today. Shane, Hey, thanks for having me
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: social media Coordinator z Emma Wilson, and our audio technician
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: engineer God Emperor Executive is Justin who is so good
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: at what he does and wonderful. I would want him
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: on my peer review committee definitely, And of course thank
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: you all for listening. But I think that gets us
• 50:31
  Speaker 1: to the point where we can get to our recommendations.
• 50:34
  Speaker 2: I love it recommendations. I'm gonna recommend a movie that
• 50:45
  Speaker 2: just came out, and that movie is called Star Wars,
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: The Mandalorian and Grow Goo. So if you are a
• 50:52
  Speaker 2: fan of the Mandalorian show, it's just a great Indiana
• 50:55
  Speaker 2: Jones cowboy western adventure type of Star Wars story like.
• 50:59
  Speaker 2: It plays a lot of like you know, the good,
• 51:03
  Speaker 2: the bad, and the ugly. It plays a lot like
• 51:05
  Speaker 2: some of those old spaghetti westerns that people talk about,
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: so this is no different. It adds to the lore
• 51:10
  Speaker 2: I think of Star Wars a little bit where you've
• 51:13
  Speaker 2: got job of the Huts family that's involved in this
• 51:15
  Speaker 2: and they're awful. And it's got Pedro Pascal, who is great.
• 51:19
  Speaker 2: It's got Sigourney Weaver in it. She's really good as
• 51:21
  Speaker 2: a New Republic commander, which is really cool.
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: Cool.
• 51:25
  Speaker 2: I don't know, it's just fun. It's what's lovely about
• 51:28
  Speaker 2: it is it's a Star Wars story that's not about
• 51:30
  Speaker 2: the Skywalker family, which I think we need some of
• 51:33
  Speaker 2: those sometimes yes to kind of expand on that world.
• 51:36
  Speaker 2: And I think that it's just a great adventure story.
• 51:39
  Speaker 2: Like it's a fun, just kind of Indiana Jones style
• 51:43
  Speaker 2: adventure story in Star Wars. So it's worth checking out.
• 51:47
  Speaker 2: It's a good time.
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: I'm very interested in seeing this. Yeah, I hope to
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: make it to the theater before it's gone for six
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: months and then finally makes it to streaming by December.
• 51:56
  Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, I definitely want to see this. Very good.
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: I'm recommending a TV show. I've recommended it before, but
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: they just wrapped season five, so I'm recommending the TV
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: show Ghosts. This is the American version of a UK show,
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: as Americans like to do sometimes. The premise, if you
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: don't know, is somebody who hits their head, dies temporarily
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: and then wakes up and they can see ghosts and
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: they realize that the house that they've inherited, this large mansion,
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: is just filled with ghosts and high jinks ensue. And
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: so the season's been great it's such a great show.
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: It's honestly one of my favorite shows that's on right now.
• 52:35
  Speaker 1: It's really funny. It's set up like a sitcom, but
• 52:38
  Speaker 1: it also has a lot of heart at times. I
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: think the writing is just really really well done. I
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: love all the actors on it, so really fun show.
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: I know it's a CBS show, so it's available on Peacock,
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: I believe. Okay, maybe on Amazon. I think I think
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: those are places you can find it. It's around, so
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: I recommend it.
• 52:56
  Speaker 2: I love it, all right.
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: That is Ghosts, the TV show and and the movie
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: the new movie Star Wars, the Mandalorian, and grogu our recommendations.
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: But yeah, I think that's what I have to say
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: about this. I think I'm gonna go fume some more
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: about the horrors of our derelict future. Anything you'd like
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: to add or that I forgot before we wrap up?
• 53:16
  Speaker 2: No, I think I think that covers it great.
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: All right, This is Abraham, this is Shane. We're out.
• 53:24
  Speaker 2: See ya.
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: You've been listening to Why We Do What We Do.
• 53:28
  Speaker 2: You can learn more about this and other episodes by.
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: Going to WWD WWD podcast dot com.
• 53:35
  Speaker 2: Thanks for listening and We hope you have an awesome day.