Two Brad For You Bradley van Paridon

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

When's the last time you checked your butt? It could save your life. This episode I chat with Anthony Morgan, host of CBC's The Nature of Things, about their upcoming film Butt Seriously and so much more. As Anthony explains the idea for the arose because people are literally dying from embarassment by not getting their butt's checked out by a doctor. This soon expanded to a deep dive into butt's from all over the animal kingdom. Creatues that breathe through their butt's and the researchers who think we can too. Insect butts that shoot acid at enemies. The evolution of the butt and more.
I also chat with Anthony about science communication and the lessons he's learned from vaccum sealing himself to a building in dowtown Toronto. How we can tackle polarizing topics and the live game he tours around Toronto to "undivide us". Find out more about Anthony and his "Freestyle Socials" at anthonymorganscience.com and on Instagram @anthonymorganscience and @freestylesocialsgame
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.

Two major breakthroughs in gene editing recently occurred and show how our ability to edit the human genome is rapidly increasing. This episode we dive into how these technologies work and how they were able to treat two diseases. One a rather mundane sounding cholesterol problem and the other an exteremely painful and potentially deadly condition known as sickle cell disease. Both stories invovle a combination of new technologies, mRNA techniques and gene editing either using or inspired by CRISPER. These stories highlight how all of these technologies are combining to open new possibilities, that gene editing may become just a regular treatment as we age, and the less talked about downsides or hidden trade-offs that come with these treatments.
Sources
Base editing, a new form of gene therapy, sharply lowers bad cholesterol in a clincal trial - Science
A Closer Look at the Approval of CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease - MedPage Today
New gene therapies confront many sickle cell patients with an impossible choice: a cure or fertility - STAT
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! Head to www.twobradforyou.wordpress.com to subscribe to, donate to and follow the show on social media. You can also leave a comment, send an email or voice message. We read/listen to them all and will put them on air. This is your show too so get involved and don't let Brad have all the fun.

Some recent episodes have really got me thinking about science communication and our responsibility as citizens to be informed. Also, about the challenges of being informed and of informing people about issues, discoveries and topics that will not only change our lives but could end them too. Contemplating these things led me to look back at the pandemic as a lens through which many of the issues facing science communication and public discourse become more clear. This episode is my attempt to talk through and honestly remember some of the moments and ways that shaped how we talked about and dealt with the pandemic. My hope is that we can find areas to improve because as I've said a few times now, the world is getting weirder and it behooves all of us to get a grip on the fast pace of change headed our way. I hope you find it helpful.

Responsible members of society should have some understanding of science. Hot take? I don’t think so. Decisions on personal and public health require some knowledge and look no further than debates surrounding the application and use of things like AI and gene editing technology. Citizens should have and use their voice to speak on these topics. And this is why science communication exists as a volunteer activity for many academics and as a career for people like me. Unfortunately, the very people who have the scientific expertise for this work, scientists etc., don’t have the training or data needed to improve their communication efforts. Social sciences and communications research has established tools to ask questions about effective communication strategies and how audiences are reacting. What are their beliefs, motivations, ideas and morals when it comes to science and controversial science topics like gene editing and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I would argue, and I’m sure my guests today would agree, that science communicators need to use these tools more to investigate the science of science communication.
On this episode I speak with professional science communicator Cristina Fonseca and genetics professor Jonathan Pettitt. Both were members of a team that published two papers that surveyed British audiences about their attitudes and trust toward science pre and post pandemic and explored the relationships between people’s knowledge of science, their confidence in their knowledge and their views on controversial science topics. This is a fascinating look at how researchers can apply the scientific method to their communication efforts and the results of the two papers raised excellent questions about who needs and wants to hear from scientists and what sorts of things influence their views on science.
Sources
People with more extreme attitudes towards science have self-confidence in their understanding of science, even if this is not justified
Both trust in, and polarization of trust in, relevant sciences have increased through the COVID-19 pandemic
The Genetics Society
Why Peter Hotez Should Not Debate RFK Jr. On The Joe Rogan Experience
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! Head to www.twobradforyou.wordpress.com to subscribe to, donate to and follow the show on social media. You can also leave a comment, send an email or voice message. We read/listen to them all and will put them on air. This is your show too so get involved and don't let Brad have all the fun.