Big Brains University of Chicago Podcast Network

They’re perhaps the oldest questions in the science: Why do we die? And could we find a way to live forever? But for decades, anti-aging research was a “backwater” of the scientific community, consider too fanciful and unrealistic. That is until the last few years. Modern advances in biology have taught us a lot about how we age and why we die—could that knowledge help us turn back the clock?

In his new book, “Why We Die: The New Science of Ageing and the Quest for Immortality”, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Venki Ramakrishnan delves into the latest science of aging and investigates the nearly $30 billion dollar longevity industry to separate fact from fiction in our modern quest for immortality.

Every dog owner has faced the hard realization that their dog won’t live as long as they do, but we’ve all probably wondered: Why do some dogs live longer than others? It turns out that several factors are at play, according to the largest research study of dogs, known as The Dog Aging Project.

Prof. Daniel Promislow of the University of Washington is co-director of the project, which examines how biology, lifestyle and environment can increase both the health and lifespan of more than 50,000 dogs. We spoke with Promislow about whether we can help our dogs live longer—and what their research could actually teach humans about aging.

Link to the advertised Chicago Booth Review Podcast: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/podcast?source=cbr-sn-bbr-camp:podcast24-20240404

For more than a century, scientists have been studying Alzheimer’s disease and developing theories about its underlying cause. The leading theory for decades has been that abnormal amyloid plaques in the brains of those who suffer from the disease are the central cause. But, according one renowned Alzheimer’s researcher, this myopic focus is not only flawed, but may be holding back our search for a cure.

Neurobiologist Karl Herrup argues that we need to go back to the drawing board, redefine the disease and understand the many factors that could cause it before we can race for a cure. A professor of neurobiology and an investigator in the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Herrup is the author of How Not to Study a Disease: The Story of Alzheimer’s.

Mosquito-borne diseases are one of the greatest global health threats, infecting around 700 million people every year with Zika virus, dengue fever, malaria and yellow fever — which can all be deadly if left untreated. Unfortunately, the mosquito population is not slowing down, and factors like climate change and increased global travel are broadening the mosquito's range. The effort to stop the mosquito is not an easy task; insecticides and vaccines can't completely stop the spread of these diseases. But instead of trying to kill mosquitoes, one nonprofit is taking a unique approach.

Scientist Scott O'Neill is founder and CEO of the World Mosquito Program, a nonprofit group with the goal of eliminating mosquito-borne diseases. The program is implementing a new method of inoculating the wild population of mosquitoes with a bacteria called Wolbachia, which is resistant to diseases. So far, the program has been rolled out in countries like Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Australia and Mexico – and has already seen success in reducing rates of disease.

Link to the advertised Chicago Booth Review Podcast: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/podcast?source=cbr-sn-bbr-camp:podcast24-20240307

How do you stop a government from continuing to commit human rights abuses? You could take them to an international court of justice, or file a complaint at the UN. But none of those bodies have any enforcement power. Short of going to war, the only option on the table in most international situations is to name and shame. But is that strategy effective?

In her new book, “The Geopolitics of Shaming: When Human Rights Pressure Works and When It Backfires,” University of Chicago political scientist Rochelle Terman argues that there is a real dilemma to international human rights pressure: Shaming is most common in situations where it is least likely to be effective; and, most troublingly, it can often make human rights abuses worse.

Link to the advertised Chicago Booth Review Podcast: https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/podcast?source=cbr-sn-bbr-camp:podcast24-20240222

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether Colorado can take former President Donald Trump off the ballot in the 2024 election may be one of the most consequential in its history. The case will turn on the court’s interpretation of Amendment 14, Section 3 of the Constitution, which bars any previous elected official from holding office if they participated in an insurrection. When making their case, Colorado followed the logic of a law review article co-authored last year by University of Chicago Prof. William Baude. The article drew a ton of attention, in part because Baude is a conservative legal scholar and member of the Federalist Society.

As the Supreme Court begins oral arguments on Feb. 8, Baude joined Big Brains to make his case for why he thinks Section 3 applies to Trump. But this isn’t an episode about what should happen at the Supreme Court, it’s about what could happen. Whether you agree with Baude or not, understanding the legal theory behind his argument is crucial to understanding any decision that may come from the court. And, as we walk through the scholarship on Section 3, it’ll become clear that there are more than just two outcomes: on or off the ballot, but many outcomes…some with ramifications—including a possible constitutional crisis—all the way to Jan. 6, 2025.