Science From the Fringe

Science From the Fringe
  • 4.2 (10)
  • Science
  • Updated Weekly

Conversations with fearless scientists, policy experts, and journalists who are defying dogma and defending discovery. sciencefromthefringe.substack.com

  1. 6d ago

    Tim Hunt - Moving the Goalposts or Protecting Patients?

    In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Tim Hunt, CEO of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), about cell and gene therapies and the difficult questions surrounding how they should be regulated by the FDA. The episode follows a March conversation with cardiologist Anish Koka about Vinay Prasad’s controversial tenure at the FDA. Together, the two episodes explore a fundamental question: When patients have devastating diseases and few treatment options, should the FDA demand stronger evidence before approving new therapies—or accept greater uncertainty to give patients faster access to experimental treatments? In the March episode, Koka defended Prasad’s efforts to strengthen the FDA’s evidentiary standards, arguing that greater scrutiny was necessary to protect patients from ineffective or harmful treatments—particularly in the rare-disease space, where patient desperation, financial incentives, and political pressure can complicate regulatory decisions. Tim offers a different perspective. He argues that the FDA became too rigid in its demands for randomized controlled trials, effectively “moving the goalposts” for rare-disease therapies. He contends that traditional trials are often impractical or ethically problematic for small populations with rapidly progressive diseases and that patients should have a greater voice in determining acceptable levels of risk and uncertainty. Bryce and Tim also discuss the scientific risks of genetically modifying embryos, the potential for human enhancement and eugenics, whether germline editing could ever be demonstrated to be safe and ethical, and ARM’s call for a 10-year moratorium on heritable human genome editing. The episode concludes with Tim’s perspective on the future of regenerative medicine, from CAR-T therapies and rare diseases to potential treatments for autoimmune disorders, Parkinson’s disease, and other more common conditions. (recorded July 21, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

  2. Jul 25

    Science For Sale (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 6)

    In the sixth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s recent essay examining the legacy of the influential 2004 Science paper introducing the concept of “stabilization wedges.” Roger’s essay was prompted by a recent ProPublica investigation revealing that this paper was heavily shaped by BP executives whose contributions were not acknowledged in the paper. Roger explains how the stabilization wedges paper became one of the most influential papers in the history of climate policy by promoting the idea that existing technologies were sufficient to address climate change. The paper became a powerful advocacy tool, shaping philanthropic investments, climate policy, and public discourse while contributing to efforts to marginalize scientists who argued that significant technological innovation would still be required. The conversation then turns to broader questions about the relationship between science, politics, and advocacy. Bryce and Roger discuss the distinction between conducting science and using scientific publications to market predetermined policy agendas, arguing that the latter can undermine both scientific integrity and public trust. Roger and Bryce also discuss the striking parallels between the stabilization wedges paper and the 2020 Nature Medicine paper, The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. They discuss how both papers were used to influence public debate, the importance of transparency in scientific authorship, and the responsibility of scientific journals to investigate allegations of ghostwriting and misconduct in order to preserve confidence in the scientific record. (recorded July 24, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

  3. Jul 3

    Europe's Deadly Aversion to Air Conditioning (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 5)

    In the fifth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s recent essay which presents a data-driven analysis estimating how many lives are lost because of Europe’s low air-conditioning adoption. His analysis suggests that if Europe had air-conditioning penetration comparable to the United States or Japan, tens of thousands of deaths during severe heat waves could potentially be avoided. Bryce and Roger also discuss the political and moral dimensions of climate policy. Bryce argues that governments should not prioritize reducing energy consumption over protecting human lives, contending that Europe’s low adoption of air conditioning reflects this misplaced priority. Roger argues that the real challenge is not to consume less energy, but to produce abundant low-carbon energy that supports both emissions reductions and effective adaptation. The conversation concludes with a broader discussion of technology, democracy, and the role of adaptation in building resilience to climate change. (recorded July 1, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

  4. Jun 17

    Anthony Bellotti - The Price of Principle: Holding NIH Accountable

    In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Anthony Bellotti, founder and president of the White Coat Waste Project, a government watchdog organization dedicated to exposing and ending taxpayer-funded animal experimentation. The episode examines the tension between mission-driven advocacy and institutional incrementalism, asking whether meaningful reform comes from working within existing systems—or from holding those systems accountable when they fail to live up to their promises. Anthony discusses how a summer job in an animal laboratory at age 17 ultimately led him to create White Coat Waste and explains why the organization rejected the traditional playbook of the animal-rights movement in favor of a strategy focused on government accountability, taxpayer transparency, and bipartisan coalition-building. The conversation explores the ethical and scientific debates surrounding animal research, including whether taxpayer-funded animal experimentation is ever justified, how society should balance potential human benefits against animal suffering, and whether biomedical research has become overly reliant on animal models. Bryce and Anthony also discuss White Coat Waste’s increasingly public disagreements with NIH leadership, including the organization’s recent complaint to the HHS Office of Inspector General, allegations that NIH officials have made misleading statements about their authority to reduce animal experimentation, and broader questions of institutional accountability and public trust. Anthony also responds to criticism of White Coat Waste’s tactics, including allegations that the organization’s advocacy has contributed to threats directed at NIH officials and criticism of its willingness to work with controversial figures such as Laura Loomer to advance its mission. (recorded June 14, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

  5. Jun 9

    'Cowards Die Many Times' (In Defense of Virology - Episode 11)

    In the eleventh episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson examine what Simon sees as a decades-long failure of the virology community to seriously confront the potential risks and societal consequences of its own research. As experiments became increasingly sophisticated and controversial, Simon argues that repeated opportunities for reflection, debate, and reform were missed. Drawing on themes from his essay “Cowards Die Many Times,” Simon traces a series of pivotal moments, beginning with the 2002 synthesis of poliovirus and continuing through the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus, the controversial H5N1 gain-of-function experiments, and ultimately the COVID-19 pandemic. Each episode raised important questions about the risks of creating and disseminating information about potentially dangerous pathogens, yet meaningful debate was discouraged, avoided, or actively shut down. The discussion covers how prominent scientists and institutions shaped these debates and, in Simon’s view, often discouraged meaningful scrutiny of controversial research. Examples include a 2005 Science editorial by Nobel laureate Philip Sharp defending the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus (“1918 Flu and Responsible Science”) and influential editorials in December 2011 (“A flu risk worth taking”) and June 2012 (“Benefits and Risks of Influenza Research: Lessons Learned”) by Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci defending Kawaoka and Fouchier’s controversial bird flu gain-of-function experiments. Simon argues that appeals to authority, institutional incentives, and concerns about career advancement helped create a culture in which questioning risky research became professionally and socially costly. Using a 2020 paper on COVID-19 origins (“The Origin of COVID-19 and Why It Matters”) as a case study, Simon also explains how unscrupulous scientists can transform unsupported claims into "facts" through repeated citation, institutional endorsement, and publication in prestigious journals. Once amplified by prominent scientists and influential publications, such claims can acquire the appearance of established knowledge even when the underlying evidence is weak or entirely absent. (recorded June 6, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

  6. Jun 3

    'The Goal Is Not Your Damn Career' (In Defense of Virology - Episode 10)

    In the tenth episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson discuss Simon’s recent presentation to researchers and administrators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) on dangerous gain-of-function research, as well as a recent Cell paper on the origins of viral pandemics that Simon critiqued in his essay, “Natural COVID crowd miss again.” The conversation begins with Simon discussing the central themes of his NIAID presentation. He argues that scientists must take primary responsibility for identifying and disclosing potential risks associated with their work and calls for a cultural shift within science grounded in the principle of “do no harm.” The discussion then turns to a recent Cell paper (Havens et al., Dynamics of natural selection preceding human viral epidemics and pandemics), which has been cited as evidence supporting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. Simon offers a detailed critique of the paper’s assumptions, methodology, and conclusions, contending that it attempts to answer questions that its methods cannot reliably resolve. Simon also discusses viral adaptation, tissue-culture evolution, the challenges of proving negative propositions in science, and the dangers of drawing strong conclusions from weak correlations. Bryce and Simon also discuss the role of scientific journals and media organizations in shaping public understanding of COVID-19 origins, how publication in prestigious journals can create an unwarranted perception of certainty, and how scientific institutions risk undermining public trust when conclusions extend beyond the available evidence. The episode concludes with a broader reflection on the purpose of science itself. Simon argues that scientific progress depends on skepticism, open debate, and a willingness to change one’s mind when the evidence changes. While emphasizing the indispensable value of basic research, he maintains that scientists must remain focused on the ultimate goal of reducing disease and human suffering. As he puts it: “The goal is not your damn career. It’s to beat the hell out of microbes.” (recorded April 22, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

  7. May 25

    The Climate Apocalypse Isn’t Around the Corner (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 4)

    In the fourth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss what Pielke describes as one of the most consequential developments in climate science in years: the retirement of the extreme climate scenario known as RCP 8.5. Bryce and Roger unpack how a small international committee helped shape the climate scenarios that informed scientific research, media narratives, regulations, banking policy, and global climate politics for over a decade. Roger explains why many of the “worst-case” climate projections were based on implausible assumptions about future coal use and why recent updates to climate scenario frameworks represent a major course correction. The conversation explores the difference between exploratory scientific scenarios and policy roadmaps, the relationship between climate science and political decision-making, and how climate narratives influenced public policy around the world. Bryce and Roger also discuss parallels between climate science governance and debates surrounding gain-of-function research, including questions about transparency, accountability, expert authority, and the role of broader public input in scientific decision-making. (recorded May 22, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

  8. Apr 17

    'An Inconvenient Truth' - 20 Years Later (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 3)

    In the third episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. revisit the legacy of An Inconvenient Truth twenty years after its release. Building on Pielke’s recent essay, they examine how Al Gore framed climate change through a religious lens—apocalyptic warnings, moral imperatives, and a defined path to “salvation.” Pielke reflects on how readily much of the scientific community embraced this framing and argues that the film’s most enduring impact lies not in any single claim it made, but in how it helped recast climate science as a vehicle for moral and political advocacy. A central theme is the concept of “new apocalypticism,” drawn from the work of sociologist Michael Barkun, which Roger uses to describe how scientific authority has been repurposed to support secular narratives of impending catastrophe. He argues that An Inconvenient Truth exemplifies this shift, presenting complex scientific issues through emotionally charged imagery and moral binaries that divide the world into good and bad actors. Bryce highlights specific examples from the film—including its use of extreme weather events, historical analogies, and symbolic imagery—to argue that it relies heavily on persuasion rather than careful scientific reasoning. The episode also examines what the film got right—such as the basic science of greenhouse gas emissions and warming—while emphasizing where it misled audiences, particularly on extreme weather and the role of political will. Roger argues that the film’s biggest error was its claim that solving climate change is primarily a matter of political motivation, rather than a challenge of technological innovation and economic alignment. More broadly, the conversation explores how the blending of science and advocacy can erode public trust, especially when scientific institutions adopt partisan or moralizing narratives. (recorded April 13, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

See All (54)

4.2
out of 5
10 Ratings

About

Conversations with fearless scientists, policy experts, and journalists who are defying dogma and defending discovery. sciencefromthefringe.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Science From the Fringe
  • Years Active
    2024 - 2026
  • Episodes
    54
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Science From The Fringe
  • Show Website
    Science From the Fringe

You Might Also Like