Discover what comes next with this in-depth look at how science and technology are revolutionizing the way we live, work and play. Join our award-winning team of journalists as we crisscross the country to interview the leaders and luminaries reshaping our world.
Metals That Work Like Magic
Trains that run from New York to California in a few hours, laptops that never overheat, and rockets that fly to Jupiter: These are some of the possibilities of superconductivity. After decades of failed experiments, a new discovery may have just gotten us a step closer.
How the Pandemic Fueled Scientific Discovery and Collaboration
When Chinese researchers published the draft genome of the virus that causes Covid-19 early last January, it altered the course of the pandemic--and possibly changed science forever. Will this spirit of information-sharing and collaboration persist beyond the current crisis?
E-Ternal: New Technology and the Quest to 'Live' Forever
In this episode, we feature a short documentary by Wall Street Journal senior personal technology columnist Joanna Stern that explores how we can use technology to tell our stories long after we die.
Making a Home on the Moon
For the vast majority of humans, earth is our home. But that could soon change. Global efforts are underway to build sustainable habitats on the moon within the next decade or two. But beyond covering the necessities in an otherwise uninhabitable environment, we'll also need to consider the psychological effects of living in space, and what it will take to make the moon feel more like home.
Teacher's New Assistant: Artificial Intelligence
Schools around the world are slowly adopting artificial intelligence to better tailor teaching to individual kids. One program maps a student's mastery of math; another assesses literacy and screens for dyslexia. Critics are skeptical that this technology is as effective as promised. Could surveilling students in this way do more harm than good?
Mobile Voting's Future
As the U.S. gets ready for an election during a pandemic, we report on in-person voting options and review the security threats inherent in mobile or blockchain assisted voting. In a previous version of this podcast released on Oct. 2, we said that Bradley Tusk was funding mobile voting apps, including the Voatz app. Tusk Philanthropies has given funding to voting precincts to launch mobile voting pilot programs - not to the apps themselves.
Customer ReviewsSee All
Amazing in beginning
Used to be amazing and I couldn’t get enough of it. Now it’s a bit boring, too many recordings from conferences, and I liked the original host Jennifer Strong SO much better
Cool idea but
It’s obvious when people care about their podcasts and with this it’s just not there. I get that it’s pretty research heavy, but monthly podcasts are tough to build a listener base.
Pushing an agenda
The episode on police training lost me. Implicit bias is a sham. The result of experiments are not repeatable and don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. Why is it presented as gospel truth here? There are legitimate concerns about its efficacy and it was presented as an unimpeachable scientific finding along with the implication that there’s a significant proportion of the population who it is making racist and therefore marginalizes a portion of society. This is a despicable and ideologically driven effort to rebrand the Marxist idea of false consciousness and foist it on all society. The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed of itself for this poor quality “reporting” or “content” or “narrative” or whatever you want to call it. Shameful display and it made me question what else I’ve missed in past episodes that I’m not as knowledgeable on to know where I’m being presented ideology instead of reality.
To be a bit more concrete in my criticism, the episode spoke on a program that has people play as a black person throughout their life and then talks about how the result of that was having peoples’ minds changed about race and justice, but there is an immense amount of special pleading involved here considering the life story is a narrative written by someone, who by their statements in the episode, it can be assumed has a specific idea of race in America which is taken as reflective of reality when it may not be. That’s special pleading. They’re making the argument contingent on the depiction of reality they present despite there being ample evidence that their depiction is flawed that they choose to ignore. Once again, this is a shameful display by the WSJ and is reflective of how our journalistic class has fallen. Be better.