To listen to an audio podcast, mouse over the title and click Play. Open iTunes to download and subscribe to podcasts.
There are a lot of fads, blogs and strong opinions, but then there’s SCIENCE. Science Vs is the show from Gimlet Media that finds out what’s fact, what’s not, and what’s somewhere in between. We do the hard work of sifting through all the science so you don't have to. This season we tackle immigration, climate change, true love and artificial sweeteners.
||CleanArtificial Sweeteners - not so sweet?||Low calorie, no calorie and so sweet. Artificial sweeteners just seem too good to be true. Is there a catch? We dig into two big questions: Do artificial sweeteners cause cancer, and are they making us fat? We talk to Prof. John Glendinning, Prof. Susie Swithers, Dr. Kieron Rooney, and PhD student Jotham Suez about the latest research. Plus we do a fun experiment with PJ Vogt and Alex Goldman from Reply All! Also, please sign up for our brand spanking new newsletter! We’ll share science that’s been blowing our minds, plus great content like the most amazing calculation from an academic of how much bigger 323 African Elephants are than nuclear waste. Head to: https://gimletmedia.com/newsletter/ Our Sponsors:Postmates - New customers get a $100 credit by downloading the app and entering the promo code SCIENCEWordpress - go to wordpress.com/science to get 15% off a new websiteHello Fresh - For $30 off your first week of meals go to hellofresh.com and enter the promo code SCIENCEVS30 Credits: This episode has been produced by Ben Kuebrich, Heather Rogers, Shruti Ravindran and Wendy Zukerman.Kaitlyn Sawrey is our senior producer. We’re edited by Annie-Rose Strasser. Production assistance by Stevie Lane. Fact checking by Michelle Harris. Original music and mixing by Bobby Lord. Extra thanks to Dr. Mary Pat Gallagher, Peter Bresnan, Euromonitor International and ubiome. Selected References:Prof. Susie Swithers’s study on artificial sweeteners and feeding behavior in ratsA 2015 systematic review of the relationship between artificial sweetener consumption and cancer in humansJotham Suez’s study on artificial sweeteners and the gut microbiome||6/8/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanNuclear Power - what are the Risks?||Fukushima. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. There’s been some big nuclear accidents over the past few decades, but how dangerous is nuclear power really? We take you inside the core of America’s biggest nuclear power plant and trace what went wrong at Fukushima to try to figure out: when will the next meltdown happen? And what our chances are of getting cancer from it? This week we talk to Dr. Spencer Wheatley, Dr. Jonathan Samet, and Jack Cadogan, an executive at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.UPDATE! We’ve made a couple of small changes to this episode, thank you to all the listeners who picked up on them. 1. We called the energy that comes from nuclear power a chemical reaction… it’s not. It’s a nuclear reaction. Chemical reactions involve the electrons in an atom. Nuclear reactions involve the nucleus. 2. We said that the Joker became The Joker After falling into a vat of radioactive waste. This is disputed. It seems it was a vat chemicals.. But what those chemicals were , that’s unclear. 3. A clarification: We said that the waste that nuclear power produces in the US… 2200 metric tons per year… was like 323 male African Elephants. That was a weight comparison. They weigh roughly the same… It wasn’t a three dimensional size comparison. Nuclear waste is much denser than an elephant, and so it takes up much less room. And if you want to read the most amazing calculation from an academic of how much bigger 323 African Elephants are in 3D space you’ve got to sign up to our brand spanking new newsletter! To do that head to https://gimletmedia.com/newsletter/ And FINALLY! We got a lot of feedback from that episode that listeners really wanted to hear how nuclear power compares to other energy sources: like coal, solar and wind! Now we decided that to do a fair comparison that really needs it’s own episode - it wasn’t as simple as just throwing out some numbers. So we’re working on that episode for next season. Our Sponsors:Cloudflare - To learn more visit cloudflare.com/sciencevsCredits:This episode has been produced by Heather Rogers, Ben Kuebrich, Shruti Ravindran and Wendy Zukerman.Kaitlyn Sawrey is our senior producer. We’re edited by Annie-Rose Strasser. Fact checking by Ben Kuebrich and Heather Rogers. Original music and mixing by Bobby Lord. Extra thanks to Leo Rogers, Joseph Lavelle Wilson as well as Prof. Steven Biegalski, Prof. Mark Jacobson, Jussi Heinonen, and Dr. Eric Grant.Selected References:Radiation Basics Primer from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDr. Spencer Wheatley’s paper ‘Reassessing the safety of nuclear power’National Research Council Report on Health Risks from Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation||6/1/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanMeditation||Does it live up to the hype?||5/25/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanTrue Love||What is love? With half of first time American marriages ending in divorce by the 20th anniversary, and infidelity being widespread, Science Vs asks: have we been lied to by our love songs?On today’s episode we explore: What happens to the brain when we fall in love? Is the compulsion to stay together biological? And, is monogamy really unnatural? We talk to Dr. Helen Fisher, Professor Larry Young, and Dr. Dieter Lukas about their labors of love. Our Sponsors:Everyday Bravery - Listen to Everyday Bravery, a podcast from Prudential, by going to everydaybravery.comVirgin Atlantic - Listen to their podcast, The Venture, wherever you get your podcastsZiprecruiter - try Ziprecruiter for free by going to ziprecruiter.com/sciencevsCredits:This episode has been produced by Wendy Zukerman, Heather Rogers, Ben Kuebrich, Shruti Ravindran and Rose Reid. Kaitlyn Sawrey is our senior producer. We’re edited by Annie Rose Strasser. Extra editorial help from Alex Blumberg. Production assistance from Stevie Lane. Fact checking by Ben Kuebrich. Music production and original music written by Bobby Lord. Special thanks to Joseph Lavelle Wilson, Austin Mitchell and to Professor Karen L Kramer, Professor Garth Fletcher, Dr. Alexander G. Ophir, Professor David Barash, Richard Bethleham .Check out Gail and Rose Reid's podcast Details Please. Selected References:CDC - Data on First Marriages in the United StatesHelen Fisher fMRI Paper on Early-Stage LoveLarry Young Review Paper on the Neurobiology of Pair BondingDieter Lukas’s Paper on the Evolution of Monogamy in MammalsThe monogamy camp - review paper arguing “we evolved to be monogamous”||5/11/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanAntioxidants||Are chocolate, coffee and red wine actually good for us? Reading the news it seems that one day they are helping us live longer, and the next day they are giving us heart attacks. So what’s going on here? Host Wendy Zukerman and DJ/senior producer Kaitlyn Sawrey explore the science live on stage, with interview clips from Prof. Bruce Ames, Prof. David Sinclair and author Aidan Goggins.This show was recorded live at The Bell House on Thursday, March 23rd, 2017. If you want to listen to the Q&A after the show, sign up to become a Gimlet member for $5 a month. If you sign up for a year, you can receive a Science Vs t-shirt! Our Sponsors:Cloudflare - To learn more visit cloudflare.com/sciencevsWordpress - go to wordpress.com/science to get 15% off a new websiteHello Fresh - For $30 off your first week of meals go to hellofresh.com and enter the promo code SCIENCEVS30Credits:This episode has been produced by Wendy Zukerman, Heather Rogers, Diane Wu, and Shruti Ravindran. Our senior producer is Kaitlyn Sawrey. Edited by Annie-Rose Strasser. Fact checking by Diane Wu and Ben Kuebrich. Sound design and music production by Matthew Boll, and mixed by Austin Thompson. Music written by Bobby Lord. Extra thanks to Martin Peralta, Rachel Ward, Eric Mennel and the Bell House, and live show art by Alice Lay (which you can see at facebook.com/sciencevspodcast) Further Reading:JAMA Review - Are antioxidant supplements associated with higher or lower all-cause mortality? David Sinclair’s Study: Resveratrol improves health and survival of mice on a high-calorie dietAlcohol and coronary heart disease: a meta-analysisCoffee Meta-analysis: Coffee consumption and mortality from all causes…Habitual chocolate consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease among healthy men and women||5/4/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanAbortion: What You Need To Know||Forget pro-life and pro-choice, this episode is pro-facts.||4/27/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanIntroducing... Every Little Thing||Flora Lichtman tells us about her new show!||4/20/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanGMO... OMG?||Safe or freakish frankenfood?||4/17/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanLemmings||Science Vs The News + a Surprise||4/6/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanGhosts||Could ghosts exist? If not, why do so many people believe in them?||3/30/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanClimate Change... the Apocalypse?||How bad will it get and how do scientists know humans are to blame?||3/16/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanAcne||To pop or not to pop?||3/9/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanImmigration||Are immigrants bad for America?||3/9/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanNew season... coming soon!||We're back in your ears March 9th.||2/28/2017||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanIntroducing Undone||A new show from Gimlet Media||11/20/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanAntidepressants||Do antidepressants really work?||10/27/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanDNA and the Smell of Death||To explore the cutting edge of forensic science, we look at two famous court cases -- the Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony murder trials.||10/20/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanForensic Science||Get out your tweezers and magnifying glass - this week, we’re investigating forensic science.||10/6/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanZika||This year was the first time that many people heard about the Zika virus. And it’s clear that the it’s spreading.||9/29/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanHypnosis||What is hypnosis? Is it mind control, are people faking, or is hypnosis something more?||9/22/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||ExplicitThe G-spot||Is there really a magic button inside the vagina that can give women amazing orgasms?||9/1/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanOrganic Food||Is organic food better for you and the environment?||8/25/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanGun Control (Pt 2)||Gun control -- does it work?||8/11/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanGuns||The gun lobby says firearms keep us safe by protecting us against bad guys and reducing the crime rate. But, what does the science say?||8/4/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanAttachment Parenting||Attachment parenting says that if you don’t breastfeed on demand, sleep in the same bed and carry your baby in a sling, your kid’s future could be in peril. But, what does the science say?||7/27/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanFracking||There are fears that fracking is making people sick and ruining the environment, but what does the science say?||7/27/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
||CleanSneak Peek||A sneak preview of Gimlet Media's newest show.||6/28/2016||Free||View in iTunes|
Science vs entertainment
As a scientist, I was excited about the premise of this podcast- a fun, entertaining approach to hot topics from a supposedly objective viewpoint. However, I quickly realized that the host and producers of this podcast are not objective in their research nor on their presentation of the data. I know it's extremely difficult to be 100% objective in science, but this really is a sad attempt. What bothers me the most about the lack of objectivity in this podcast is the hypocrisy in the claims of this podcast in being THE fact-based alternative to the heavily biased information traditionally shared in popular media. This podcast pokes fun at the general population's subjective biases, yet this podcast itself is heavily skewed toward one side of each argument right from the start of each episode. And then to top it all off, the host is incredibly snarky in her tone and comes off as being superior to some of the interviewees because of her and the show's supposed objective approach. This show needs to step off of its high horse and stop trying to fool people into thinking that what their presenting isn't just as biased as any other popular news outlet, or at least do a better job at pretending to be objective.
Weak science badly argued :(
Wish I could give zero stars. The bias shown in the attachment parenting episode floored me. That episode was so poorly researched that it made it impossible to trust anything presented in future episodes. The mocking tone of the host and complete lack of questioning of the experts she very obviously sided with was beyond annoying. I feel sad for the mother they interviewed--she must be so hurt by their portrayal of her. The worst part of their supposed "scientific analysis" of attachment parenting is their complete confusion of terms, which made every single argument invalid. The "attachment" of attachment parenting is not claiming to be the "secure attachment" of social science. So basing the whole episode on holding attachment parenting up to the scientific principle of secure attachment is completely ridiculous. This podcast is poorly researched, laughably biased, and badly argued. I love podcasts and trust well supported scientific arguments, but this podcast is beyond useless. It's misinformation.
Things are complicated
Thanks for making sense of such complicated and politically and emotionally charged topics. The truth is usually between the extremes and hard to put in perspective. Looking forward to upcoming topics.