Evolution, the fall of U.S. life expectancy, and journalists vs. the government

Ya, it's been far too long since I've written anything. For now, I wanted to share one of my new favourite podcasts, and share episodes from two other podcasts because the topics and discussions are deeply fascinating and important.

This Week in Evolution
Admittedly the topics and discussions are very science-heavy and can get rather technical – these are real and practicing scientists after all – but if you have enough background knowledge to follow it and understand both what they're saying and the implications of it, it's great stuff.
I also appreciate that they talk about scientific practice, i.e., what scientists actually do, what it's like working in this or that lab with a team of other scientists, how scientists collaborate with each other, how they get funding, the process of writing up their findings and getting them published, what fieldwork is like, the kind of equipment they use, their methodologies, and perhaps most importantly, when they get things wrong, when they make mistakes, when things turn out very differently from what they expected, etc., and how they proceed forward from that, what they learn from it, what silver linings they find, what new questions are opened, and so on. And of course, much of that is coming from their own personal experiences as scientists. Getting that "side of the story", so to speak, can be very helpful and eye-opening to the rest of us non-scientists to understand science better. (And I use the word "science" there as a catch-all term to include: scientists, scientific practices, scientific research, experiments and studies, scientific findings, scientific publications, scientific hypotheses, scientific theories, scientific claims, scientific knowledge, the applications of scientific findings and scientific knowledge, etc.)

An episode from Vox's The Weeds: Why is U.S. life expectancy falling? Plus, political elites are biased about what they think the general public thinks; and, why pushing for unpopular policy is bad for democracy.
Very thought-provoking stuff there.

An episode from The Intercept's Intercepted: All the news unfit to print: James Risen on his battles with Bush, Obama, and the New York Times
From the intro:
"James Risen is a legend in the world of investigative and national security journalism. As a reporter for the New York Times, Risen broke some of the most important stories of the post 9/11 era, from the warrantless surveillance against Americans conducted under the Bush-Cheney administration, to black prison sites run by the CIA, to failed covert actions in Iran. Risen has won the Pulitzer and other major journalism awards. But perhaps what he is now most famous for is fighting a battle under both the Bush and Obama administrations as they demanded — under threat of imprisonment —the name of one of Risen’s alleged confidential sources. In the end, Risen prevailed and refused to testify and he was not locked up. But during the course of his case, there were rulings that could have far reaching implications for journalists, particularly in a climate where the president of the United States is characterizing news outlets as enemies of the people, contemplating arresting reporters, and is conducting at least 27 leak investigations. All before the end of his first year in office."

Enjoy!
But more importantly, think!

Flint's Water and Environmental Justice

Scientific American Podcast: Flint's Water and Environmental Justice

Not even 20 minutes long. No excuse not to listen. This stuff is so important, because there are a hell of a lot of other Flints out there.
Digging into the data and the records looks like it is starting to reveal that the socioeconomic and racial discrimination is systemic and pervasive. But is it intentional? That's pretty much impossible to prove. What is probably intentional is the practice of putting money first, making profits, and just not caring about anyone's welfare.

The data and records are starting to show that the building of plants and other industrial facilities that pollute the surrounding environments and neighborhoods occurred after segregation (inequality) had already started to make those neighborhoods populated predominantly by people of color and populated overall by socioeconomically poor people. In other words, the sites for building those facilities were chosen because they were cheap because all the neighbors were people no one would listen to or care about if they complained about the negative impacts on their health and well-being. Which is exactly what has happened when they have complained, time and time again. Furthermore, the presence of those polluting facilities contributed to the trend of segregation, making it worse and more worse over time.

"Healthy" Foods: yeah, they're kind of a marketing "scam"

Original article: http://www.popsci.com/calling-food-healthy-doesnt-really-mean-anything

Calling Food 'Healthy' Doesn't Really Mean Anything
Nutritionists and food policy experts say the word is nothing more than a marketing term
By IAN GRABER-STIEHL OCTOBER 10, 2016

Back in 1994, the FDA decided to regulate a word that began popping up on food packages across the country: healthy. At the time, fat was America’s pariah fuel source and as such, these new “healthy” labels mostly dominated foods that were low in fat, letting foods high in added sugar slip through the cracks as “healthy.” Now, as more and more research shows the health implications of eating too much sugar, the FDA is stuck scrambling to find a work around.

At the end of September, the agency announced that it would begin the process of redefining its official meaning of healthy, and would take into consideration public opinion. However, nutritional and medical experts as well as public health policy specialists say that the real root of the problem may actually be the word itself. They argue that defining healthy should not, and perhaps cannot be done.

In September, a paper published in JAMA revealed that in the 1960s, as research started coming out that linked sugar and fat to a host of health conditions, sugar interest groups began funding and publicizing research that focused only on the latter link. Diet fads came to capitalize on that data, and turned “fat” into a four-letter word.

The abuse & misuse of science in order to discredit legit science is a public health & safety issue.

It is downright ethically wrong what the anti-science fear-mongerers do. Which means, those who are able, have an ethical duty to try to do right by the public and set things straight. I urge anyone who happens to actually come across this post to please listen to this podcast episode (link below goes straight to .mp3 file), and to please pass it on to others, because the issues are extremely important for the public, and we all need to play our part in helping to educate. (I know the music playing in the background during the first few minutes of the episode is extremely annoying, but just bear with it for a little while, because it does stop.)

Weed Killer in Vaccines? No, absolutely not. (Talking Biotech Podcast Episode 51)

Description of this episode:

Today’s episode is born of frustration. Fear-mongering non-experts are abusing improper interpretations from an available herbicide detection kit to make claims that herbicides are now found in vaccines. Namely, they seek to find glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. They use a kit you can buy on the internet, but fail to use it in the way it is designed. Instead of using it on water, they use it on complex mixtures that yield false positives that are interpreted as legitimate signals.

So to push back I want to provide you with the information you need to discuss these topics with confidence. This topic has no guests. I reached out to the folks making the claims as well as the company that makes the product, and nobody wants to join the conversation. It is simply me talking about the claims, the assay, and how you can help debunk the bad information that pollutes this important public discourse.

The Talking Biotech Podcast is done entirely (and funded entirely) by Dr. Kevin Folta, Associate Professor and Department Chair of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. (His "About" page on the podcast website.)
It is worth giving you the mission statement of Dr. Folta's podcast:

The safe and powerful technologies of genetic engineering have had tremendous impacts in agriculture and medicine. However, future innovation and deployment of beneficial technologies are slowed by a lack of understanding. The point of this podcast is to help connect the public to current science and technology, and let scientists tell the stories of how science can help our farmers, industrialized world consumers, the environment, and the Developing World. The hope is that this resource can entertain and explain how new tools can improve food security, reduce poverty, and improve agricultural and medical practices.

Now, the anti-science fear-mongerers, because they seem to be filled with nothing but hatred and anger, have made an effort to smear Dr. Folta with ridiculous slander, which you can find plenty of across the interwebs. (They have also done a lot to try to destroy his life – they like to be destructive in as many ways as they can – and even gone so far as to break into his office.) But having myself spent time in academia and knowing what people in academia are like, and after listening to all of his podcast episodes and interviews of him on other podcasts, I can assure you that Kevin is nothing but genuine and that he is truly a valuable scientist, educator, and communicator, and thus, a valuable asset to the world.