Leslie K. John and Alison Wood Brooks, professors at Harvard Business School, say people in business can be more successful by asking more and better questions. They talk through what makes for a great question, whether you’re looking to get information or get someone to like you. They’re the coauthors of the article, “The Surprising Power of Questions,” in the May–June 2018 issue of Harvard Business Review.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Harvard Business Review, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Dr. Kris Wood is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology and the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Duke University. The Wood Lab utilizes functional genomics approaches to uncover targetable vulnerabilities in different types of human cancers. Much of this work is driven by investigation of the complex signaling networks that drive tumor formation and progression. Dr. Wood’s research also leads to identification of combinatorial treatment strategies for cancers that evolve to develop resistance to monotherapies. For more information visit his lab page: Wood Lab
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Simranjit Singh, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
On May 2nd, NIH Director Francis Collins announced a plan to limit the total amount of grant funding awarded to an individual investigator or lab.
According to Collins, “the distribution of NIH grant funding is highly skewed, with 10 percent of NIH-funded investigators receiving over 40 percent of NIH funding.”
The funding proposal would limit an individual lab to the equivalent of 3 RO1-sized grants, and free up an additional 1600 funding opportunities that could go to early and mid-career scientists.
On June 8th, the plan was scrapped…
Addressing the 90%
This week on the show, we cover the contentious and somewhat confusing reversal of Collins’ plan to spur innovation by spreading around the money.
Did the plan change due to criticism from the labs with the deepest pockets? Or was there evidence to support the replacement plan that earmarks money for early-career scientists?
At the heart of this issue, we discuss whether basic research would benefit from a shift in investment strategy.
Do science and innovation advance faster when the ‘best’ labs get all the money, or is there value in making many smaller bets?
Tell us what YOU think in the comments below.
Everybeer
Some beers sing with complex aromas, malty bitterness, and just-right effervescence. And then there’s brown ales.
This week, we sampled the Legend Brown Ale from Legend Brewing in Richmond, VA. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great beer. Very tasty. It just tastes like every other brown ale ever. If you sneakily replaced the contents of this bottle with some other brown ale, I promise no one would notice.
I don’t know whether that makes us beer snobs or beer newbies. Either way, we’re just counting down the days before we get back on our IPA kick…
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Joshua Hall and Daniel Arneman, PhDz, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Geraldine Fitzpatrick, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
The development of artificial intelligence has begun to feel inevitable and promising. But University of Chicago computer scientist, Ben Zhao, has spent much of his career testing how the security of these systems can break down.
Zhao’s study involving Yelp reviews generated by A.I. show how these system could be used to distort our perceptions of reality, especially in this era of fake news. And his latest investigation into “backdoors” demonstrates how they could be used to hack crucial systems in dangerous and even deadly ways.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from UChicago Podcast Network, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Every week on UnDisciplined, we put to researchers from completely different fields together and see what connections they can make.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Utah Public Radio, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
In today’s episode we are joined by Richard Clarke, a PhD researcher at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine! Richard is a member of the the Vaccine Confidence Project, an initiative that monitors public confidence in immunisation for the purpose of detecting public concerns around vaccines. These concerns can have massive implications for the effectiveness of vaccine programmes and as such researchers must address them as early as possible.
In this episode we explore what researchers can do to effectively communicate science on-and-off-line (it turns out caps lock, insults, and twitter mobs aren’t very convincing…), and the results of his research that suggests that on the whole people are less vulnerable to online pseudoscience than we might think. We also chat about his involvement in the Skeptic community, and the role that public trust in authority plays in vaccine hesitancy.
Richard’s PhD focusses on the information seeking behaviours of mothers as they make a vaccine decision during pregnancy. In his studies Richard applies research from the psychology of decision making, trust and the field of information science to quantitatively investigate how mothers engage in information gathering to aid decision making with respect to the pertussis vaccine currently offered during pregnancy.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Science: Disrupt, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
