Dr. Ian Binns joins the show to talk about his work in science education and science & religion. https://ianbinns.com/
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Matthew Facciani, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
The global decline of births from 1990 and 2015 has to a reduction in the proportion of people aged 15-29. So might this explain why the world’s homicide rate has dropped by nearly 20%? In episode 64, we’re joined by Mateus Rennó Santos from the University of South Florida. He talks with us about his research into how an aging population is a driving force behind the decline in homicide that most countries across the globe have enjoyed for the past three decades. His article, “The contribution of age structure to the international homicide decline,” was published with Alexander Testa, Lauren Porter, and James Lynch on October 9th, 2019 in the open access journal PLOS One.
Global decline of homicide – Mateus Rennó SantosGlobal decline of homicide – Mateus Rennó SantosGlobal decline of homicide – Mateus Rennó Santos Global decline of homicide – Mateus Rennó SantosGlobal decline of homicide – Mateus Rennó SantosGlobal decline of homicide – Mateus Rennó Santos@rwatkins says:Next time, in episode 65 of Parsing Science, we’ll be joined by Luke Chang from the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Dartmouth College. He’ll discuss his research into socially transmitted placebo effects, through which patients can pick up on subtle facial cues that reveal their doctor’s beliefs in how effective a treatment will be.@rwatkins says:Mateus and his colleagues found that a one percentage point increase in the proportion of youth in a population was associated with an increase in the homicide rate of 5.4%. So, a big takeaway from the paper for us was that demographic patterns deserve special attention in explaining homicide trends. We finished our conversation by asking Mateus what he believes the broader implications of their findings are.@rwatkins says:With data spanning nearly 70 years across multiple countries, inevitably, some data points were missing in the UNODC and WHO’s materials. However, statistical techniques allow for “imputing” missing data with substitute values derived from the data that are available. Mateus explains next how he and his team applied this technique in their study.@rwatkins says:While demographic variables can be controlled for in a statistical analysis, conditions that produce higher crime rates – such as those related to political,
social, and economic distress – might also account for the decrease in homicide among an aging population. So Doug and I asked Mateus how these variables were accounted for.@rwatkins says:As Mateus mentioned earlier, just as a population’s average age relates to its homicide rate, so too does a country’s income inequality and its relative safety and security. But since there could be many other factors that explain the associations between these variables, we were curious how potential confounds were adjusted for in the project.@rwatkins says:While the UN dataset tracked 126 of the world’s countries with more than 1 million residents in 2015, the data only capture homicides since 1990. Conversely, the W H O Mortality Database captured homicide data since 1950, but for a much smaller set of countries. So Doug and I followed up by asking Mateus about the extent to which the data were representative of all the world’s nations … or of only a few.@rwatkins says:Mateus and his colleagues triangulated their data from two sources: the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, or UNODC, and the World Health Organization, or W H O. As the data spanned nearly 70 years, Ryan and I were interested in what this breadth of data allowed for … that’s less available when looking at a more constrained period of time.@rwatkins says:While homicide is projected to cause more deaths globally by 2030 than infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, it’s also true that – nearly every year since the turn of the 21st century – more people have been murdered than have lost their lives to war. Mateus helps us understand this seeming paradox after this short break.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Parsing Science: The unpublished stories behind the world’s most compelling science, as told by the researchers themselves., which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Spencer and Razib discuss what the humanities can offer to science with Kerim Yasar, professor of East Asian literature https://twitter.com/nihonkyo
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Insitome: Your guide to the story of you, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Cailin O’Connor (@cailinmeister) is a philosopher of science at the University of California-Irvine. We discuss her book The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread co-authored with James Owen Weatherall.
Related Links:
* Do as I Say, Not as I Do, or, Conformity in Scientific Networks by James Owen Weatherall and Cailin O’Connor* How Science Spreads: Smallpox, Stomach Ulcers, and ‘The Vegetable Lamb of Tartary’: Episode of The Hidden Brain* Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda by Tim Snyder, New York Review of Books* Endogenous Epistemic Factionalization: A Network Epistemology Approach by James Owen Weatherall & Cailin O’Connor* The Natural Selection of Conservative Science by Cailin O’Connor * How to Beat Science and Influence People: Policy Makers and Propaganda in Epistemic Networks by James Owen Weatherall, Cailin O’Connor, & Justin P. Bruner
Here is a transcript of this episode.
Rating the Show
If you enjoyed this show, please rate it on iTunes:
* Go to the show’s iTunes page and click “View in iTunes”* Click “Ratings and Reviews” which is to the right of “Details”* Next to “Click to Rate” select the stars.
See the full list of episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy >>
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Heterodox Academy, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Listen to a panel discussion, ‘Nanotechnology – Moving research from the lab bench to the market shelf’, co-hosted by Nano from Springer Nature and Researcher.
The panel discussion examines the process by which nanoscience and technology research can be transferred from academic labs to the private sector, and identifies best practices, policies, and other activities that can facilitate the commercialization of research for the benefit of society and economic competitiveness.
The panel consists of :
Dr Prathik Roy – Group Product Manager for Nanoscience and Technology at Springer Nature
Dr Michel Rickhaus – Group leader (SNSF Ambizione) at the University of Zurich.
Dr Przemyslaw Gawel – Senior Scientist at Cambridge Display Technology Ltd
Dr Suze Kundu – Head of Public Engagement at Digital Science
During the session the panel answers key questions, including:
•What are the challenges to increasing the transfer of knowledge and technology from university researchers to the private sector?
•How can funding agencies foster the transfer of knowledge and technology from universities to the private sector?
•What are the key elements of successful university-industry commercialization collaborations?
•How do we create more jobs in the industry?
Let us know what you think by leaving a review and don’t forget to subscribe to Researcher Radio for more.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from RESEARCHER, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Presented by Mary-Ann Ochota and Professor Danielle George.
Produced by Listen Entertainment.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Listen Entertainment & Wiley, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
For our sixth episode, the PIA crew interviewed Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, University Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Northeastern University and author of “How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain.” We first discussed the history of emotion research, including how widespread assumptions may have held back progress in this field. Despite decades of research using facial expressions, physiology, and outward behaviors to classify emotional categories, Dr. Barrett makes the case that these patterns are not actually specific markers for specific emotions — instead, it’s how we interpret these patterns, and how we label these patterns with learned concepts, that will actually determine how you experience an emotion. We also covered a ton of other really interesting ideas throughout this episode, including how your brain basically functions like a baseball player. Make sure to check it out!
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Psychology In Action Podcast, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Astrophysicist Chantanelle Nava joins me to chat about her research on exoplanets, science communication, and life in academia.
Follow her on Twitter:
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Matthew Facciani, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
0