0:15

Pushkin, you're

0:24

listening to Brave New Planet, a podcast

0:27

about amazing new technologies that

0:29

could dramatically improve our world, or

0:32

if we don't make wise choices, could

0:34

leave us a lot worse off. Utopia

0:37

or dystopia. It's up to us.

0:47

On Saturday, November seventh, two and

0:50

twenty, hundreds of millions

0:52

of people finally got an answer

0:54

to a question that had consumed them

0:56

for more than eight weeks of balloting

0:58

and four days of vote counting, who

1:01

would lead the United States of America for the

1:03

next four years. At eleven

1:05

twenty four am Eastern Time, CNN

1:08

called the president election for Joe Biden

1:10

and his running mate Kamala Harris. Within

1:13

twenty minutes, every major

1:15

network followed suit. The

1:17

race was over. But

1:20

even as one question was answered, another

1:23

still loomed large. Well

1:25

America now finally be able to move

1:27

forward and tackle the hard problems

1:29

facing the country and the world. My

1:39

name is Eric Lander, and I'm

1:41

the host of Brave New Planet. When

1:44

we began planning the seven episodes of Brave

1:46

New Planet more than a year ago, I

1:49

never imagined we'd be wrapping up in the

1:51

days just after a presidential election.

1:53

We'd originally planned to complete and release

1:56

this series in spring twenty twenty,

1:58

but as with so many things, those

2:01

plans were upended by the pandemic.

2:04

Somehow, though, the timings turned

2:06

out to be fitting Brave New Plant.

2:09

And it's about amazing science and technology

2:12

that also poses hard challenges,

2:15

But it's also about how we're going to need to

2:17

come together and work together to

2:20

make wise choices in many

2:22

areas. Yes, scientific

2:25

problems, from the current pandemic to climate

2:27

change, but also societal problems

2:30

from economic security to racial

2:32

justice. Brave New Planet

2:34

has tried to show smart, thoughtful,

2:36

passionate people who agree

2:38

on the facts and even agree on the

2:41

societal goals, but who

2:43

disagree on solutions. Yet

2:45

nonetheless they grapple with complex

2:48

problems, argue with respect, occasionally

2:51

even change their minds, and make

2:53

some progress even where there are

2:55

no easy answers. To

2:58

my mind, it's the only path forward.

3:01

Brave New Planet's mission is to invite

3:03

everyone into these conversations. So

3:07

today's big question, what's

3:09

it going to take to do more of this as

3:11

a society, to find common

3:14

ground on goals and argue

3:16

productively about solutions. As

3:19

I thought about this question, it occurred

3:21

to me that scientists aren't the

3:23

only people who spend their days gathering

3:25

information to try to help society

3:28

solve problems. Journalists

3:30

do too, So I thought that a conversation

3:33

between a scientist and a journalist about

3:35

the common challenges we face might

3:37

be enlightening. I reached out

3:39

to journalist Nila Boodoo. NILA's

3:42

worked for Reuters, the Miami Herald,

3:44

and in public radio, where she's hosted shows

3:47

on WBEZ Chicago. Now

3:49

she's the host of Axios Today, a

3:52

new daily morning news podcast.

3:55

Nila Boodoo, Welcome to

3:57

Brave New Planet. Hi,

3:59

Eric, thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure

4:01

to be here. Oh, it's great to have you.

4:04

So, Nila, I'd love to start with

4:07

how scientists and journalists can with

4:09

the public, At least in science,

4:11

I think there's often a real problem with

4:14

humility and trust. You

4:16

know. For example, when scientists talk

4:18

about what do we have to do to make progress

4:21

on problems, one of the first things

4:23

people suggest is more science

4:26

education. That doesn't get me wrong, I'm not

4:28

opposed to more science education. I

4:30

teach. I love it, But I think

4:33

there's an underlying assumption there

4:35

that the problem is that people are just ignorant,

4:38

that if they just got more science

4:41

education, they'd know the facts

4:43

or accept the facts and fall in line

4:45

with the solutions. And I

4:47

don't think that's the right place to start.

4:50

I mean, scientists do spend their

4:52

days swimming around in facts, but

4:54

I don't think that's a reason to be looking

4:57

down on people. I think

4:59

there's ever a reason to be looking down on people.

5:01

It's not a good posture. We might have

5:03

been able to get away with it in the science

5:06

of the nineteen fifties and sixties.

5:09

You know, the authority of scientists

5:11

in the White Lab Code or something,

5:13

but scientists don't have a monopoly

5:15

on the insights that are going to matter. I

5:18

think, you know, we have to go in feeling we

5:21

got something really important to contribute,

5:23

but it's only part of the puzzle. Yeah,

5:26

I'm wondering, Nilot, do you see that same

5:28

issue in journalism? Well, I think

5:31

it's the same thing you said, right, Like, so you said that,

5:33

you know the idea that scientists in

5:35

the nineteen fifties or sixties or whatever,

5:37

there's this idea that scientists where its sort of the end

5:39

all be all of information. Journalists were like that

5:41

too right. We used

5:43

to think that we were in charge of

5:45

broadcasting out the information to people,

5:48

and I think, certainly in my career as a journalist, we've

5:50

seen that shift. With the advent of social media

5:52

the way that information flows, journalists

5:55

play a role. I think journalists play a very important

5:57

role in moderating, in sifting

5:59

through, in amplifying

6:02

voices that don't have an opportunity

6:04

to do that. But we are not the

6:07

source of I mean, we do not broadcast information

6:09

out to people anymore. And I think when you talk about

6:11

trust, which is a really important

6:13

thing that comes up in journalism, do people

6:15

trust what we do? I think a major

6:18

reason why a lot of people don't trust what journalists

6:20

do is because of

6:22

the way that we go about doing it, and I think

6:25

not having a humble attitude. Now, I will say,

6:27

when you look at the data about this, people

6:29

don't trust the media. And first of all,

6:31

I will start with the premise, I'm not quite sure what

6:33

the media is. So I always say

6:35

that first, like that's kind of my first phrase to

6:37

everyone is what is this media? I'm

6:40

not sure what you mean? And when you break

6:42

it down, I think people who have relationships,

6:44

for example, with local journalists. Those

6:47

institutions score very high. People

6:49

trust those local institutions,

6:52

local journalists as accurate

6:54

and credible sources of information. I

6:56

think when you look at the national level, that's where you

6:58

see more of a breakdown. What do

7:01

you think about that question of trust? I wonder

7:03

how important that is as well when

7:05

we're thinking about journalism

7:07

and in your case science. Oh

7:10

boy, So look, trust,

7:12

I think is the next layer up over humility.

7:15

You got to come in with a humble attitude. But

7:18

what do we mean by trust the scientists.

7:21

There's maybe two kinds of trust

7:23

that are worth distinguishing between this

7:27

kind of blind trust, that

7:29

nineteen fifties nineteen sixties

7:31

thing of just deferred

7:34

to me as the scientist because

7:36

I know better than you. I

7:39

think there's actually instead a different

7:41

kind of trust, and I might call it like earned

7:44

trust. Earned trust

7:46

is I'm going to be if

7:48

I'm the scientist or the doctor. I'm going

7:50

to be transparent about the evidence

7:53

we have. I'll tell you why

7:55

I believe things, and every

7:57

bit is important. I'm going to be transparent

8:00

about what we don't know. I

8:03

don't trust people who don't say

8:06

I don't know. Some of the time, I

8:08

don't trust people who can't explain

8:10

to me why they believe the things they believe.

8:14

So I think we

8:16

are shifting and maybe it's true for journalism

8:18

as well, but certainly in science,

8:21

to the idea that people should be asking

8:24

questions, they should be probing,

8:26

and if scientists should bring doubt about

8:28

other people's results in evidence,

8:31

why shouldn't the general public bring doubt.

8:33

But again, it's worth distinguishing two kinds

8:35

of doubt. There's kind of the cynical

8:38

doubt. I just don't

8:40

trust this science stuff. You know, the diet

8:42

studies keep contradicting each other, or

8:45

you can't trust science because they can't make

8:47

up their minds, And I think that's a

8:49

very cynical, nehalistic kind of

8:51

doubt. I think there's

8:53

a kind of doubt that I would love to

8:55

see more of, which is empowered

8:58

doubt. I'm not going

9:00

to believe you until you give

9:02

me the evidence, show me hard evidence.

9:04

So that's the kind of empowered doubt

9:07

that you know, we want to

9:09

have because that gets people like

9:12

properly at the table as peers

9:14

in this thing. I fantasize

9:16

about, you know, how the FDA

9:19

might go through its drug

9:21

approval process for coronavirus

9:25

vaccines. Just this week, Feisser

9:27

issued a press release saying it had

9:29

really positive results from

9:32

its vaccine trial, and

9:34

the press release didn't have a lot of details, which

9:36

was, you know, some people noted and they're gonna have

9:38

to come forward with those details. But

9:41

I'm imagining how do we get the country involved

9:43

in the drug approval process. And

9:45

so you can imagine like a Reddit

9:47

Ama where you know, the

9:50

country's sending in questions and

9:52

folks at the other side, maybe both the

9:54

drug company and the FDA are trying

9:56

to answer them. And now I don't I don't

9:58

know all effects. I'll just make this up, so don't don't

10:01

take these numbers to be exactly right, but it

10:03

might go something like this. The company

10:05

starts by saying, well, we ran a

10:08

clinical trial with forty thousand people and

10:11

half got the vaccine and half got a placebo,

10:14

and then we waited until ninety

10:17

five people had gotten infected

10:19

and shown symptoms. And

10:22

we looked and we found that ninety out

10:24

of those ninety five people were people who got

10:26

the placebo, and only five

10:28

of them were people who got the vaccine. And

10:30

so it looks like the vaccine is doing a

10:32

pretty good job of protecting people. But

10:35

then people will write in and they'll say, okay,

10:37

well, tell me what do you know about elderly

10:40

people, people over seventy did they get protection?

10:43

What about men? What about people who

10:45

have serious health complications?

10:48

How long is this protection gonna

10:50

last? And are there side effects?

10:53

Some of the times the answers are

10:55

going to be we just don't know. We

10:58

haven't got enough data yet, we haven't run

11:00

long enough to see how

11:02

long protection might last. I

11:05

think people are smartan they can take

11:07

the information what we know and what we

11:09

don't know, and make decisions based

11:12

on that. So I think that's really the foundation

11:14

of trust. Earn trust is

11:16

to be direct and transparent

11:19

about what we know and what we don't know. Yeah,

11:21

so do you think the credibility then

11:24

you sort of build the credibility and trust with

11:26

the government regulator and in having

11:28

for example, the CDC or the FDA

11:31

be incredibly transparent about

11:33

the whole process. Well, the government

11:35

is here to represent the people, and

11:37

it's got to do that job in a way that actually

11:40

works. Given the tensions

11:43

around all these things and skepticism

11:45

that has occurred and conflicts,

11:48

I think the more transparent we can be,

11:50

the more that we earn trust. So

11:52

I think transparency is one thing, but then also the

11:55

actual message and the knowledge, because

11:57

I think oftentimes we tend to

12:00

see this as a binary choice

12:02

of it either has to be simple and

12:05

easy to understand, or it's

12:07

we're going to get the full information and it's complex.

12:10

This is inherently the problem I think with

12:12

science communication, and this is something as a journalist

12:15

we struggle with. How do you distill

12:17

something down into a way in my case

12:19

that someone is just hearing it, so they're

12:21

not even going to read it, they just hear it. How

12:24

much can they really take in at that point?

12:27

Well, it's interesting. I think Axeos

12:30

talks about sort of smart brevity.

12:32

Yeah, that's a thing. So I

12:35

think communication is a really important

12:37

thing, and in general science has

12:39

not mastered the art of communication.

12:42

Putting things in such complete

12:45

detail that they're incomprehensible

12:49

is not very helpful. I don't know how often

12:51

you take the package insert

12:53

out of a drug and read

12:55

that big thin piece of paper

12:57

when you unfolded and look at all

13:00

of the background data on this drug.

13:02

But I bet you know, maybe that's as

13:04

often as you read the click license on

13:06

a piece of software. Actually,

13:08

you know what I was going to say. My mother's a pharmacist,

13:10

So I just ask her. And actually, that I think

13:13

is the key, Right I ask someone who

13:15

I know has the knowledge and I trust, and

13:18

I think she will distill it down for me.

13:21

So your mother plays the role of

13:23

good scientific communication and good journalistic

13:26

communication. And the problem is most people

13:28

don't have your mother, And so

13:31

how do we manage to get

13:33

things clear without

13:36

pulling the wool over anybody's eyes without oversimplifying?

13:40

Albert Einstein famously

13:42

said, and it's one of the things I quote very

13:44

often. Everything should

13:47

be made as simple as possible,

13:50

but not simpler, finding

13:52

that happy medium

13:55

of saying there is nothing

13:58

about this vaccine approval or

14:00

many other things that can't be

14:03

explained clearly without oversimplifying.

14:06

I think communicating

14:08

with honesty and clarity

14:11

is the heart of it. And I'll say the

14:14

one leg up I feel like I have

14:16

is at MIT, I

14:18

teach freshmen freshman

14:21

holds your feet to the fire. They

14:24

want to know, but they want it clearly,

14:27

And so I think this

14:29

is something we all have to aspire to if we're

14:31

going to get a country that's involved in making

14:33

wise decisions, whether journalistically

14:35

or scientifically. So

14:38

Nyla, let's turn to this question of bringing

14:41

people together. Many

14:43

people feel like they just want to give

14:45

up on the prospect of bringing

14:48

people together. Everybody's in their tribes.

14:51

Okay, maybe, but this isn't

14:53

gonna work in the long runs. So how

14:55

do we find common

14:57

grounds or at least find meeting ground

15:00

where we can meet and talk with each other. Because

15:03

I do think most people deep

15:06

down do want the same

15:08

thing things. They want their family

15:11

to be secure. They

15:13

would like to have a healthy

15:16

planet, you know, a healthier life for themselves,

15:19

more peace. I

15:21

was struck in the election coverage

15:24

that there were instances

15:27

where people tried not to go head

15:29

on saying I want to

15:31

convince you to vote for my candidate, but

15:34

instead to ask what's

15:37

bothering you? What's on your mind? What are

15:39

you worried about? By listening

15:42

and establishing what

15:44

are common goals, when may be able

15:47

to circle back and say, okay, if that's

15:49

the goal, what are the ways

15:51

we might get there? Now I realize

15:53

I may seem like a hopeless optimist here,

15:55

and it's not like I'm I'm

15:57

unrealistic about it. It's just I don't see

16:00

anything else that works other

16:02

than trying to find

16:05

that kind of meeting ground amongst people,

16:07

and any kind of change has

16:09

to start by finding something that shared.

16:12

So I don't know what your experiences has been with this.

16:15

I think that what I have found as a journalist,

16:17

and this kind of goes back again to communication,

16:20

but I think it also goes back to this

16:22

idea of humility

16:25

is language is really important here

16:27

because I think that the way that you frame something

16:30

tells people how to think about something.

16:33

So, for example, as a journalist, when

16:35

I am interviewing someone, I always ask

16:37

them a question, which seems like a very

16:40

simple thing. But actually, if you listen to

16:42

a lot of journalists when they're interviewing people, they

16:44

don't ask them questions. They make statements

16:47

or they say, tell me about something. Well, if you tell someone

16:49

to tell you about something, they're going to tell you about something. Oh

16:52

that is so interesting because I hadn't

16:54

actually processed before

16:56

that tell me about something is not really

16:59

asking a question. And so this is

17:01

my pet peeve as a broadcast journalist and as a

17:03

host, that you should never say tell

17:05

me about something to someone you shouldn't because you

17:07

can always ask it as a question, because I

17:09

actually think our brains hear that differently

17:12

and they process that differently. And I

17:14

think that's just one example of

17:16

how language can be so important

17:18

when we're thinking about And this is of course we

17:21

parse every word, you

17:23

know, as journalists and as a broadcast journalist,

17:26

and on our podcast it is

17:28

not live, and so we literally

17:30

do parse every word. And I wonder

17:32

for you how you've seen language

17:35

is important to you, especially as you think about

17:37

brave New planet, right, And when I think

17:39

about, like you have this idea, I want

17:41

to ask you, like this whole idea of like stewards

17:44

of the brave New planet. That's an interesting

17:46

choice of word that you have, stewarts. It's a

17:48

very deliberate one. Stewards

17:51

of the Brave New Planet was

17:53

chosen very intentionally. I think

17:56

across the political spectrum,

17:58

from religious conservatives

18:01

to very progressive people,

18:04

there is some shared sense

18:06

of stewardship in Eastern

18:09

religion, the idea that people are stewards

18:11

of the planet, you

18:14

know, that's fundamental and biblical.

18:17

We all feel

18:20

like we have an obligation to be and want

18:22

to be stewards of this planet, and

18:24

so it dawned

18:26

on me one day that this was

18:29

a word that we didn't have to argue

18:31

about. And if we have the common mission

18:33

of being stewards, we can now

18:36

have a serious discussion about how

18:38

can we be the best stewards. But

18:40

we start by being on the same side. And

18:43

so let's be optimistic

18:46

and say that we have established a common

18:48

ground and that

18:50

we're working on building trust. We've

18:53

been talking about the pandemic we've had.

18:55

You've had some really practical solutions

18:57

for that. Because I remain I

19:01

would say, as a journalist, I am an optimist,

19:03

but I'm always a skeptical journalist, and I

19:05

remained very concerned about

19:07

our ability the country

19:09

to unite around

19:12

the science of the pandemic. I

19:15

share your concern. We

19:17

all should be very concerned about it and therefore

19:19

work hard to try to overcome it. But

19:21

then when we think about other issues

19:24

that are just as big, arguably

19:26

bigger, like climate change,

19:28

I wonder, how do we do that well.

19:31

I think that's a great example to think

19:33

about climate change. We went

19:35

through a long period of time when the argument

19:38

is climate changing. I

19:40

think we've largely moved past that. The

19:43

question now is what do we do about

19:45

it? What worries me is

19:47

how many people feel overwhelmed, pessimistic

19:50

that there's no prospect of doing anything

19:52

without wrecking the economy and

19:54

dramatically changing daily life,

19:57

you know, banning hamburgers and airplanes.

20:00

I think it's provoked many people across

20:02

the whole political spectrum to just throw

20:04

up their hands. I think it's terrible.

20:07

We don't want people to feel fatalist, stick

20:09

and pessimistic and overwhelmed. You

20:12

know, the ultimate answer, it's a climate

20:14

change. It's actually pretty straightforward.

20:17

The only thing that will work in the long run is to

20:19

make renewable energy that's cheaper

20:21

than fossil fuels. The minute

20:23

that happens, the market will move to renewables

20:25

on its own. So the answer

20:27

has to be innovation. It's just how do you

20:30

get that innovation. Now, we've

20:32

already seen a lot of progress. The

20:34

cost of solar energy and wind energy has

20:36

been dropping dramatically. In some places, that's

20:39

cheaper than burning oil. Now,

20:41

we still need a lot more better battery

20:44

storage and better electrification, but

20:46

there's every reason to think we can do

20:48

it. So the national goal

20:50

ought to be for America to lead the world in

20:52

inventing and producing and selling

20:54

new energy technologies. And

20:57

you know that way, addressing climate change

20:59

and promoting economic growth don't have

21:01

to really be in conflict. There's

21:04

actually a great historical example. One

21:06

of the reasons America became the leader in

21:09

semiconductors and computers is

21:11

that the government created huge incentives

21:13

for the semiconductor industry. Way back in

21:15

the nineteen fifties. The military

21:18

bought huge quantities of semiconductors

21:21

even when they were too expensive

21:23

to be commercially viable. They called

21:25

it pump priming. So on

21:27

climate change, I think we have our incentives

21:30

completely backward right now, and

21:32

I think most Americans could get together around

21:34

the idea of using incentives to

21:37

unleash American innovation. How

21:39

much do you think that inertia for lack

21:41

of a better word, whether we're thinking of big

21:44

things like changes in technology

21:46

and innovation with climate change,

21:49

but I'm also really thinking more on the individual

21:51

level about people feeling overwhelmed and

21:53

pessimistic and sort of resigned.

21:56

How much of that do you think results

21:59

from the way that we communicate,

22:01

And by that I'm talking primarily about social media.

22:04

I think that's a significant issue. Looking

22:06

back. There was a time that

22:08

I think most Americans thought America

22:11

could do anything could put its mind to. I

22:14

don't think people feel that as much as they

22:16

should, but there was a sense

22:19

not that long ago that we could

22:21

tackle any challenge. I don't

22:23

think the kinds of wars

22:25

that people get into over social media

22:27

and takedowns, I don't

22:29

think they're really conducive to letting

22:33

people have big

22:35

aspirations. I think

22:37

there are amazing things we can get

22:39

done. Look at what's gotten

22:41

done over the last fifty years, everything

22:44

that's been able to be transformed.

22:47

We can still do that because I see

22:49

this as something where people

22:51

on the left and people on the right both

22:54

know that that's true, and

22:56

they you know, some may come from a market

22:58

orientation, some may come from from

23:01

a research orientation, but we know

23:03

we've pulled things like this off in the

23:05

past, and so I'd like to reorient

23:08

the discussion. So on that

23:10

note, how if we're thinking

23:12

about the stewards who are listening,

23:15

what is your final advice

23:19

or tips for them? Do

23:22

something doesn't matter what Go

23:24

make a curriculum for schools

23:27

on some topic that you care

23:29

about or that we talked about in the program.

23:32

Go organize the discussion, Go

23:34

talk to you know, a local legislator

23:37

about it. I think the key is to start.

23:40

The point is, if you feel

23:43

pessimistic, if you feel overwhelmed,

23:45

if you feel paralyzed, that's

23:48

terrible. Do something something

23:50

will lead to something else. Now,

23:53

no one person changes the whole world,

23:56

but together changing our attitude

23:59

that we can make change. That

24:01

is really important. It's the basis

24:03

of science. When people set

24:06

out to try to cure cancer, they

24:08

say, oh, my god, that goal is so

24:10

huge, how am I going to do it? And

24:13

yet scientists, step

24:15

by step, they take a piece of the problem

24:17

and they make progress against it. And so

24:19

we go from the nineteen seventies

24:21

when nobody had a clue what cancer was about

24:24

two people understanding, oh,

24:27

cancer is caused by genetic mutations,

24:29

and then discovering, oh, sometimes

24:31

we can make drugs that block the effects

24:33

of those mutations. Oh,

24:36

we can harness the immune system to make

24:38

therapies. You know, any

24:40

given week, any given months, you

24:42

might feel pessimistic because you

24:45

don't really see progress. But

24:47

if you step back and look over the course

24:49

of a decade or two, it's breathtaking

24:52

how much progress can happen. I

24:54

think science and society are pretty

24:56

similar in this regard. You can take

24:58

on huge challenges that of enough

25:01

people are moving that forward. Oh,

25:04

we end up making a big difference. Well,

25:06

thank you. I'm glad that we found common ground,

25:09

and I appreciate so much that you were

25:12

willing to sit down and talk to me about

25:14

all of these things. It's an honor. I appreciate it.

25:16

Thank you, well, thank you, Nila.

25:18

It's been great to talk. And

25:21

to all the listeners out there, I hope you'll check

25:23

out NILA's podcast Axios

25:25

today. So

25:34

there you haven't stewards of the Brave New Planet.

25:36

It really is time to choose our future.

25:39

There are so many amazing opportunities

25:41

ahead and so many challenges

25:44

to getting this right. We

25:46

can't just throw up our hands and leave it to

25:48

others to decide. We all

25:51

of us have responsibility to make sure

25:53

that we make wise choices. It's

25:56

going to take a lot. It's going to take

25:58

a commitment to renewing the compact

26:00

between science and society and

26:02

to following the evidence. It's

26:04

going to take humility. Science

26:07

is an amazingly powerful way to

26:09

create new possibilities, but

26:11

we also have to ask what could

26:14

possibly go wrong. It's

26:16

going to take trust and doubt, not

26:19

blind trust, not cynical doubt. It's

26:22

going to take earned trust and empowered

26:24

doubt where anyone can raise questions

26:27

and we're all transparent about what we know

26:29

and what we don't know. And

26:32

it's going to take engagement from everyone.

26:35

Government, university, scientific against its

26:37

corporations, unions, faith groups,

26:39

student organizations and geo's

26:42

all willing to debate in good faith

26:45

about hard questions. I'm

26:48

an optimist, but a realistic

26:50

optimist. It's going to take a

26:52

lot of work, but

26:55

what's the alternative? And getting

26:58

this right as great rewards.

27:01

I'm committed and I hope you are too.

27:04

I look forward to continuing the conversation

27:07

utopia or dystopia, It

27:09

really is up to us. Thank

27:12

you for listening. Brave

27:25

New Planet is a co production of the Brode Institute

27:27

of Might and Harvard Pushkin Industries

27:29

in the Boston Globe, with support

27:32

from the Alfred P. Sloane Foundation. Our

27:34

show is produced by Rebecca Lee Douglas

27:36

with Mary Doo theme song

27:39

composed by Ned Porter, mastering

27:41

and sound designed by James Garver, fact

27:44

checking by Joseph Fridman, and a Stitt

27:46

and Enchant special

27:49

Thanks to Christine Heenan and Rachel Roberts

27:51

at Clarendon Communications, to

27:53

Lee mc guire, Kristen Zarelli and Justine

27:55

Levin Allerhand at the Broade, to mil

27:58

Lobell and Heather Faine at Pushkin, and

28:01

to Eli and Edy Brode who made the

28:03

Brode Institute possible. This

28:06

is brave new planet. I'm Eric

28:08

Lander.