STEM-Talk

Why is it that modern marine concrete structures crumble and corrode within decades, but 2,000-year-old Roman piers and breakwaters endure to this day? Episode 60 of STEM-Talk features Dr. Marie Jackson, a scientist who has spent the past two decades figuring out the answer to that and other questions about the durability of ancient Roman mortars and concretes. Marie is a research associate professor in the department of geology and geophysics at the University of Utah. She is known for her investigations in pyroclastic volcanism, mineralogy, materials science, and archaeological science that are breaking new ground in understanding the durability and specialty properties in ancient Roman mortars and concretes. She is particularly focused on deciphering Roman methods and materials in the hope of producing innovative, environmentally friendly cementitious masonry products and nuclear waste storage materials that would benefit the modern world. She was the lead principal investigator of a drilling project in the summer of 2017 on the Surtsey Volcano, which is on a small isolated island off the coast of Iceland. The volcano is growing the same mineral cements as Roman marine cement and the drilling project is helping provide extraordinary insights into the materials and processes the Romans used. She is particularly focused on deciphering Roman methods and materials in the hope of producing innovative, environmentally friendly cementitious masonry products and nuclear waste storage materials that would benefit the modern world. She was the lead principle investigator of a drilling project in the summer of 2017 on the Surtsey Volcano, which is on a small isolated island off the coast of Iceland. The volcano is growing the same mineral cements as Roman marine cement and the drilling project is helping provide extraordinary insights into the materials and processes the Romans used. After receiving her bachelor of science in earth sciences from the University of California Santa Cruz, Marie traveled overseas and received a doctorate from the Universite de Nantes in France. She returned stateside and received a doctor of philosophy from John Hopkins University as well as a Ph.D. in earth and planetary sciences. Marie then went to work as a research geoscientist for the U.S. Geological Survey. After taking time off to raise a family, Marie joined the department of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, as a project scientist. She stepped into her current position at the University of Utah in 2016. Links: Mechanical resilience and cementitious processes in Imperial Roman architectural mortar: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270161645_Mechanical_resilience_and_cementitious_processes_in_Imperial_Roman_architectural_mortar Marie Jackson ResearchGate profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marie_Jackson Surtsey blogspace: https://surtsey50years.utah.edu  Show notes:  4:06: Dawn begins interview by mentioning Marie’s love of the outdoors as a child and asks her to talk about those days. 4:38: Dawn asks if Marie’s father, who was a geologist, contributed to her love of the outdoors. 5:11: Dawn asks what topics Marie was interested in while in high school. 5:44: Dawn mentions that when Marie went to college, she never envisioned herself as a scientist, but this changed in her junior year, when her interest in earth sciences took root. Dawn asks Marie to elaborate on how that happened. 6:27: Ken asks Marie what role, if any, her family’s ranch played in motivating her interest in geology. 7:22: Dawn mentions that after college Marie worked for a mining company for a few years, which enabled her to save enough money to travel to France, where she worked on a doctorate. She asks if this is how Marie ended up in northern Corsica, in the Italian Alps. 9:39: Ken asks about her transition back to the United States, where she attended John Hopkins University after spending 3 years in France. 10:23: Ken mentions Marie’s reputation at John Hopkins for being a “desert rat” in Utah’s Henry mountains. He asks her to elaborate on her experiences in that area. 12:06: Dawn comments on how after Marie got her PhD in 1987, she went to work for the U.S. Geological Survey, and that she ended up doing a structural study of the seismically active Kaoiki fault zone on the southeast flank of the Mauna Loa Volcano in Hawaii. Dawn asks Marie to talk about that. 13:44: Dawn comments on how Marie didn’t know much about Rome until she spent a year there in 1995. Marie talks about her experience. 14:17: Ken mentions that Marie’s priority for many years was to raise her children, but Ken asks what else she did in those days. 15:05: Dawn comments on how during this period, Marie was writing papers and working with scientists who were nearing retirement.  Dawn asks what that was like. 17:55: Dawn asks about the work Marie did after she started, in 2011, working at UC Berkley’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering as a project scientist. 19:55: Ken mentions that after a couple of years at Berkley, Marie accepted a position at the University of Utah. He comments on how that must have been an interesting transition to come full circle back to Utah. 20:44: Dawn asks for Marie to explain exactly how the Romans made concrete, and what made it so unique. 22:11: Ken mentions that while modern maritime concrete structures typically degrade significantly within a matter of decades, the Romans built piers and breakwaters 2,000 years ago that endure to this very day. He inquires as to what prevents Roman maritime concrete from degrading. 26:42: Ken comments on how the Romans are often said to be very deliberative people. He asks how much of the invention of their concrete does Marie think was deliberate, and how much a happy accident. 28:51: Ken asks about a comment that Pliny the Elder made in the first century about how the best maritime concrete was made from volcanic ash found in the regions along the Gulf of Naples. Ken asks Marie what is so particularly special about the ash at that particular region. 31:24: Ken mentions the Romacons project, and the book that came out of it, “Building for Eternity,” which was published in 2014. Marie is one of the authors, and the book explains how the Romans built these lasting structures in the sea. He asks if Marie could elaborate on the story the book tells. 35:14: Dawn asks Marie what the cementing characteristics are that have made Roman concrete so unique. 37:23: Ken mentions the demonstrated durability and longevity of Roman maritime concrete. He asks if lessons learned from the Romans could be of relevance to engineers currently working on devising containment for long term storage of hazardous waste substances. 41:11: Marie talks about her current project as the lead principle investigator on the Surtsey Volcano. 44:48: Dawn asks how Marie is disseminating the knowledge and information about the work that she and her team are doing at Surtsey. 46:20: Dawn asks Marie what life and career advice she would give to an up and coming scientist. 47:11: Ken inquires as to what Marie enjoys doing in her time away from research. 48:31: Interview ends.

Nearly five million people in the United States have Alzheimer’s disease. In 30 years, that number is estimated to be 16 million In today’s episode, Ken and Dawn interview Dr. Stephen Cunnane, a Canadian physiologist whose extensive research into Alzheimer’s disease is showing how ketones can be used as part of a prevention approach that helps delay or slow down the onset of Alzheimer’s. Cunnane is a metabolic physiologist at the University of Sherbrooke in Sherbrooke, Quebec. He is the author of five books, including” Survival of the Fattest: The Key to Human Brain Evolution,” which was published in 2005, and “Human Brain Evolution: Influence of Fresh and Coastal Food Resources,” which was published in 2010. He earned his Ph.D. in Physiology at McGill University in 1980 and did post-doctoral research on nutrition and brain development in Aberdeen, Scotland, London, and Nova Scotia. From 1986 to 2003, he was a faculty member in the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Toronto where his research focused on the role of omega-3 fatty acids in brain development and human health. He also did research on the relation between ketones and a high-fat ketogenic diet on brain development. In 2003, Dr. Cunnane was awarded a senior Canada Research Chair at the Research Center on Aging and became a full professor at the University of Sherbrooke. He has published more than 280 peer-reviewed research papers and was elected to the French National Academy of Medicine in 2009. Links: Lower Brain 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Uptake: Castellano et al AD dPET J Alz Dis 2015 Brain glucose and acetoacetate metabolism: Nugent et al dPET YE Neurobiol Aging 2014 Energetic and nutritional constraints on infant brain development: Cunnane & Crawford J Human Evol 2014 Inverse relationship between brain glucose and ketone metabolism in adults: Courchesne-Loyer et al PET KD JCBFM 2016 A cross-sectional comparison of brain glucose and ketone metabolism in cognitively healthy older adults: Croteau et al. AD MCI CMR Exper Gerontol 2017 A 3-Month Aerobic Training Program Improves Brain Energy Metabolism in Mild Alzheimer’s Disease: Castellano et al. exercise ketones JAD 2017 Show notes: 3:33: Dawn mentions that Stephen was born in London but that his family emigrated to Canada when he was an infant. She asks him about growing up in a suburb of Montreal. 4:02: Ken mentions that he has been told by a reliable source that as soon as Stephen got into high school he spent a lot of time in the chemistry lab, where sometimes created mischief. 4:58: Dawn asks if it is true that Stephen nearly flunked out of college when he first started. 5:16: Dawn comments that Stephen got his PHD in physiology at McGill University which is when his interest in science really caught on and asks how that came about. 5:55: Stephen talks about communicating with Desmond Morris while Stephen was working on his post-doc. 8:03: Dawn asks about Stephen’s post-doctoral research, for which he traveled to Aberdeen London and Nova Scotia; as well as what prompted his interest in nutrition in the brain. 9:01: Dawn mentions that in 1986 Stephen became a faculty member in the department of nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto. She asks how he ended up teaching nutrition when he didn’t have a degree in nutrition. 10:33: Stephen talks about accepting a senior Canada Research Chair at the Research Center of Aging and a full professorship at the University of Sherbrooke. 11:57: Ken talks about Stephen’s interest in human evolution how it eventually led him to research the nutritional importance of shore-based foods and omega-3 fatty acid in particular in the development of human’s brains. He asks Stephen to talk about his work leading up to the hypothesis that humans evolved near the water. 16:32: Dawn asks which of the various forms and sources of omega-3 are optimal for overall wellness and brain health, and what are the differences between them. 18:50: Dawn asks Stephen if there was any pushback against his research into the importance of ketones and fat in the brain development of infants? Dawn points out that Stephen was working on this during the middle of the low-fat craze in the U.S. and Canada. 20:33: Dawn mentions that there is evidence that intermittent fasting improves cognition, and asks if there is any evolutionary basis for that? 21:49: Dawn asks if it was Stephen’s research into the metabolism of omega-3 fatty acids and the importance of ketones that lead him to write his book Survival of the Fattest? 23:04: Dawn notes that it seems as if ketones are at the core of Stephen’s way of thinking about infant brain development. She asks him to elaborate on this. 24:15: Dawn asks Stephen to talk about what it’s going to take to transition to the therapeutic use of ketones. 26:06: Ken mentions how Stephen has noted the importance of ketosis in postnatal life for a number of reasons, including brain development and survival and early breast milk availability. Ken asks about the effect of women consuming a ketogenic diet while breastfeeding children, and if this inadvertently lowers ketone levels in the infant due to lower medium chain triglyceride (MCT) levels in the breast milk, a phenomenon found in rodents fed a ketogenic diet during lactation. 28:36: Dawn comments how Stephen has said that certain brain-selective nutrients — such as DHA, iodine, iron, selenium, zinc and copper — would be best supplied by a shore-based diet. She asks which shores humans would have evolved close to and which types of food made up this diet during human evolution? 32:29: Dawn mentions that at Sherbrooke, Stephen’s research has been focused on the use of brain imaging techniques to study changing brain fuel metabolism and cognitive function during aging. She asks if he can give an overview of what he is finding. 34:08: Dawn comments on the increasing interest in exogenous ketones for treatment of neurological disease. She further mentions that these ketone esters can elevate Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) levels far beyond what is normally attained during the ketogenic diet. She asks Stephen for his thoughts on the initiation of ketosis through MCTs versus exogenous ketones (salts or esters) versus carbohydrate restriction versus fasting. She asks about mechanistic differences between each of these methods of initiating ketosis. 35:39: Ken mentions that Stephen’s tracer work has used 11c acetoacetate in the setting of endogenous ketones and neurological disease. He asks if there are any key differences in brain ketone metabolism between endogenous and exogenesis ketosis after mentioning how BHB and acetoacetate appear in a relatively predictable 1:1 ratio when ketosis is induced through diet. 37:28: Ken mentions that it has been noted that ketones are 10% more efficient than glucose as a brain fuel. He asks Stephen about his understanding of cerebral fuel selection given ample availability of both glucose and ketones. 38:25: Dawn asks if there are areas of the brain that are particularly high users of ketone bodies, and if so, could that have any link to some of the functional or behavioral changes, such as mood, that are seen in some cases of animals or people adhering to a ketogenic diet. 39:16: Dawn asks Stephen to talk about his research into how and why omega-3 fatty acid homeostasis changes during aging. 40:21: Dawn asks for Stephen’s opinion on what are the primary challenges that our brains face as we age. 41:12: Dawn mentions how that Stephen is currently focused on Alzheimer’s research and ketones. She asks for an overview of his research that’s looking into how ketones can be used to the advantage of a person suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. 43:21: Dawn comments on how we know that APOE4 carriers have an increased risk of development of late onset familial Alzheimer’s disease. She asks if there is a link between the genotype and a change in brain metabolism. 44:42: Ken asks if substrate utilization differs between healthy subjects and those with neurological conditions, such as mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease. 45:18: Dawn asks Stephen what other metabolic interventions he thinks have promise for a neurodegenerative disease. 46:01: Dawn mentions that exercise helps to get more ketones into the brain. She inquires as to how much exercise is needed to do this effectively. 46:49: Dawn asks Stephen to elaborate on his recommendation that older people who might not be able to exercise effectively should consider consuming a ketone drink made from MCTs that people can make in their kitchen. 48:31: Ken comments how he envisions it not being too long before studies can be done with powerful ketone ester drinks, and that exogenous ketones will become more readily available and more potent, giving people more effective options to elevate their level of circulating ketones. 50:09: Dawn asks Stephen if chronically high systemic inflammations contribute to neuroinflammation and cognitive decline. She also asks if targeting systemic inflammation with nutritional ketosis would be an acceptable strategy to enhance and also preserve cognitive function and brain longevity. 51:15: Dawn mentions that we know ketones increase brain blood flow and metabolism. She goes on to ask if Stephen thinks that some of the beneficial effects might be working through the newly discovered brain lymphatic system or glymphatic system. 51:41: Dawn points out there are about five million people with Alzheimer’s disease in the U.S., and that the number of Americans with AD is estimated to swell to 16 million in the next 30 years. She asks if Stephen thinks this dramatic increase in the prevalence of Alzheimer’s is related to the Western diet which has created an epidemic of type-2 diabetes and other chronic diseases. 52:42: Ken mentions that a number of recent papers show dramatic improvements in both health span and life span of rodents that are fed a ketogenic diet. While humans are not rats, he asks Stephen for his thoughts on the effects of prolonged ketosis as a promoter of human healthspan and perhaps even longevity. 53:51: Dawn concludes the interview by asking Stephen’s about his interests outside of work.

Today’s episode features one of the nation’s leading physicians and researchers who has spent years studying and treating traumatic brain injuries. Dr. Flora Hammond is a professor and chair of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Indiana University School of Medicine. She also is the Chief of Medical Affairs and Medical Director at the Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana. She has been a project director for the Traumatic Brain Injury Model System since 1998. Shortly before we conducted this interview with Dr. Hammond, she and a team of physicians and scientists at Indiana University received a $2.1 million grant to continue research into people who suffer traumatic brain injuries and how these injuries affect the lives of patients as well as their families. Dr. Hammond is a Pensacola, Florida, native who graduated from the Tulane University School of Medicine in 1990 and completed her residency in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. She also completed a brain injury medicine fellowship at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. Her research in the area of brain injury includes studying the prediction of outcome, aging with brain injury, causes of and treatments for irritability, and quality of relationships. In 2016 she received the Robert L. Moody Prize, which is the nation’s highest honor reserved for individuals who had made exceptional and sustained contributions to the lives of individuals with brain injuries. Prior to the 2016 Robert L. Moody Prize, Dr. Hammond received local and national awards for her teaching, clinical care and research, including the 2001 Association of Academic Physiatrists Young Academician Award, the 2011 Brain Injury Association of America William Caveness Award, and the 2013 Baylor College of Medicine Distinguished Alumnus Award. In 2011, 2012, and 2013, Dr. Hammond led the Galveston Brain Injury Conferences which focused on changing the view of brain injury as an incident with limited short-term treatment to a chronic condition that must be proactively managed over the course of life. She co-chairs the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Chronic Brain Injury Task Force, and serves on Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation editorial board. She has authored more than 140 peer-reviewed publications. Links: Flora Hamond faculty profile: https://medicine.iu.edu/faculty/20302/hammond-flora/ “Potential Impact of Amantadine on Aggression” study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28891908 Show notes: 4:08: Interview begins. 4:38: Dawn says it’s her understanding that Flora dreamed of becoming a physician ever since middle school. Dawn asks what inspired her at such an early age to become a doctor. 5:02: Flora talks about also wanting to become a teacher, but worried that she would have to give up teaching to become a doctor. 5:40: Continuing with Flora’s history, Dawn mentions that after high school Flora traveled to New Orleans to attend Tulane University. Dawn asks if it’s true that Flora’s grandmother was her landlord while she was in college and med school. 6:20: Ken mentions that Flora’s mother was a dietician and that her father was a pathologist. He asks Flora what specifically inspired her to specialize in brain injury rehabilitation and research. 8:36: Dawn comments on how before Flora accepted a positon at Indiana, she was in the Carolinas, and asks about her work there. 9:30: Dawn asks how Flora ended up at the Indiana University School of Medicine. 10:23: Ken mentions that Flora’s lecture at IHMC attracted a lot of interest and a full-house. He follows up by asking Flora what she thinks is driving the interest in brain injuries. 11:34: Dawn talks about how Flora and a team of physicians and scientists at Indiana have spent years studying and treating TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) and the effects of TBI on the lives of patients and their families. She goes on to mention that Indiana recently was awarded a $2.1 million grant to continue those studies for the next five years. Dawns asks Flora to talk about the scope of the work she will be doing as a result of the grant. 12:57: Ken mentions that Flora has pushed to have a national approach to the treatment of TBI, where patients and physicians continuously track the injury and continue treatments. He asks her to expand on her thoughts on such a program and how more people and organizations can start working toward an integrated approach. 13:48: Dawn asks for Flora to explain the different types of brain injury, and to clarify that TBI is not merely one singular disease or type of injury process.  Flora goes on to explain the difference between mild, moderate and severe injuries, and then describes how the treatments differ. 14:50: Dawn asks Flora how she diagnoses the severity of TBI, and if there are any biomarkers that are currently in use. 16:01: Dawn asks what common issues patients struggle with after a traumatic brain injury. 17:08: Dawn proposes the hypothetical scenario of a patient coming into Flora’s rehabilitation clinic, and asks Flora to walk us through an example of how they would treat that person and what program they would go through. 19:21: Ken mentions that there are a number of TBI centers that focus on integrative medicine, and rather than just treating the brain injury they are now treating the patient as a whole human being. He talks about optimizing sleep, proper nutrition, and ways to manage aggression and anxiety in addition to specific treatment of the brain. He asks Flora how much does it seem that physicians are currently integrating these approaches into TBI treatment around the country. 20:17: Dawn asks what we know about the triggers of irritability and aggression in TBI patients, and if there is a biochemical component to these triggers or if it is something else. 22:21: Dawn inquires as to the different ways that Flora uses to track a patient’s condition on the cognitive or emotional level. 22:45: Flora talks about research on aging after TBI, and that interestingly enough, it’s not always about worsened outcomes. Some people actually get better over time, while others stay the same or their condition even worsens over time. Dawn asks if there are ways to differentiate who will improve and who will worsen with time. 23:50: Ken comments on how in the past it was thought that brain plasticity, and thereby recovery, was more plausible for a child with TBI, but that recovery would plateau at some point. He points out, however, that much of Flora’s work has shown that recovery can occur in older individuals and they can continue to improve long after the initial injury. He asks Flora if she could talk about that work. 24:44: Dawn asks if there is a difference in treatment for a child with TBI compared to an adult with a similar injury. 25:17: Ken mentions that ApoE 4/4, and even 3/4 status, has been shown to be a genotype that is associated with worsened patient outcomes after TBI, and that there are other genetic variables beyond ApoE that are relevant. He asks, in regards to the era of precision medicine, are we looking at these genetic variables with respect to a personalized patient treatment program? 26:21: Ken asks if we are able to accurately predict outcomes in the early hours and days following the injury. 27:00: Dawn asks if a severe brain injury typically implies a poorer outcome. 27:36: Mentioning that she has several people close to her with various types of TBI, Dawn talks about how she loves the idea of a participatory research system that Flora has proposed and implemented. Dawn asks Flora to expand on this approach to TBI research. 28:31: Ken talks about how Flora has focused a lot of her research on non-pharmacological interventions for TBI. He asks for some examples of approaches that she has studied, and if those approaches are being harnessed by the general TBI treatment community. 29:33: Ken mentions that Flora recently published a study on the promising ability of the drug Amantadine to curb aggression in TBI patients. He asks if she could elaborate on that. 33:27: Dawn comments on how in most treatment modalities for brain injury, the focus is on the acute phase. She asks how can treatment be extended after the initial management, and what else does Flora think long-term treatments for TBI patients should include. 34:13: Dawn asks if it is true that all of the recovery from a brain injury happens within the first year. 35:08: Dawn asks if medication in the early recovery phase has a downside in the long term. 36:01: Ken mentions that a number of therapies for TBI that showed great promise in animal studies, failed to yield the hoped-for results in human trials. He asks what are the current barriers to developing new acute therapies that reduce morbidity and mortality in TBI patients are. 37:09: Ken comments on how TBI is an injury to the brain, but it also affects a variety of other systems and pathways in the body. He mentions that the Hypothalamic Pituitary Adrenal access can often be impacted in TBI patients. He asks for a brief explanation of the HP access and how damage to it can affect the patient. 38:38: Ken asks if there would ever be a case where a person with HPA access as their dysfunction could be misdiagnosed with TBI and vice versa? 39:24: Dawn mentions that it seems as though the HPA axis  has been widely ignored, comparatively speaking, to other metrics in TBI patients. She asks if we are starting to include its assessment and status in patients, as far as tracking is concerned. 39:52: Dawn comments on how Flora has coined the term CBI (Chronic Brain Injury). Dawn asks if CBI has been incorporated into a public health and societal approach, in addition to traditional medicine. 40:37: Ken asks Flora to elaborate on how she would scope and define CBI as opposed to TBI. 41:17: Dawn asks for Flora to talk about how brain injury rehab has evolved over her career. 42:21: Dawn congratulates Flora on receiving the Robert L. Moody Prize last year, which is the nation’s highest honor for individuals who have made exceptional and sustained contributions to the lives of people with brain injuries. She follows up by asking for some background on the award itself. 42:48: Dawn asks where Flora sees the field of TBI research and rehabilitation heading in the next 10 years. 43:48: Dawn closes by asking Flora how she likes to spend her free time.

Today’s interview features Dr. Lauren Jackson, a nationally known expert in the field of tumor and normal-tissue radiobiology. She is especially recognized for her expertise in medical countermeasure development for acute radiation sickness and delayed effects of acute radiation exposure. Lauren is the deputy director of the Division of Translational Radiation Sciences within the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Lauren, who also goes by Isabel, received her bachelors in science in microbiology from North Carolina State University in 2006, and her PhD in pathology from Duke University in 2012. She currently is a principal or collaborating investigator on a number of industry and federally sponsored contracts and research grants. She has published extensively on the characterization and refinement of animal models of radiation-induced normal tissue injury that recapitulate the response in humans. Models developed in Lauren’s laboratory have gone on to receive FDA concurrence as appropriate for use in medical countermeasure screens. Lauren is a senior associate editor for Advances in Radiation Oncology, a journal of the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology, and serves as an ad hoc reviewer for several peer-reviewed journals. She also is the author of several book chapters on normal tissue tolerance to radiation, mechanisms of injury, and potential therapeutic interventions. Links: Jackson’s University of Maryland web page: http://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/profiles/Jackson-Isabel/ Radiation Emergency Medical Management website: https://www.remm.nlm.gov Centers for Disease Control website: https://www.emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/index.asp BARDA website: https://www.phe.gov/about/BARDA/Pages/default.aspx NIAID website: https://www.niaid.nih.gov Show notes: 5:06: Dawn begins interview by asking Lauren about her childhood and if it’s true that she was one of those children who was always asking questions? 5:39: Lauren talks about how she was more interested in history and the humanities in high school and wanted nothing to do with science. 5:59: Dawn asks Lauren about her decision to attend the University of Georgia to major in journalism and political science. 6:28: Ken comments on how even though Lauren was just 18 at the time, she was one of two students picked to represent the University of Georgia at the Center for the Presidency in Washington, D.C. Lauren then talks about how thanks to that experience, she decided journalism and political science weren’t the right majors for her. 7:38: Dawn points out that when Lauren first went to college, she took the minimum number of science classes.  Lauren goes on to talk about how after spending time in D.C., she ended up applying to North Carolina State University and switching her major to microbiology. 8:52: While at N.C. State, Lauren worked for Dr. Hosni Hassan, an expert on Oxidative Stress. Dawn asks Lauren about the focus of her research with Dr. Hassan. 9:58 Dawn talks about how when Lauren was an undergrad at N.C. State, she became interested in tumors and cancer treatment, and found a professor down the road at Duke University who was doing interesting work in that area. Dawn asks Lauren if that’s why she ended up going to Duke for her doctorate. 10:52 Dawn asks Lauren to elaborate on how her background in journalism and political science connected her towards the path of radiation countermeasure research.  11:42 Dawn points out that as a graduate student at Duke, Lauren took part in projects that looked at radiation injury. Dawn asks Lauren to give an overview of what sort of work was involved in the projects.  12:46 Ken asks Lauren to explain the difference between clinical radiation exposure and radiation that someone would experience as a consequence of a nuclear attack. 13:59: Ken shifts the conversation to human space flight, asking Lauren to discuss the radiation astronauts will experience outside the protection of the Earth’s magnetosphere, such as galactic cosmic radiation and solar particle events. He also asks how they relate to the other previously mentioned clinical- and weapons-based radiation. 14:52: Ken asks Lauren to describe what the lifetime limits are for radiation exposure, how they are produced, and what is the biggest source of radiation exposure for the average person. 16:06: Dawn asks if it’s possible to translate the findings in clinical radiation to these other types of radiation exposures, such as nuclear weapons and space radiation. 16:40: Dawn asks if clinical radiation research is playing a role in the work that’s being done in space research as well as research into the effects of nuclear-weapons attack. 17:27: Ken asks Lauren to explain how radiation doses are defined. 18:28: Ken mentions that Lauren’s work has focused on both the acute and chronic effects of radiation exposure, then asks her to give an overview on how the body would respond at the cellular and physiological levels to an acute exposure. 19:56: Dawn mentions how proximity to the event, in the event of a nuclear attack, would be a variable factor as to the level of exposure, then asking what else determines the degree of an acute response. 22:35: Dawn asks if the impact of radiation exposure is different based on different systems in the body, further asking which systems are more or less susceptible and what the different responses are. 24:06: Dawn mentions how Lauren has focused a large part of her research on the effects of radiation exposure to the pulmonary system, then asking her to talk about those chronic and lifetime affects following initial exposure. 25:38: Ken remarks how oxidative stress is a major focus on Lauren’s research, and follows up by asking about the impact of oxidative stress on the tissue, surrounding tissue, and its role in the overall injury response. 26:54: Ken remarks on the evidence that shows that animals fed a diet high in blueberries have some degree of resistance to the inflammatory response due to the blueberry’s antioxidant activity. He asks if antioxidants, more broadly, could play a role in the prevention of radiation injury. 27:46: Dawn asks about genetic susceptibility to radiation injury, and if we know of any individuals who are more or less susceptible to injury based on their genetic makeup. 28:48: Ken wonders if the genetic screening for radiation tolerance were developed adequately, that perhaps it could have an application in the selection process for long-duration missions into deep space. 29:25: Ken inquiries about the counterintuitive fact that smokers have a reduced incidence of radiation-induced lung cancer. 30:07: Dawn asks if gender or age play a role in a person’s susceptibility to radiation injury. 31:13: Dawn mentions how we know that epigenetic modifications (changes with respect to how a gene is expressed) can occur in response to a wide variety of different stressors or environmental influences. She then asks if we are seeing modifications that occur as a result of radiation exposure at the epigenetic level. 31:47: Dawn mentions that Randy Gerald was at Duke at the same time that she and Lauren were at Duke, and that he was the founder of epigenetic modifications. 32:15: Ken asks that in regards to a point-of-care test that could identify individuals who have been exposed to radiation and injured, what are the potential markers that Lauren would look for. 34:01: Dawn asks if markers of tissue injury, such as lung-radiation injury, are found in the blood. 35:44 Ken mentions the importance of timing from the point of injury as being critical with most biomarkers. He then asks that given the temporal nature of radiation injury, is there a time effect on biomarkers of radiation injury. 36:37: Ken asks about the effects of radon. 37:30: Ken notes that some areas are inherently much higher in radon levels than others, such as New England, and parts of Florida. He asks if there is a level that Lauren would consider safe for basements. 38:42: Dawn asks about the current position Lauren holds at the University of Maryland School of Medicine as the Deputy Director of the Division of Translational Research Sciences, and the Department of Radiation Oncology, and her research team that she has there. 40:32: Dawn asks about the different categories of potential countermeasures for radiation injury that Lauren has been looking at. 41:28: Dawn mentions how Lauren also works alongside the FDA, where she serves as a subject-matter expert for the review committees. She asks Lauren to describe her work with the FDA and in particular the FDA animal rule and the role that plays in countermeasure approval for humans. 44:03: Lauren explains the role that the NIAID (National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease) plays in countermeasure development. 45:56: Ken asks if countermeasures that we might develop to limit the damage from a nuclear attack might potentially be used for applications such as clinical radiation or space radiation exposure. 47:12: Dawn asks about a countermeasure drug called Bio300 that Lauren worked on with a company called Humanetics Corporation, asking where it stands with respect to research and potential clinical applications in humans. 48:37: Dawn asks Lauren to talk about the approval process and the specifics of Neupogen and Neulasta, (the first two drugs ever approved as potential countermeasures for acute radiation syndrome) that were approved on the basis of data generated at Lauren’s laboratory. 49:58: Ken notes that Neupogen has demonstrated improved survival in people exposed to lethal radiation doses on Earth, then asks if Neupogen, Neulasta, or some other bone-marrow active medical countermeasures have applications in human space flight. 50:54: Dawn asks if there is a one-size-fits-all drug to target all the physiological systems in response to radiation exposure, or if a patient would need to take an array of countermeasures to cover each of the different systems. 52:22: Dawn notes that after Fukushima, potassium iodine pills were flying off the shelves, and asks if that is a viable option for protection against acute radiation syndrome. 53:32: Ken asks if there are any prophylactic treatments approved or in development for radiation exposure. 54:46: Ken asks Lauren to talk a little more about BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) and the role it plays in radiation injury research and countermeasure development. 56:44: Dawn notes that Lauren has served as the program director for the BARDA Radiological and Nuclear Model Development Program, asking her to talk about that position and what that work entails. 57:25: Lauren talks about how it seemed that no one was interested in radiation after the Cold War, but that recent interest in radiation research has grown significantly. 59:48: Dawn mentions that four or five years ago you couldn’t get any companies interested in looking at ways to improve survival in case of a nuclear attack, but that in just the last two weeks of November that Lauren has had 22 companies reach out to her. 1:01:48: Dawn asks what the current threats of nuclear or radiological terrorism or nuclear attack are. 1:02:18: Ken asks how much protection to radiation exposure, arising from a weapon’s detonation, does a basement offer. 1:03:05: Ken remarks how, in regards to basements, those that do not have windows would be preferable in the context of protecting against radiation exposure. 1:04:13: Ken asks if any of the countermeasures developed thus far could be effective against space radiation, and thereby offer NASA an ability to leverage the BARDA investment. 1:05:26: Ken remarks how he is glad to hear that the federal agencies are wisely leveraging each other’s investments, rather than independently pursuing them. 1:06:31: Ken talks about long-duration missions in deep space and the possibility that astronauts might experience serious cognitive deficits caused by radiation exposure. He also points out the need for a countermeasure against cognitive decline as a result of radiation is not yet met here on Earth, citing that workers who cleaned up the Chernobyl nuclear disaster experienced serious cognitive decline close to ten years after the incident. 1:08:22: Ken asks if potential neurocognitive medical countermeasures exist today or if they may be available in the near future, and would a single agent be effective for both terrestrial exposures and the galactic cosmic radiation found in space. 1:09:18: Dawn wraps up the interview by asking Lauren if she is an N.C. State fan or a Duke fan when it comes to basketball.

Today’s episode is the second of a two-part interview with IHMC Senior Scientist Dr. Jonathan Clark, a six-time Space Shuttle crew surgeon who has served in numerous roles for both NASA and the Navy. Part one of our interview, episode 55, ended with Jon talking about the tragic death of his wife, astronaut Laurel Clark. She died along with six fellow crew members in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. February marks the 15th anniversary of the disaster. Today’s episode picks up with Jon talking about becoming part of a NASA team that investigated the Columbia disaster. Ken and Dawn also talk to Jon about the extensive research he has been doing on the neurologic effects of extreme environments, and also about the instrumental work he has been doing in developing new protocols to benefit future aviators and astronauts. Jon received his Bachelor of Science from Texas A&M University, and medical degree from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. He is board certified in neurology and aerospace medicine. Jon headed the Spatial Orientation Systems Department at the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory in Pensacola. He also held other top positions in the Navy and qualified as a Naval flight officer, Naval flight surgeon, Navy diver and Special Forces freefall parachutist. Jon’s service as a Space Shuttle crew surgeon was part of an eight-year tenure at NASA, where he was also chief of the Medical Operations Branch and an FAA senior aviation medical examiner for the NASA Johnson Space Center Flight Medicine Clinic. He additionally served as a Department of Defense Space Shuttle Support flight surgeon covering two shuttle missions. In addition to his new role as a senior research scientist at IHMC, Jon is an associate professor of Neurology and Space Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and teaches operation space medicine at Baylor’s Center for Space Medicine. He also is the space medicine advisor for the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, and is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston where he teaches at the Aerospace Medicine Residency. Links: Jon Clark’s NASA bio: https://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/academy/Clark-Jonathan-Bio.html Jon Clark You Tube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZLZ5yKgXJR0L1xZzhdTY_dUzo5ZLILxS Jon Clark Red Bull Stratos page: http://www.redbullstratos.com/the-team/jonathan-clark/index.html Part one of Jon Clark STEM-Talk interview: http://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode-55/ Show Notes: 4:07: Ken comments that Jon was part of the NASA team that studied every detail of the Columbia disaster. When the team’s report came out, Jon said, “You have to find ways to turn badness into goodness. You have to. It’s the only way you get through this.” Ken then asks Jon to talk about some of the lessons NASA learned. 7:27: Dawn says that on October 14, 2012, Jon was part of a team that successfully accomplished the highest stratospheric free fall jump from 128,100 feet. Dawn asks Jon how he became involved in this record-breaking jump. 9:37: Dawn asks Jon what his support team looked like for the jump. 11:15: Ken asks Jon what kind of preparation he and the team went through for the jump, and how long the preparatory period was. 12:46: Dawn asks Jon what the medical concerns for the jump were. 16:54 Dawn comments that when Jon discusses the medical team, he talks a lot about continuous physiological monitoring in the research world. She then asks Jon what kind of monitoring he was doing before, during, and after the jump. 22:58: Dawn asks Jon to discuss research he has done around neurological issues, specifically when it comes to space exposure. 23:31: Ken comments that intermittent artificial gravity has been discussed over the years, as a way to potentially mitigate some of the medical risk factors associated with long duration space missions. Ken then asks Jon how this may be accomplished in space and what we know about the effects of intermittent gravity. 30:30: Dawn says that NASA recently released a report describing an increased incidence of white matter hyper intensities in astronauts. She then asks Jon why we are seeing these lesions now and not in earlier crew. 34:01: Dawn comments that the DOD communities are also interested in the issue of white matter hyper intensities. Dawn then says that she and Jon are on a NASA Translational Research Institute project that is looking at the effect of simulated microgravity on brain lymphatic outflow. She then asks Jon to talk more about this study. 38:24: Dawn says that trying to perform effective aeromedical research with either aviators or astronauts can be difficult due to a fear of participating in studies whose findings might affect their flight status. She then asks Jon how he addresses these concerns. 41:02: Ken says that Jon has been extensively involved in previous investigations focused on physiological episodes in the aviation community. He then asks Jon to discuss what is meant by the term physiological episode and to give a few examples. 46:09: Dawn asks Jon what he sees as some of the most exciting areas of research for extreme environmental medicine in human performance. 48:42: Ken comments that Jon was instrumental in having EEG recordings removed from the standard flight physical. Ken asks Jon what led to his concerns on this measurement. 51:15: Dawn says that Jon has done research with hyperbaric oxygen and that right now we are seeing a push to bring hyperbaric oxygen therapy in as treatment for things like traumatic brain injury and PTSD. She then asks Jon what his thoughts are on this. 56:00: Dawn says that Jon has been extensively involved in suit testing for NASA and other commercial entities. She then asks what this testing involves and what the future space suits will look like. 1:00: 19:Ken says that there was a meeting at IHMC years ago where NASA displayed each of the generations of NASA space suits. 1:03:41: Dawn asks Jon to expand on his comments about how to get a deliverable from research. 1:05:05: Dawn says that William Fife was a key mentor of Jon’s and that now Jon works with William’s daughter. Dawn asks Jon to discuss the time he spends mentoring young students and what advice he has for them. 1:08:03: Ken says that NASA has been formulating plans for a crew tended cislunar space station concept, known as the Deep Space Gateway. This station could be used as a staging ground for robotic and human lunar surface missions as well as eventual travel to Mars. Ken then asks Jon to talk more about the Deep Space Gateway. 1:11:41: Dawn asks Jon to discuss his recent sailing expedition off the California coast. 1:15:27: Ken mentions that Jon participated in the National Outdoor Leadership School executive expedition that went into the Wind River Range of Wyoming.  Ken points out the Roger Smith, who was featured on episode 51 of STEM-Talk, and his wife Margaret Creel were longtime instructors at NOLS, and asks Jon for his thoughts about NOLS and the work it does. 1:19:20: Ken and Dawn thank Jon for joining them.  

Today’s episode is the first of two-part interview with IHMC Senior Scientist Dr. Jonathan Clark, a six-time Space Shuttle crew surgeon who has served in numerous roles for both NASA and the Navy. In a wide-ranging conversation with Ken and Dawn, Jon talks about his 26-year career in the Navy, his extensive research on the neurologic effects of extreme environments on humans, and the tragic death of his wife, astronaut Laurel Clark, who died along with six fellow crew members in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. Jon received his Bachelor of Science from Texas A&M University, and medical degree from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. He is board certified in neurology and aerospace medicine. Jon headed the Spatial Orientation Systems Department at the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory in Pensacola. He also held other top positions in the Navy and qualified as a Naval flight officer, Naval flight surgeon, Navy diver and Special Forces freefall parachutist. Jon’s service as a Space Shuttle crew surgeon was part of an eight-year tenure at NASA, where he was also chief of the Medical Operations Branch and an FAA senior aviation medical examiner for the NASA Johnson Space Center Flight Medicine Clinic. He additionally served as a Department of Defense Space Shuttle Support flight surgeon covering two shuttle missions. In addition to his new role as a senior research scientist at IHMC, Jon is an associate professor of Neurology and Space Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and teaches operation space medicine at Baylor’s Center for Space Medicine. He also is the space medicine advisor for the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, and is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston where he teaches at the Aerospace Medicine Residency. Links: Jon Clark’s NASA bio: https://www.nasa.gov/offices/nesc/academy/Clark-Jonathan-Bio.html Jon Clark’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZLZ5yKgXJR0L1xZzhdTY_dUzo5ZLILxS Show Notes: 4:32: Ken and Dawn welcome Jon to the show. 4:47: Dawn comments that Jon was the son of an army officer, and as a result, he grew up all over the world. Dawn then asks Jon what it was like to move so frequently to different army bases as a youth. 5:24: Dawn says that Jon is known as a fairly frugal person and asks him to tell the story of a piece of burnt toast in Germany that contributed to his frugality. 6:39: Ken asks Jon to share the story of how he learned how to fly planes in Germany as a teen-ager. 9:43: Dawn comments that Jon had aquariums in his bedroom as a child. She then asks Jon what drew him to marine biology. 13:53: Dawn asks why Jon chose Texas A&M for college after leaving Germany. 15:36: Jon talks about how he was accepted into medical school during his senior year of college, and how he was disappointed that the Navy sent him to flight school instead. 18:46: Ken says that after flight school, Jon ended up going to medical school after all. Ken asks Jon to talk about what happened. 20:09: Dawn asks Jon what it was like transitioning from being an officer in the Navy to a student in medical school. 21:24: Dawn comments that Jon was three years into his neurosurgery residency when his plans shifted. She asks Jon what happened. 24:52: Dawn says that Jon spent 26 years on active duty with the Navy, qualifying as a Naval Flight Officer, Naval Flight Surgeon, Navy Diver, U.S. Army Parachutist, and Special Forces Military Free Fall Parachutist. She asks Jon if it is fair to say that he has an appetite to try new things. 26:35: Ken comments that he and Jon met in Bruce Dunn’s lab at the University of West Florida in the late 1980s while Jon was in Pensacola working at the Naval Aerospace Medical Institute. Ken says that he recalls Jon working with Bruce on electrophysiology studies. Ken then asks Jon how he and Bruce met. 30:36: Ken says that Jon met his wife, Laurel, while he was in the Navy Dive School in Panama City. 35:34: STEM-TALK BLURB 36:00: Dawn asks Jon to share his experiences with the Marines in Desert Storm. 38:44 Dawn comments that Jon ended up back in Pensacola in the mid-1990s as the department head of the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. During this time, Jon looked into the low-frequency active sonar, which was injuring both marine life and divers. Dawn then asks Jon to discuss this project. 41:14: Dawn asks Jon to discuss the Bug Springs project. 44:32: Ken comments that in 1996, Laurel was selected as a NASA astronaut, and she moved to Houston to begin astronaut candidate training. During this time, Jon was still in the Navy. Ken then asks Jon how he ended up working at NASA in Houston. 50:07: Ken asks Jon to discuss the transition at NASA. 53:02: Dawn asks Jon what his responsibilities were as a NASA flight surgeon. 55:00: Ken comments that it must have been an extremely tough experience when Laurel was aboard the space shuttle Columbia, that disintegrated upon reentering Earth in 2003. 1:00:40: Dawn comments that Jon’s son Ian asked why his mother did not bail out during the accident. Ian also told Jon that he was going to become a scientist and invent a time machine in order to go back in time and warn everyone. This was when Jon realized he had to focus the rest of his career on making it safe for those following in Laurel’s footsteps. 1:02:00: Part one of the interview ends.    

Late in 2017, a San Francisco startup company brought one of the commercial ketone esters to market. Today’s episode features an interview with a scientist and world-class athlete who has spent the past year helping develop and rollout HVMN Ketone, an FDA-approved drink that promises increased athletic ability as well as heightened focus and energy. Dr. Brianna Stubbs earned her PhD in biochemical physiology from Oxford University in 2016 where she researched the effects of ketone drinks on elite athletes. During Brianna’s collegiate athletic career, she won two gold medals while representing Great Britain at the World Rowing Championships. She first made international news when as a 12-year-old she became the youngest person ever to row across the British Channel. Brianna graduated from Oxford’s Pembroke College with a BA in preclinical sciences with the idea of becoming an MD.  But after spending a year working as a research assistant helping to investigate the effect of exogenous ketones on human performance, she decided instead to pursue her doctorate in biochemical physiology and investigate how ketone compounds might be applied in a sporting and healthcare setting in the future. While at Oxford, she worked alongside Dr. Kieran Clarke to develop a novel ketone monoester that has been shown to improve exercise performance in endurance athletes. She also was a member of the Great Britain Rowing Team and in 2016 become the World Champion in the lightweight guadruple sculls. Brianna’s time at Oxford gave her a unique opportunity to combine her scientific interest in sports physiology and metabolism while also competing at an international level. Brianna moved to the United States in June of 2017 to work at HVMN and help bring the company’s ketone ester to market. Links: HVMN website: https://hvmn.com/ketone Mark Mattson STEM-Talk: http://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode007/ Wikipedia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNhuJ4JiK40 Mice and ketones cognition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102124/#!po=10.1064 Owen and Cahill: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6061736 Oxford ketone study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27475046 Glycogen re-synthesi and ketones: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28398950 Ketones, glycogen and mTOR: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5440563/ Caryn Zinn: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506682/ Ketone esters vs ketone salts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5670148/ Acetoacetate paper:            https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2017.00806/full HVMN online fasting community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/136348456816447/ Show notes: 3:52: Ken and Dawn welcome Brianna to the show. 4:07: Dawn congratulates Brianna on bringing one of the first ketone esters to the commercial market, and asks Brianna to provide some background that led to the ketone ester launch. 5:31: Ken comments that the HBMN ester has been approved by the FDA as “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. He then asks her to expand on what this means in terms of human use and to expand on the value of the GRAS status. 6:31: Dawn asks Brianna what sparked her interest in science. 7:18: Ken comments that he heard Brianna was seven years old when she ran her first race, and that she ran so hard, she made herself sick. He asks if this is true. 8:16: Ken says that Brianna’s father was the one who got her interested in rowing, and when she was six years old, he signed her up for the first rowing race across the Atlantic Ocean. Ken asks if it’s true that he had never rowed before. 10:21: Dawn comments that Brianna used to run and row with her father as he trained for these races, and then when she was 12 years old she rowed across the English Channel, becoming the youngest person to ever do so. Dawn asks how this came about. 11:59: Dawn asks what Brianna’s mother was doing while she and her father were off rowing across the English Channel. 12:41: Dawn says that Brianna won her first international rowing event when she was 16, and then at 18 she won a silver medal at the junior world championships. She then asks Brianna’s to describe her training schedule as a teenager. 13:44: Ken asks Brianna what it feels like to be the best in the world at something after winning a gold medal in rowing at the 2013 and 2016 world championships. 16:32: Ken says that as a rower, Brianna mainly competed as a lightweight. He then asks what this meant in terms of preparing for competition from both a nutritional and training standpoint. 18:18: Dawn comments that the problems associated with excess training stress and inappropriate energy balance in female athletes were previously called the female athlete triad, but it has now been renamed relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S). She then asks if Brianna experienced any physiological issues associated with competing as a lightweight athlete and if she saw this in any of her male colleagues. 20:35: Dawn asks Brianna if she has any thoughts on how coaches, nutritionists, and sports scientists could better support their athletes to prevent these issues. 22:39: Ken says that it was during this time, when Brianna was at Oxford, that there was a study being done on the effects of ketone esters on rowers. He then asks how Brianna became directly involved in the study. 23:51: Dawn asks why Brianna chose to postpone her medical school training to devote more time to researching ketones. 25:04: Dawn says that she understands that the CEO and a team from HVMN visited Oxford and that Brianna sort of invited herself to dinner and convinced them that they needed to hire her to roll out the ketone ester. She then asks if that is how Brianna ended up in San Francisco. 26:52: Dawn asks what Brianna’s first year in the states has been like. 27:40: Dawn says that a bottle of the ketone ester provides 25 grams of beta-hydroxybutyrate, one of the ketone bodies that the body naturally produces during a fast or period of starvation. She then asks Brianna what happens after someone consumes a bottle. 29:32: Ken asks Brianna if she has given any thought to possible consequences of supplementing with only beta-hydroxybutyrate. He then says that it has occurred to him that there might be a reason why the liver produces roughly equal amounts of acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate. 31:34: Ken says that looking back on the Cahill study, he can’t imagine proposing a study like that to an IRB now. 32:01: Dawn comments that the work Brianna was doing with Dr. Clark suggests that drinking ketones alongside a high-carb meal deliver a powerful performance boost. She then asks Brianna if the carbs are necessary to get the full performance boost of the supplement. 32:56: Ken says that state, where there is high carbohydrate availability and high ketones, does not seem like something that would naturally occur and asks if Brianna has any thoughts on this. 33:47: Ken says that you can imagine sparing the glycogen stores for when you really need them would be a great advantage in many sports, as most sports are both aerobic and anaerobic. 34:18: Dawn asks if ketone esters are best utilized as a training aid, as opposed to being acutely administered before an event. 36:03: Ken says that there is evidence that the HVMN ketone ester improves athletic performance. He then asks Brianna about its effects on cognitive performance. 37:10: Dawn asks Brianna to talk about some of the animal studies that are being conducted on ketone esters and their impact on physical and cognitive performance. 38:37: Dawn asks Brianna to explain the difference between ketone salts and ketone esters, and to also give an overview of what the advantages and disadvantages are for each. 41:56: Ken asks how Brianna envisions people using the ketone esters as part of their nutrition plan for a multi-day race. 42:55: Ken asks Brianna if there has been a study to look at the effects of chronic ketone ester administration on performance. 44:27: Dawn asks Brianna to discuss the study in cell metabolism that was published last year that looked at ketone metabolism in elite athletes. 47:15: Dawn asks how Brianna blinded people to which was the ester and which was not during these studies, since the ester tastes bitter. 48:57: Ken asks if it would be feasible to put the agents into capsules to avert the possible confounding effects of distinguishing the rather unique taste. 49:55:  Brianna believes there are important factors in running a successful and accurate sports science study. 53:00: Brianna discusses where ketones fit in the hierarchy of fuel selection during exercise. 55:53: Ken says that the terminology, ketone and ketone esters, are not synonymous, and asks Brianna to give an overview. 57:06: STEMTALK BLURB 57:31: Dawn asks Brianna if administration of ketone esters in the context of moderate carb intake overcomes the alleged problem of reduced PDH activity associated with ketogenic diets. She then asks Brianna if she has measured PDH activity. 58:06: Ken asks Brianna if you could, by use of the ester for an athlete that was in ketosis, have the best of both worlds. 1:00:07: Dawn says that ketone supplementation has a lot of potential to improve the performance of elite athletes. She then asks Brianna if weekend warriors or average recreational athletes can benefit from ketone supplementation. 1:01:21: Ken discusses a study recently conducted in Australia which reported that an acetoacetate diester slightly decreased performance in elite cyclists. 1:04:16: Ken comments that the authors’ speculated that the observed performance decrement was the result of elevated acetoacetate levels, which he noted, does not make sense.  He also noted that all of the study participants experienced GI distress which could easily have accounted for the performance decrement. 1:06:29: Dawn asks Brianna if she thinks this study will further confuse the topic of ketone supplementation. 1:07:37: Ken says that science and religion are two different things, and that particularly in nutrition science and topics related to nutrition, it is an emotional hot button, and people get all spun up about it. 1:08:54: Ken discusses again how many sports are a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic work. He then asks Brianna how athletes will use exogenous ketones in sports with varying degrees of intensity. 1:12:39: Ken comments that it is where the ketogenic diet will have the largest effect for the aging population, both in terms of general wellness and signaling effects, with respect to avoidance of sarcopenia. 1:12:51: Brianna talks about how athletes who are already on a ketogenic diet will use ketone esters. 1:13:47: Ken discusses the increase in BDNF after exercise and a study by Sleiman et al. that showed that HDACs inhibit the production of BDNF. Also, that beta-hydroxybutyrate inhibits HDACS, which would likely increase the production of BDNF. He then asks Brianna if she has any thoughts on whether exogenous ketone ester, such as the HVMN product, might also elevate BDNF. 1:16:00: Ken says that we know that the endogenous ketones have powerful signaling functions, but one of the most fascinating questions is about which of those the ketone ester will provide equivalent or better. 1:17:50: Ken says that it is possible to have high ketone elevations with the ketogenic diet, but it makes it difficult for the people doing the study. 1:22:41: Dawn says that it was noted in a recent paper from a group at UC Davis that ketones, and specifically beta-hydroxybutyrate, potentiated mTOR-1 signaling in skeletal muscle. She then asks Brianna if there is reason to believe this occurs in other tissues or organs of the body, where a potentiating mTOR might not be welcome. 1:23:20: Ken says that they found that it was tissue specific, so the level in the liver was not elevated in that study. 1:24:55: Brianna talks about the public’s response to the launch of the HVMN ketone ester, and gives a rundown of common questions people have been asking. 1:27:51: Brianna shares what her diet is like now that she has retired from competitive rowing. 1:30:42: Ken comments that Mark Mattson discussed intermittent fasting on STEM-Talk on an earlier episode. 1:31:13: Dawn comments that it seems as though most researchers also have a social media presence today, allowing people to collaborate more. She then asks Brianna if she is active on social media. 1:34:02: Ken and Dawn thank Brianna for the interview.  

Today’s interview is with Dr. Brian Caulfield, the dean of physiotherapy at the University College Dublin, where he also is one of the directors of Ireland’s largest research center, the INSIGHT Center for Data Analytics. Brian is especially known for the work he is doing with wearable and mobile sensing technologies and how their use is opening new avenues for human performance evaluation and enhancement in areas like elite sports to rehabilitation medicine to gerontology. He also is a leader in the use of electrical muscle stimulation, also known as EMS, which is being used in health and sports. Brian also is the principal investigator in Ireland’s industry-led Connected Health Technology Center and is the overall project coordinator for the Connected Health Early Stage Researcher Support System, which is Europe’s first networked Connected Health PhD training program. Brian graduated with a bachelor’s Degree in Physiotherapy, a master’s in Medical Science, and a PhD in Medicine from the University College of Dublin. He has co-authored more than 180 research publications and six patents. He also has supervised more than 30 master’s of science graduate research and PhD projects to completion. Brian was the recent recipient of the prestigious 2017 University College Dublin Innovation Award, which recognized his work in the development of a connected health ecosystem in Ireland. Links: https://www.insight-centre.org/users/brian-caulfield https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Caulfield https://www.powerdot.com Electrical stimulation counteracts muscle decline in seniors Show notes: 3:52: Brian talks about growing up in Dublin and how he dreamed of becoming a professional athlete rather than a scientist. 4:35: Brian explains that as a kid he started noticing on TV how a couple of therapists would run onto the soccer field whenever a player was injured. That’s what first gave him the idea of going into physical therapy. 6:08: After receiving his physical therapy degree from the University College of Dublin, Brian tells the story of how he was about to leave for a job in Chicago when the director of the university lab offered Brian a job as a research assistant, which led him to stay in school and pursue a master’s degree. 8:02: Dawn asks Brian what it was like as a 21-year-old to work in a lab side by side with biomedical engineers and scientists on a project that looked at how reflex excitability is modulated throughout the different phases of the walking cycle in stroke patients when compared to patients who have a healthy gait. 11:45: Ken asks Brian what it was like to work in the United States after receiving his master’s degree. 13:30: Dawn asks Brian about returning to Dublin to work on a doctorate and his decision to focus his research on ankle sprains, which is one of the most common non-contact injuries suffered across all sports. 18:04: Brian talks about the limitations of studying athletes in the laboratory and how accelerometers made it possible to do research in the field. 20:57: Dawn asks Brian to expand on how his collaboration with biomedical engineers and computer scientists enabled them to develop wearable accelerometers and sensors to measure human movement. 23:34: Ken asks how this technology, which was developed to improve athletic performance, led to other technologies that were applied to accessing older adults who are at risk of falls. 27:24: Dawn points out that it was this research that led Brian to be named the University College Dublin’s site director for the Insight Center, which is one of Europe’s largest data analytics research organizations with more than 450 researchers. Dawn asks Brian to talk about Insight and its structure and purpose. 29:26: Dawn talks about how much fun it was using inertial measurement units, known as IMUs, during an undersea mission with NASA to assess the technology’s future use in looking at astronaut vestibular function on return to Earth. She then asks Brian to talk about other potential clinical and fitness applications when using IMU technology? 32:11: Dawn asks Brian to talk about his recently published study investigating whether the addition of inertial sensor data can provide additional insight into the nature of postural stability deficits for post-concussion monitoring protocol. 34:34: STEM-Talk blurb 35:02: Dawn asks how it’s possible that a measure of motor performance can help predict that a player is more likely to sustain a contact injury, which, Dawn points out, seems counterintuitive. 37:02: Ken asks Brian if his work on reducing the number of concussions among rugby players could have applications in a sport like American football. 38:25: Ken asks Brian to provide an overview of the different types of electrical muscle stimulation, also known as EMS, that are being used in health and sports today. 41:08: Ken asks how popular systems such as Compex and PowerDot fit into this spectrum of devices? 41:51: Dawn talks about how EMS was used in the former Soviet block for sports training back in the 1950s, and asks Brian about the early excitement and the subsequent perspective that has emerged over the years with respect to EMS and sport training. 45:49: Ken says the comfort factor of EMS is a big deal and that he has allowed friends to borrow a PowerDot EMS unit and that when they increase the settings they often stop using the unit because it’s uncomfortable. Ken asks Brian about the need, particularly for the aging population, for a more comfortable approach. 47:39: Ken talks about the late Charlie Francis who was a strong advocate of EMS and used it with all of his sprinters, including Ben Johnson. Francis said there were four mains uses for EMS in sports: enhancement of maximum strength; as a means of facilitating recovery; as a rehabilitation tool; and as a motor learning and muscle recruitment tool. Ken asks Brian if all four uses, or just a few of them, were valid uses. 49:51: Ken mentions that exercise programs have long been based on the premise that resistance training will be largely ineffective unless it’s carried out at something like 70% of maximal voluntary force, and that it should last roughly 20 or 30 minutes. This level of intensity and duration has been seen as necessary to facilitate proteolysis, the breakdown of proteins in the muscle which is generally seen as the precursor of muscle protein synthesis. However, some training methods such as electrical muscle stimulation and blood flow restriction training are explicitly trying to avoid any extensive breakdown of proteins in the muscle. Ken asks Brian to share his thoughts on this. 52:01: Brian talks about muscle fiber types and their characteristics as Dawn mentions that one of the primary interests in EMS arises from its application in building strength in both younger and older populations. 53:51: Ken talks about how as people age, they lose power more quickly than strength, and strength more quickly than muscle mass. This age-related decrease in muscle mass is fiber type specific and involves a loss of size of the glycolytic type-two fibers rather than the slow oxidative type-one fibers. Ken mentions an interesting 2013 paper from a German and Italian research team that reported EMS produces an increase in the size of the fast-type fibers in aging humans. In particular, the researchers reported a 4% increase in the percentage of the faster fiber type after 24 sessions spread across nine weeks. Ken asks Brian for his thoughts on this. 56:05: Dawn mentions that the ideal protocol for EMS for sarcopenia should focus on an increase in muscle strength, and then improvement in type-two muscle fibers with respect to diameter and percentage. Dawn ask Brian which frequencies are best for type-two fibers with the aging population. 57:23: Because human space flight is very much like accelerated aging, Brian talks about the huge potential of EMS with respect to long-duration human space flight, and gives an overview of the work that the European Space Agency is doing in this area. 59:31: Brian talks about the use of muscle stimulation to elicit a cardiovascular exercise effect, particularly for spinal cord injured patients. 1:02:14: Dawn points out the Brian has managed to develop a protocol that elicits an aerobic exercise effect in simulating shivering, and asks Brian how comfortable that is. Brian talks about how it’s not comfortable at all. 1:03:09: Brian expands on work he’s doing to overcome the comfort issues by describing how he worked with a company to develop a multi-path approach to delivering current into the body, which essentially means using non-standard pathways for current flow that are shared between arrays of very large electrodes rather than single pairs of electrodes over individual muscles. 1:04:15: Brian talks about using the application with different populations that range from elite athletes to various clinical populations. These populations include people with type-two diabetes; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; sedentary adults; the elderly; and people with spinal-cord injuries. 1:06:42: Dawns asks Ken if he still uses EMS and what tips he has for STEM-Talk listeners. Ken talks about how the new PowerDot system is useful on long-duration flights, but that it can cause unwanted attention from seatmates and the flight crew. Ken and Brian describe incidents that happened to them on flights. 1:09:32: Dawns asks Brian to explain arthrogenic muscle inhibition and the conditions under which it typically occurs. 1:12:51: Ken asks Brian to follow up on his answer by describing an athlete who might show up at Brian’s office with chronic interior knee pain and demonstrates inhibition of the quad complex, specifically VMO, and also shows some associated atrophy. Ken wonders what role EMS could play, and what specific order of treatments Brian might try on such a patient. 1:16:00: Dawn mentions that University College Dublin honored Brian with its 2017 Innovation Award. Brian talks about how wonderful it was that his family was there for the presentation. 1:17:37: Brian talks about how much he enjoys running and that there’s nothing he loves more than being up in the Wicklow Mountains running. 1:18:53: Interview ends.

Investigative journalist Nina Teicholz joined Ken and Dawn remotely from a studio in New York City in mid-September for a fascinating discussion about the history and pitfalls of nutrition science. Teicholz is the author of the international bestseller, “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet.” The Economist named it the number one science book of 2014 and the Journal of Clinical Nutrition wrote, “This book should be read by every scientist and every nutritional science professional.” Nina began her journalism career as a reporter for National Public Radio. She went on to write for many publications, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, The New Yorker, and The Economist. She attended Yale University and Stanford University where she studied biology and majored in American Studies. She has a master’s degree from Oxford University and served as associate director of the Center for Globalization and Sustainable Development at Columbia University. “The Big Fat Surprise” is credited with upending the conventional wisdom on dietary fat. It challenged the very core of America’s nutrition policy by explaining the politics, personalities, and history of how we came to believe that dietary fat is bad for health.  Her book was the first mainstream publication to make the full argument for why saturated fats – the kind found in dairy, meat and eggs – belong in a healthy diet. The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Mother Jones, the Library Journal and Kirkus Review named “The Big Fat Surprise” one of the best books of 2014. The Economist described Nina’s book as a “nutrition thriller.” Links: — Nina Teicholz blog — Amazon: “Big Fat Surprise” http://amzn.to/2iQemXc — BMJ: “The scientific report guiding the US dietary guidelines: is it scientific?” — “A Review of the Dietary Guidelines by the National Academy of Medicine” — STEM-Talk with Gary Taubes — “Statistical Review of US Macronutrient Consumption date, 1965-2011” — “What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?” Show notes: 4:10: Interview begins with Nina talking about how her father, an engineer who also enjoyed computer science, sparked her interest in science. 5:41: Dawn asks Nina if she would share the story about her failed fruit-fly experiment in high school. 8:07: Nina talks about how an assignment to do a story on trans fats led her to become friends with journalist Gary Taubes, the author of “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” whom Dawn and Ken interviewed on episode 37 of STEM-Talk. 11:40: Dawn talks about an article Nina wrote for Men’s Health Magazine titled, “What If Bad Fat Is Actually Good for You?” It’s the article where Nina first laid out her case that saturated fats may not be bad for people’s health and might actually be good for people. Dawn asks Nina if she got pushback on that article. 14:07: Dawn asks about a paper Nina published in BMJ titled, “The Scientific Report Guiding the US Dietary Guidelines: Is It Scientific?”  Dawn asks Nina to describe what happened when 180 scientists wrote a letter asking BMJ to retract the paper. 19:52: Dawn comments about how the pushback to the article seemed to violate the very process that science is supposed to follow. 21:30: Ken comments about the orchestrated effort to make Nina look bad, which leads Nina to highlight the support she received from BMJ and its editor Fiona Godlee. 22:55: Nina talks about the difficulty a journalist faces when challenging the work of scientists from institutions like Harvard and Yale. 24:16: Ken mentions how we’re seeing more and more dogma dressed up as science, which that leads to a discussion between Ken, Dawn and Nina about the shortcomings of nutrition science. 30:32: Dawn comments that Nina has been quoted as saying that institutionalized science is an oxymoron, and once institutions started adopting the principle that saturated fat caused heart disease, the scientists who knew better were silenced. Dawn asks Nina to expand on this. 35:42: STEM-Talk blurb. 36:12: Nina talks about a review of the dietary guidelines by the National Academy of Medicine that came out just the day before her interview with Ken and Dawn in September. The report concluded that the scientific rigor used for the dietary guidelines was not up to par. 39:05: With a population that is genetically and environmentally diverse, and in the current age of information where individuals can increasingly access data to personalize their own approach to health, Ken asks Nina if there is still an important role for a standardized set of national dietary guidelines? 40:52: Ken comments that he doesn’t really want the government telling him what to eat or what color to paint his house, and Nina responds that at the very least the government should stop making Americans fat and sick. 41:47: Nina comments that we don’t really know what kind of diet is optimal for the longest life, which leads to a discussion about the zealotry of dietary activists. 43:46: Dawn references a 2015 a paper titled, “Statistical Review of US Macronutrient Consumption Data, 1965–2011: Americans Have Been Following Dietary Guidelines, Coincident With the Rise in Obesity.” The paper was based partly on Nina’s work, and Dawn asks Nina how the study come about. 45:11: The title of the paper suggested that there was a connection between the dietary guidelines and obesity rates, and a back-and-forth conversation ensues between Ken, Nina and Dawn about whether it is possible to determine that. 48:11: Ken comments that the study found the total amount of fat in the diet did not significantly decrease between 1971 and 2011, but the percentage of fat decreased due to an increase in total carbohydrates, as well as total calories. Ken asks Nina if she thinks we can differentiate an effect of the carbohydrates in the diet from this data, or could the problem just be total calories? 49:62: Ken agrees with Nina on the benefits of a low-carb diet and points out that the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data used in the 2015 study have been questioned by many researchers, with some saying that the majority of participants under-reported many hundreds of calories per day. And since we don’t know what was in those missing calories, Ken wonders if we still can make inferences between population macronutrient intake and overall health? 51:07: Dawn asks Nina about Dr. Tim Noakes of South Africa, who faced a hearing in front of the Health Professions Council of South Africa after a complaint filed by the Association for Dietetics in South Africa. The organization reported Noakes for advising a mother on Twitter that she wean her child onto low-carb, high-fat foods, which Noakes described as real food. 56:04: Ken asks Nina about hecklers at conferences, social media trolling, and all manner of other bullying that is aimed at her and people like Tim Noakes. 57:09: Ken comments there seems to be an unhealthy and largely opaque intersection of money, industry influence, government grants, politics, and national nutrition policy.  Ken asks, “How and why did this happen?” 59:50: Dawn comments that when the low-fat diet was officially recommended to the American public in 1961, just one in seven Americans were obese. Today, it’s one in three. It’s interesting that we started the low-fat initiative in an effort to reduce heart disease. But 40 years later, heart disease remains the leading cause of death for both men and women. Dawn asks Nina if she see any signs that the American Heart Association will revisit their recommendations? 1:02:17: Ken observes that the American Diabetes Association also seems to provide poor dietary advice. He points out that a pundit once observed that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is an organization that is neither science, nor in the public interest. 1:05:19: In speaking of a post-factual world driven by unsupported assertions and appeals to emotion, Dawn asks Nina to talk about the documentary, “What the Health.” 1:10:19: Dawn mentions how we’re seeing so many children becoming obese early in life and wonders if it could be a blend between epigenetic effects from previous generations and current food options. Dawn asks Nina if she thinks we are digging ourselves into a hole that will be tough to get out of healthwise as a population? 1:13:29: As we learn more about the gut microbiome, and how it plays a substantial role in our overall health and cognitive state, Dawn asks Nina for her thoughts about how the gut microbiome is impacted when people shift toward a low-fat diet. 1:15:14: Ken tells Nina that Gary Taubes suggested that Ken ask her about her experience spending two weeks with the Inuit in Greenland. 1:18:27: Taubes also suggested that Ken and Dawn ask Nina about the fish oil industry and how it has impacted fisheries worldwide as well as the food chain. 1:19:60: Nina talks about how there is no evidence that people should consume omega three fatty acids for good health. 1:20:59: Ken mentions reports he has seen about omega 3 to omega 6 ratios having a relationship with inflammation levels.  Nina discusses the research she has done on the issue. 1:23:33: Ken talks about how giving up animal fats for cooking and shifting to vegetable oils has had a negative effect on people’s health. Nina agrees and discusses the shift and its consequences. 1:26:10: Dawn wonders how a busy person like Nina manages to keep up with the chores of life, and asks Nina how she manages to fit in good habits such as exercise and sleep. 1:28:09: Ken and Dawn thank Nina for appearing on STEM-Talk.

Today’s episode features field biologist Roger Smith, the founder and chair of the Teton Raptor Center, a rehabilitation facility in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, that annually cares for more than 130 injured birds. Roger and his wife, Margaret Creel, who also is a field biologist, established the Teton Raptor Center in 1997 as a facility committed to rehabilitating birds of prey. Both Ken and Dawn have visited the center, which has an education outreach program that reached nearly 37,000 people in 2016. “For our listeners who have never been to the Teton Raptor Center, I can honestly say that a visit to the center and the Grand Teton National Park would be well worth your time,” says Ken at the end of episode 51. Roger has spent his entire professional career in the natural sciences and environmental education. After high school, he headed off to the University of Montana and started his life as a field biologist researching grizzly bears in northwestern Montana in 1977. He continued to study grizzly and black bears in Alaska, Maine and Colorado before completing his secondary science degree in 1984. After teaching high school science in Montana, he moved to Jackson Hole in 1985 and joined the resident faculty at the Teton Science School. At the school, he designed and implemented a field-oriented natural science curriculum for adults and children. In 1987, he joined the field staff at the National Outdoor Leadership School and led courses in Wyoming, Texas, Mexico and Kenya. In 1994, Roger completed his Master’s degree in Wildlife Biology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming. Roger’s research has focused on raptors and ravens of the Grand Teton National Park. His research and papers have been published in a number of peer-reviewed professional journals. In 1994, he helped initiate and manage the professional residency in environmental education program at the Teton Science School, and was on the faculty there until 1999. He managed all aspects of independent research, including grant and proposal writing. Roger founded the Teton Raptor Center in 1996 and became the Resident Naturalist at 3Creek Ranch in 2002. Links: Teton Raptor Center: http://tetonraptorcenter.org Raptor Center video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdTB9hcF02k Roger’s IHMC Ocala lecture: http://www.ihmc.us/lectures/20170308/ Show Notes: 4:26: Ken and Dawn welcome Roger to the show. 4:40: Dawn asks Roger where he grew up and what kind of childhood he had. 6:56: Dawn discusses how Roger went to the University of Montana to study wildlife biology and as a freshman volunteered for a grizzly bear project, where he spent time in the wild analyzing grizzly bear scat. 8:54: Ken recalls a story Roger told him about him working on a black-bear project in 1979, which involved trapping and tagging bears in northern Maine. Ken comments on how this was an interesting time to be in the Maine woods as a young person. Ken then asks Roger if there are any adventures he would like to share from his time in northern Maine. 12:46: Ken comments on how bears are also found in the Tetons and throughout the Yellowstone ecosystem. He discusses how we often see warning signs posted to alert hikers and campers in areas where bears have been active. Ken then asks Roger if we have seen changes in activity in recent times, and if so, what drives those changes. 15:15: Ken discusses how he read a story about a grizzly bear breaking into someone’s garage to eat an elk carcass. 16:22: Dawn says that the grizzly bear is a reclusive animal and asks Roger what we know about its lifecycle. 18:07: Dawn comments that bears are opportunistic omnivores, eating a lot of berries and plants. She then asks Roger to discuss a grizzly’s diet. 20:18: Ken asks Roger to discuss bear hibernation and how it is different than other hibernators. 24:43: Ken discusses his amazement with the management of waste and kidney function, with respect to hibernation. 25:56: Ken discusses how both he and Dawn were at a meeting looking at hibernators, with respect to clues and ideas that may facilitate long duration human spaceflight. 27:31: Dawn comments on how she read that grizzlies can deposit as much as three and a half pounds of fat per day while preparing for hibernation. She then asks Roger what we know about hibernation preparation and physical adaptation in bears. 30:08: Ken asks if the bears came out this past winter when it was particularly cold. 30:34: Dawn asks what changes help bears transition back into normal activity after hibernation. 32:15: Dawn discusses how grizzlies are considered to be keystone predators and asks Roger to explain what this means and what their impact is on the surrounding ecology. 35:22: Ken comments that grizzly bears have recently become more common on the arctic islands and that we have seen grizzly bear-polar bear hybrids. He then asks Roger if we are seeing a breakdown of the species barrier here. 36:58: Dawn asks Roger to talk about how he became an avid bird watcher while he was capturing bears. 39:03: Dawn asks Roger what skills he finds necessary to be a successful field scientist. 42:07: Ken asks Roger if it seems like we have a good supply of future field scientists in the pipeline. 43:38: Ken comments that when the potential scientists find out they cannot charge their smart phones in the wild, it may cause some atrophy in the population. 44:45: STEM-TALK BLURB 45:12: Dawn asks Roger why someone decides to become a wildlife scientist. 47:46: Dawn mentions that after Roger took a few years off from school, he went back to the University of Montana to get a secondary science teaching degree. She then asks Roger what motivated him to become a teacher. 49:46: Dawn asks Roger to discuss his experience in 1985 at the Teton Science School in Teton National Park. 52:01: Ken talks about Roger’s time working with the National Outdoor Leadership School. He asks Roger what NOLS like then and what it’s like now. 53:45: Dawn asks what it was like for Roger to spend a year in Kenya teaching outdoor skills, and why Kenya. 58:10: Dawn says that when Roger came back to the States, he began working at Grand Teton National Park studying falcons. She then asks if this is how the next phase of his career started. 1:00:48: Ken mentions that Roger’s experience studying falcons led him to the graduate program at the University of Wyoming and its school of zoology and physiology. Ken asks Roger what then happened at school to lead him to focus on raptors. 1:03:44: Dawn asks Roger what a raptor exactly is. 1:07:34: Ken asks Roger what the role of raptors is generally in the greater ecosystem. 1:09:19: Dawn asks Roger what the typical lifestyle of a bird of prey is. 1:11:10: Dawn asks Roger what we know about their evolutionary history. 1:13:50: Ken says that birds are remarkably smart, even though their brains are incredibly small. He then asks Roger if he has spent any time observing ravens. 1:15:52: Dawn asks Roger to discuss raptors’ keen eyesight and other adaptations that they show. 1:17:38: Ken comments that raptors can live for a while without eating and asks Roger if we know how they do this. 1:20:06: Ken says it’s interesting how animals have evolved clever mechanisms to deal without food. 1:20:25: Dawn asks what we are seeing in respect to bioaccumulation in these species and if there are specific chemicals or contaminants that are a specific concern. 1:23:02: Dawn asks Roger to discuss an injured owl his colleague found in the woods, which ended up giving Roger the idea of spending more time  rehabilitating injured birds. 1:23:42: Dawn discusses how Roger finished his thesis in 1994 and went back to the Teton Science School to help run the graduate program. At this time Roger began bringing injured birds home to live in his house. 1:24:21: Ken asks Roger if it is true that after about ten years of birds in the house, his wife said enough, and this was the start of the Teton Raptor Center. 1:25:51: Ken asks Roger to discuss his role in Three Creek. 1:27:24: Dawn says that Roger is heavily involved with raptor rehabilitation at the Teton Raptor Center. She then asks Roger how often he is treating animals and what kind of injuries he sees. 1:28:21: Dawn asks Roger to walk through what it takes to rehabilitate an animal prior to their return to the wild. 1:29:40: Dawn asks Roger what kind of raptor research studies he is involved in. 1:32:06: Ken asks Roger where new technology and engineering has influenced raptor research. 1:32:38: Ken asks Roger where the future of raptor research may be headed. 1:33:16: Ken asks Roger to talk about what comprises the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. 1:34:45: Dawn asks Roger what he likes to do in his free time. 1:35:40: Dawn and Ken thank Roger for appearing on STEM-Talk.