In this episode of Science From the Fringe, Bryce Nickels speaks with acclaimed science writer and best-selling author, Matt Ridley. Topics include who is “winning” the debate over COVID-19’s origins, the state of modern science, the ethics of de-extinction efforts, and the fascinating premise of Ridley’s latest book, Birds, Sex and Beauty.

Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber.

The conversation begins with Ridley’s perspective on the origins of COVID-19, where he argues that a lab leak in Wuhan remains the most plausible explanation. He cites the institutional bias, centralized funding, and fear of reputational harm inherent to academic science as barriers to legitimate inquiry. Ridley contrasts science as an institution, which he views as increasingly corrupt and conformist, with science as a philosophy, which thrives on skepticism and decentralized exploration. He calls for reforms that would empower independent thinkers and “maverick ideas” rather than enforcing consensus through funding monopolies.

The conversation then turns to de-extinction efforts, particularly those led by Colossal Biosciences. Ridley argues for the revival of extinct species such as the great auk and woolly mammoth, stating that humanity has a moral responsibility to restore what it has destroyed. This leads to a deeper discussion with Bryce about the ethical complexities of animal suffering, genetic experimentation, and the potential erosion of public trust following the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the third and final segment, Ridley outlines the premise of his new book, Birds, Sex and Beauty. Bryce and Matt discuss Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, female mate choice, and the evolution of beauty in birds — from the peacock’s tail to the bowerbird’s colorful displays. Ridley explains how these traits reflect aesthetic preference rather than pure survival advantage and draws intriguing parallels to human evolution, elevating the importance of sexual selection — vs. Darwin’s theory of natural selection, a.k.a. “survival of the fittest” — in how creativity, humor, and intelligence may have been shaped in humans.

As a unifying concept, Ridley emphasizes the importance of honesty in science as a foundation for restoring public trust. He cautions against “just-so stories” in evolutionary biology — narratives that sound plausible but lack testable evidence — and urges scientists to embrace uncertainty and intellectual humility.

Timestamps

00:31 – Introducing Matt Ridley02:50 – Lab leak theory gaining public traction despite resistance from scientific elites03:49 – Comparison of a lab accident to industrial disasters; the moral duty to investigate05:10 – Preference for natural origin but insistence on scientific honesty and transparency07:15 – Analogy to plane crashes: avoiding investigation to protect reputations is unacceptable09:23 – Distinguishing science as a philosophy of inquiry vs. a corrupted institution10:55 – How decentralized science historically fostered breakthroughs and dissent12:16 – Warning against scientific monopolies and parallels to Lysenkoism17:38 – Discussion of censorship and stigma surrounding lab leak proponents19:29 – Attacks on Ridley’s climate reporting used to discredit his COVID origins work26:25 – Introduction to de-extinction and Ridley’s involvement with Revive and Restore32:09 – Balancing hype and credibility in Colossal’s projects35:16 – Ethical issues in genetic experimentation and animal welfare42:52 – Darwin’s struggle with sexual selection and aesthetic beauty45:25 – Female choice and the “sexy sons” hypothesis47:27 – Bowerbirds’ artistic displays as evidence of aesthetic evolution50:42 – Why most birds lost penises: female control and evolutionary trade-offs53:06 – “Just-so stories” and the limits of evolutionary storytelling56:23 – Human parallels: sexual selection and the evolution of art, humor, and intelligence

intro and outro by Tess Parks

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, Bryce Nickels talks with Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter, Lewis Kamb, of public health research group, U.S. Right to Know.

Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Kamb discusses his investigative reporting—from exposing Boeing’s 737 MAX failures at The Seattle Times to serving as NBC News’ first national FOIA reporter. He explains how the Freedom of Information Act—“the people’s subpoena”— has been used to expose the secrets of some of our country’s most powerful institutions.

Kamb’s recent investigative work on COVID-19 origins includes uncovering a classified 2020 Defense Intelligence Agency analysis suggesting SARS-CoV-2 could have originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well unearthing several NIH emails from 2016 that show semantic side-stepping of gain-of-function classification in order to approve EcoHealth’s chimeric virus experiments.

The conversation concludes with thought-provoking discussion of the pitfalls of FOIA and whether the process, in practice, lives up to the intent.

Timestamps00:00:37 – Introduction of Lewis Kamb.00:01:12 – Kamb discusses the Boeing 737 MAX investigation.00:03:11 – Nickels asks about Kamb’s FOIA expertise.00:03:41 – Kamb explains FOIA as the “people’s subpoena.”00:05:58 – Tips for effective FOIA requests.00:06:29 – Overview of U.S. Right to Know.00:08:39 – Kamb on USRTK’s FOIA litigation strategy.00:10:07 – FOIA delays and agency differences.00:15:10 – Transparency promises left unfulfilled.00:19:01 – Shift to COVID origins and the DIA report.00:20:14 – DIA’s early lab-origin assessment.00:28:21 – 2014 gain-of-function moratorium.00:30:37 – NIH deliberations on EcoHealth proposal.00:33:10 – Links to pandemic origins.00:36:43 – NIH oversight vs. FAA-Boeing failures.00:39:29 – Daszak’s “typo” in progress report.00:42:17 – Discussion of the DEFUSE proposal.00:45:00 – NIH’s delayed moratorium defense.00:50:55 – Future investigations into labs and intelligence agencies.00:52:03 – FOIA’s flaws and need for reform.00:58:04 – Closing remarks.

intro and outro music by Tess Parks

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, Bryce Nickels interviews Roger Pielke Jr., Professor Emeritus from the University of Colorado Boulder and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Pielke is a political scientist specializing in science and technology policy, with a focus on climate, energy, and the politicization of science.

The conversation explores Pielke’s academic journey, the creation of his Substack The Honest Broker, and the challenges he faced with academic marginalization at the University of Colorado. They also draw parallels between weather modification/geoengineering and gain-of-function virology research, emphasizing the need for transparency, risk awareness, and international regulation. Additional themes include congressional testimonies, the politics of scientific publishing, cancel culture in academia, and the importance of honest brokering at the intersection of science and policy.

Timestamps

00:00:31 - 00:01:13: Introducing Roger Pielke Jr.

00:01:14 - 00:05:45: Roger explains the name “The Honest Broker”

00:05:45 - 00:13:16: Academic career and his role in the climate debate.

00:13:16 - 00:17:16: Roger discusses the sports governance center he started.

00:17:16 - 00:21:47: Decision to leave academia.

00:21:47 - 00:26:06: How he was marginalized at University of Colorado

00:26:06 - 00:30:33: Do universities elevate mediocrity?

00:30:33 - 00:33:22: Cultural clash in policy research at Colorado.

00:33:22 - 00:39:05: Recent congressional hearing on weather modification and geoengineering

00:39:05 - 00:43:31: Chemtrails conspiracy and government transparency issues.

00:43:31 - 00:52:57: Parallels between geoengineering and gain-of-function virology.

00:52:57 - 01:09:58: Journals, peer review, hearings, and closing remarks.

intro and outro music by Tess Parks

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, Bryce Nickels speaks with biotech pioneer Kevin McKernan, tracing his career from the Human Genome Project and DNA sequencing innovations (via companies like Agencourt, acquired by Beckman and ABI) to “fringe” pursuits like sequencing cannabis and psilocybin genomes for their therapeutic potential.

Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Kevin discusses his early work building genomic tools, before turning to the controversies that have defined his recent research.

McKernan explains why the misuse of PCR tests during COVID (“PCR-gate”) created misleading data about the spread of the virus, how he uncovered plasmid DNA contamination in mRNA vaccine vials—including SV40 sequences that were never disclosed to regulators—and what it all means. Bryce and Kevin also discuss the broader implications of faulty vaccine production: the unacknowledged regulatory failures, conflicts of interest, weaponized retraction campaigns against whistle blowers, and the personal cost of challenging the profit-driven scientific status quo.

Beyond vaccines, McKernan speaks to overlooked biosafety risks in labs and offers a nuanced take on mRNA as a platform—useful in some contexts but warped by subsidies and liability shields.

The conversation is both deeply technical and unflinchingly candid and delves into how competing incentives in biotech impact trust, safety, and accountability in science.

In his first interview since returning from a 10-month hiatus, Bryce Nickels of Science From the Fringe, speaks with Michael Nevradakis, senior reporter at the Defender, Children’s Health Defense’s online news platform.

Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

From his home in Greece, Nevradakis recounts his early doubts in March 2020 about Anthony Fauci and the emerging COVID-19 policies. Spotting parallels to the manipulative tactics he saw during Greece’s financial crisis, he accurately predicted extended lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and the rise of digital identification. Nevradakis also discusses Senator Rand Paul’s scrutiny of Fauci’s communications, the Fauci-backed “Proximal Origin” paper which pushed a natural spillover theory despite virologists’ private skepticism, and damning emails revealing Fauci’s orders to delete official government communications—which could amount to criminal offenses such as perjury and violations of The Federal Records Act.

Nevradakis also discusses his recent article on the surprising appointment of a dangerous gain-of-function advocate as the new acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The conversation ends with sobering thoughts on holding public health leaders accountable, whether the will exists to follow through on the former, and a preview of Nevradakis’s upcoming reports on these developing stories.

Timestamps

00:00:32 - 00:01:08: Introduction to Michael Nevradakis

00:01:09 - 00:05:17: Transition from PhD lecturer to journalist

00:06:09 - 00:12:36: Early skepticism toward Anthony Fauci and COVID measures

00:13:37 - 00:15:44: Discussion of Senator Rand Paul’s probe into Fauci’s communications and COVID origins

00:15:52 - 00:18:10: The Proximal Origin paper and Fauci’s influence

00:20:02 - 00:23:39: Biden’s preemptive pardon for Fauci

00:25:50 - 00:27:23: Fauci’s instructions to colleagues to destroy public records

00:29:39 - 00:34:32: Should Fauci be held accountable?

00:34:32 - 00:40:48: Concerns over the appointment of a proponent of dangerous gain-of-function research as acting director of NIAID

00:40:52 - 00:43:39: Closing thoughts

features music by Tess Parks

Bryce Nickels speaks with Sigrid Bratlie, a molecular biologist and strategic advisor on biotechnology for the Norwegian think tank, Langsikt, who has become a prominent voice in Norway in the debate surrounding the origins of COVID-19. Sigrid describes her involvement in the COVID origins discussion, and the conflicts that arose with established virologists. The conversation covers scientific integrity, the intersection of science and politics, the challenges of communicating complex scientific issues to the public, and the implications of emerging technologies like AI.

features music by Tess Parks

Bryce Nickels interviews Lee Jussim, a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University, about cancel culture in academia, the pressure to conform to political views, and the negative effects of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They discuss Lee's research measuring political extremism in academia as well as his recent analysis of the impact of DEI rhetoric on perceptions of racism. Bryce and Lee also discuss the challenges posed by the lack of political diversity in academic settings.

features music by Tess Parks

Bryce Nickels and Kevin Bass critically evaluate the accuracy of statements made in Zeynep Tufekci's New York Times Op-Ed, "Trump’s Pick to Lead the NIH Gets Some Things Right."

Summary: On November 27, 2024, Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya was nominated as the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). That same day, Zeynep Tufekci published an Op-Ed in the New York Times, listing four criticisms of Bhattacharya’s COVID-19 positions under the heading, "Here’s some of what Bhattacharya got wrong about Covid-19."In "Can I Respond To That Please? (episode 4),” Bryce Nickels and Kevin Bass carefully dissect Tufekci’s claims, exposing them as both factually inaccurate and intentionally misleading.

They also delve into how Tufekci's Op-Ed reflects a larger problem in the media: journalists eroding public trust in health communication by spreading falsehoods or misrepresenting the views of scientists who challenge mainstream narratives. The conversation underscores the urgent need for accountability in media and ethical reporting on scientific matters to restore public confidence in health communication.

recorded November 29, 2024

features music by Tess Parks

Professor Jay Bhattacharya and filmmaker Vanessa Dylyn discuss her new film Covid Collateral, an investigative documentary about the societal harms caused by the severe lockdowns imposed by western governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The film explores the devastating impact of the censorship of science in a free society.

features music by Tess Parks

Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya and Rutgers Professor Bryce Nickels respond to scientists that attack members of the public who voice concerns about research conducted in high-containment biolabs in their communities. They highlight this issue through the responses of scientists to community organizers Klare X. Allen and Lorraine Fowlkes from the Roxbury Safety Net.

In 2000, Klare founded the Roxbury Safety Net as a movement of people of color who have been excluded from decision-making processes that impact their safety, quality of life, and environment. For over 20 years, the Roxbury Safety Net has promoted environmental justice and community control over development of the Roxbury neighborhood in Boston, MA. In 2002, the Roxbury Safety Net discovered Boston University’s plans to build a BSL-4 lab (later named the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, NEIDL) in the Roxbury/South End neighborhood. Alarmed by the threat posed to the community, the Safety Net immediately began a campaign to Stop the BU Bio Terror Lab. Since then, Stop the BU Bio Terror Lab has operated as a coalition of community residents, scientists, lawyers, students, members of peace and justice groups, and members of the faith community united in opposition to dangerous research being performed at the NEIDL. Members have made numerous visits to City Councilors, hosted countless meetings, organized dozens of protests, spoken at city, state and federal hearings, submitted public comment, and initiated both state and federal lawsuits. These efforts persuaded the city of Boston to implement the strictest local regulations on biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management in any city in the United States.

recorded October 28, 2024

0:00 - 0:30: Intro Tess Parks

0:30 - 2:25: Welcome and introduction

2:25 - 4:00: Jay discusses the lack of public consent for high-risk research and the public's right to have a say in the research conducted in their communities.

4:00 - 15:30: Jay and Bryce discuss why high-containment biolabs are often located in large cities. Bryce introduces Klare X. Allen and the Roxbury Safety Net.

15:30 - 19:40: Klare X. Allen recounts how she first learned about Boston University's plan to build the NEIDL in 2002 and describes the disrespectful treatment of Roxbury community members.

19:40 - 25:35: Jay and Bryce reflect on Klare's comments.

25:35 - 26:25: Lorraine Fowlkes of the Roxbury Safety Net speaks at a City Council meeting in San Carlos, CA (March 2023).

26:25 - 1:10:20: Bryce and Jay discuss reactions from scientists to Lorraine’s comments after they were posted on X.

1:10:20 - 1:24:40: Bryce and Jay explore the need for reforms in science to change the culture that perceives the public as adversaries.

1:24:40 - 1:26:40: Sign-off

1:26:40 - 1:27:26: Outro Tess Parks

Click here to learn more about Klare X. Allen and the Roxbury Safety Net

Click here to view the post on X with Lorraine Fowlkes comments that prompted attacks from scientists.

Timeline: National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL)

* September 2003: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases awarded Boston University $128 million to construct one of two National Biocontainment Laboratories.

* February 2006: The federal government announced its decision to fund the laboratory’s construction, which began in March of that same year.

* Fall 2008: Construction of the NEIDL is completed.

* December 2011: The BU laboratory was granted preliminary approval by The State Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs grants approval for BSL-2 research at the NIEDL.

* April 2012: BSL-2 work begins at the NIEDL.

* January 2013: The National Institutes of Health concludes that Boston University’s high-containment laboratory “poses minimal risk to the community surrounding the facility,” clearing the way for a final state environmental review.

* March 2013: The state secretary of environmental affairs approves Boston University's environmental impact report.

* January 2014: BSL-3 work begins at the NIEDL.

* May 2014: Boston City Council The Boston City Council voted 8-5 to reject a proposed ordinance banning BSL-4 labs.

* December 2016: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention approved Boston University to operate a BSL-4 laboratory.

* August 2018: The NEIDL begins work with its first Level-4 pathogens, the Ebola and Marburg viruses.

* October 2022: Researchers at the NEIDL ignite controversy by announcing they have performed SARS-CoV-2 gain of function experiments.

Articles about biolabs in San Carlos, CA:

* San Carlos moves to regulate biohazards (March 8, 2023)

* San Carlos Bans High-Risk Bio Labs in the City – A Win for the Safety of the Residents (June 6, 2023)