'll be honest with you — when I first stumbled across Rachel Armstrong's papers, I genuinely thought I had the wrong person. The work was filed under architecture, but it was talking about chemistry, microbes, the origins of life, and the philosophy of matter.

Rachel Armstrong is a professor at KU Leuven's Faculty of Architecture, but she trained as a medical doctor at Oxford and Cambridge, spent time working in a leprosy colony in India, accidentally ended up in an artist's kitchen in London looking at sculptures made from frozen urine in the snow, and somehow arrived at one of the most fascinating and urgent ideas I've come across in a long time: that the way we build our cities and homes is based on a fundamentally broken relationship with matter itself. We get into what it would look like to build homes that behave more like coral reefs than concrete boxes, microbial fuel cells, living bricks, why a project to save Venice using self-mineralising chemical droplets might be the most poetic engineering proposal I've ever heard, and why Rachel is taking these ideas to communities in Uganda rather than waiting for Silicon Valley to catch up.

This one genuinely shifted something in the way I think about buildings, biology, and what science is even supposed to be doing right now. I hope it does the same for you

Takeaways:

• The episode features Dr. Rachel Armstrong, an architect with a medical background, who discusses her unique journey.
• Dr. Armstrong emphasizes the importance of questioning established norms with the phrase 'What if?' to inspire innovation.
• She explores the idea that matter is not inert but rather dynamic and responsive to its environment.
• The conversation highlights the potential for architecture to evolve by integrating biological principles into design.

• Life, Mind and Matter: Chemistry for an Ecological Era
• Monstrous Matter: The Microbial Foundations for a Living Planet
• Biodesign for a culture of life: Of microbes, ethics, and design
• How do the origins of life sciences influence 21st century design thinking?
• Rachel Armstrong — Faculty of Architecture

This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

When you hear the word "science," what do you feel? Bored? Intimidated? In awe? Suspicious? Turns out, that gut reaction matters more than you think — and it might be the key to understanding why science communication so often fails, and why grifters and pseudoscientists are so successful.

In this episode I sat down with Daniel Silva Luna, a science communication researcher from Colombia, now based in Germany, whose work focuses on one of the most overlooked forces in how we understand science: emotion. Not just feelings like crying at a nature documentary (though, no shame), but emotion as a navigation tool — the internal compass that shapes what information you trust, what stories you believe, and who you think "science" is even for.

We got into some big questions that don't get asked enough. What is science to people who didn't study it? Why do anti-science populist movements communicate so effectively while scientists struggle to be heard? How do tech billionaires like Elon Musk wrap themselves in the legacy of real scientists to build authority — and what can legitimate science communicators learn from that? And why does science communication still feel like a club most people aren't invited to?

No lab coat required. Just curiosity.

1. Emotions don't distort our relationship with science — they mediate it. There's no emotion-free way to engage with information.
2. Anti-science movements work because they speak to real feelings of exclusion, distrust, and frustration. Debunking alone doesn't address any of that.
3. Science communication's emotional range is too narrow. Wonder and curiosity are great. But anger, sadness, fear, and frustration are also legitimate and powerful — and they're being left on the table.
4. Representation in science communication isn't just a fairness issue. It's a relevance issue.
5. Science communicators should think of their work as storytelling with a point of view, not just information transfer.

• Ed Yong: Science Writer
• Queering science communication: Representations, theory, and practice
• Lab coats in Hollywood: Science, scientists, and cinema - David A. Kirby
• Varieties of awe in science communication: Reflexive thematic analysis of practitioners’ experiences and uses of this emotion - Daniel Silva Luna
• Emotion in practice: The cultural work of emotion in science communication - Daniel Silva Luna

This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

Biology can be beautiful and disgusting all at once. This is why I loved studying biology and parasites, and why I am captivated by the story of screwworm.

Screwworm is a nasty parasite that is making a come back in North America and in this episode we'll dive into the story of screwworm and hear from Dr. Phillip Kaufman, Head of the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M. He breaks down how screwworm returned and why that's a major problem.

I love this story because it demonstrates the power of adaptation and how studying a parasite like screwworm through the lens of adaptation helps us find ways to fight back.

Takeaways:

1. The New World Screwworm's return exemplifies the intricate relationship between parasitism and adaptation in biological systems.
2. Understanding the ecological impact of the New World Screwworm is crucial for livestock management and prevention of economic losses.
3. The sterile insect technique has proven effective in controlling the screwworm population, highlighting innovative approaches to pest management.
4. The cooperation between countries is vital in managing the spread of pests and diseases, as exemplified by the efforts to eradicate the screwworm.
5. The complexities of insect life, particularly parasitic species, provide insights into the adaptability and resilience of organisms in various environments.
6. The return of the New World Screwworm serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining vigilance in ecological monitoring and research.
   • New World Screwworm Outbreak | New World Screwworm | CDC
   • COPEG – Comisión Panamá – Estados Unidos para la Erradicación y Prevención del Gusano Barrenador del Ganado
   • New World Screwworm: Rise, Fall and Resurgence
   • Phillip Kaufman - Department of Entomology - Texas A&M
   
   

   This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

   If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

   Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

In this episode, I'm joined science-communication researcher Miguel Vissers for a funny, honest, and wildly insightful look at how science actually reaches the public—and why it so often goes wrong. Check out the links below to see Miguel's work and check back for updates as one of the pieces of research we discuss will be available soon.

We start with the question, why science needs its own communication field and whether this is a unique case. We also cover Miguel's area of expertise and look at how press releases shape the news you see—sometimes a little too directly. The conversation also touches on lessons learned during the pandemic regarding transparency, trust, and mixed messaging. Why scientists, journalists, governments, and influencers all talk past each other. And finally… how Joe Rogan went from “gateway to science curiosity” to “uh oh.”

Takeaways:

• The podcast episode delves into the intricacies of science communication, particularly its role in bridging the gap between scientific research and public understanding.
• The challenges faced by scientists in conveying their findings effectively.
• The balance that science communicators must maintain between promoting scientific advancements and critically evaluating the implications of such research for society.
• The necessity of transparency in science communication, especially in light of the public's increasing skepticism towards scientific authorities and findings.

  This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

  If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

  Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

  • Surfing the COVID-19 news waves - Journal of Science Communication
  • Miguel Vissers on LinkedIn
  • BE Sci Comm - BE SciComm is a community of science communicators, bringing together researchers, journalists, press officers, communication officers, policy makers, designers, event organizers, students, and anyone interested in science communication.
  • About Miguel Vissers | University of Antwerp
  • It’s the science, stupid! by Miguel Vissers for Big Bang Magazine - A warning against scientism and a proposal for science communication focused more on scientific process(es) than scientific facts

Science isn’t just happening in labs in the U.S. or Europe — it’s a human story unfolding everywhere. In this episode, Brad talks with Dr. Patience Kiyuka, a Kenyan scientist and National Geographic Explorer, about what it really means to do science for and with the communities it serves. From fighting malaria to battling misinformation, Dr. Kiyuka shares how African scientists are changing global research — and why authentic communication matters as much as discovery itself.

If you think science is a cold, mechanical process, this conversation will change your mind.

• Nature: Africa needs to invest in science communication — here’s how
• KEMRI - Dr. Kiyuka
• Dr Patience Kiyuka | Engage and Inspire Today

This is the only link you need to subscribe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

Humor feels like a universal language—but can it really help people understand science? In this episode researchers Hauke Riesch and Bruno Pinto discuss the surprising limits of using jokes to teach science and what happens when scientists try to get laughs while explaining complex ideas. They discuss the psychology of humor, the risks of being “too funny,” and what it means for trust, emotion, and connection in science communication today. From stand-up scientists and late-night hosts to cultural differences in humor, they unpack what works, what doesn’t, and why communication is about more than just being funny.

Takeaways:

• The episode delves into the intersection of humor and science communication, exploring whether humor enhances retention of scientific information.
• Guests Hauke Reich and Bruno Pinto discuss their research on the impact of humor in popular science articles and its effects on audience engagement.
• The conversation highlights the subjective nature of humor, acknowledging that what is funny for one person may not resonate with another.
• The guests emphasize the need for more research on humor in international contexts to better understand its efficacy across different cultures.
• The discussion suggests that while humor may not always improve knowledge retention, it can enhance the enjoyment of scientific content, making it a valuable tool in communication.
• Ultimately, the episode underscores the importance of tailoring humor to the audience and context for effective science communication.

• Hauke Riesch
• Bruno Pinto
• Does Humor in Popular Science Magazine Articles Increase Information Retention and Receptiveness in Science Education?
• Are audiences receptive to humour in popular science articles? An exploratory study using articles on environmental issues

This is the only link you need to subscribe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

The discussion today centers on the pressing issue of science communication and the alarming erosion of public trust in scientific endeavors. Our guest, Alex Kirkpatrick, a distinguished scholar in science communication from Washington State University and Cornell Engineering, offers a novel perspective by examining the dynamics between scientists and the public, particularly through the lens of identity and perceived threat. We delve into the inadequacies of the prevalent knowledge deficit model, which assumes that simply imparting scientific knowledge will foster acceptance and trust. Kirkpatrick's research highlights how a scientist's strong identification with their profession can inadvertently lead to negative perceptions of non-scientists, consequently hindering effective communication. This episode promises to illuminate the intricate interplay between identity, communication, and trust in science, providing valuable insights for both scientists and communicators alike.

Takeaways:

• The podcast discusses the critical issue of trust in science and the communication breakdown between the scientific community and the public.
• Alex Kirkpatrick's research reveals how scientists' strong in-group identity impacts their perception of non-scientists as a deficient out-group.
• The knowledge deficit model in science communication assumes that simply providing more information will foster trust and understanding, which is fundamentally flawed.
• The study emphasizes the importance of perceived threat in shaping scientists' attitudes towards non-scientists and their communication strategies.

• Scientist versus nonscientist: identity, threat, derogation and agreement with the knowledge deficit hypothesis among STEM students in the US - In essence, the knowledge deficit hypothesis (KDH) of science communication assumes perceived deficiencies in public attitudes toward science can be addressed through nonscientists receiving more scientific information from experts. Despite counterevidence, the KDH is a popular assumption among scientists in the US and shapes science communication efforts. This study explores the role of identity and intergroup threat in shaping this assumption by surveying a sample of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) college students in the US.
• Alex Kirkpatrick - Cornell Engineering

This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

Is science political? Yes, and that's not an inherently a bad thing.

In this episode I try to unpack my thinking on why science is political and more specifically where and why political influences enter the picture. From here I explore how an understanding of these influences can improve scientific research and also ruminate on how this affects science communication aimed at two important audiences: politicians and we the people.

Science is a human endeavor and is subject to all the foibles of human behavior. It's also an amazing example of what humans are capable of. By understanding how it works and why we should care we can maximize the good it does.

• Scientists are building giant ‘evidence banks’ to create policies that actually work
• Why we need a body to oversee how science is used by governments
• Advising governments about science is essential but difficult. So train people to do it
• Science-policy advisers shape programmes that solve real-world problems
• Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries | Nature Human Behaviour
• Societal Preparedness Insights - Global Listening Project
• Vetting Scientific Sources - The Open Notebook
• Science could solve some of the world’s biggest problems. Why aren’t governments using it?
• Science’s big problem is a loss of influence, not a loss of trust

This is the only link you need to subscirbe and never miss an episode of Two Brad For You. Please do rate and review it really helps us out.

If you'd like to support the show with currency click here. We are grateful for that too. Finally, you can check out the website here.

Many thanks to Freak Motif for the music and Sebastian Abboud for the logo.

In this episode, we dive into the weird world of nanomaterials and their game-changing role in sustainable technology and space exploration.

My guest is Connor Boland, a researcher a Dublin City University. He breaks down how everyday substances like gypsum or pencil lead are transformed into high-tech nanostructures with applications for electronics, engineering, or space travel. He also explains how this can be down with minimal environmental impact. In some cases only requiring a kitchen blender. It's all part of his philosophy for doing cutting-edge science that’s not just innovative but does no harm for the planet.

From eco-friendly advancements to responsible research, we explore why sustainability should be at the core of scientific breakthroughs. Get ready to rethink what’s possible and discover how these futuristic materials could shape the world and space in ways you never imagined.

We broke the century mark and to celebrate we're revisiting the topic of mental health and social media. This time I turn the focus on myself and two good friends as we take a critical look at our own usage and how we feel it impacts our own mood and behavior, for better or worse. To add a professional and scientific element to the show we compare our habits to published research on the correlation between social media use, irritability, depression, anxiety and mental health.