Science From the Fringe

In this episode of Science from the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Dr. Meryl Nass—medical adviser to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., biological warfare expert, publisher of Meryl’s CHAOS letter, and founder of DoorToFreedom.org—about the urgent need to strengthen the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).The conversation examines the escalating risks posed by bioweapons research, and why the current political moment—with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Trump openly calling for an end to bioweapons development—may offer the strongest opportunity in decades to close the gaps in the Biological Weapons Convention.Dr. Nass recounts that President Nixon’s 1969–70 decision to renounce U.S. offensive bioweapons work led to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention—now joined by nearly 200 nations—but one deliberately drafted without verification, inspections, or penalties in order to secure rapid international agreement. She explains that in 2001 the Bush administration abruptly dismantled a nearly completed verification protocol, fracturing international trust and leaving the treaty effectively unenforceable.Dr. Nass further notes that, since 2001, the surge in biodefense and “pandemic preparedness” funding has actively encouraged dangerous gain-of-function research—and that this research enterprise has itself become a significant source of global public-safety risk.Still, she sees a historic opportunity to reduce this danger by finally fixing the BWC. President Trump’s May 2025 executive order restricting gain-of-function research, his September 23, 2025 UN speech urging all nations to end biological weapons development, and RFK Jr.’s continued focus on the issue at HHS together create an unprecedented chance to add the verification, inspection, and enforcement mechanisms the treaty has lacked for more than fifty years.The episode offers a stark warning: today’s gravest biological threat is not nature but dangerous gain-of-function research. Dr. Nass argues that this moment must be seized—before the next accident or deliberate release makes COVID-19 look modest by comparison.(Recorded November 24, 2025)Timestamps00:30 — Introduction of Dr. Meryl Nass02:37 — Discovering Pentagon-funded bioweapons work at UMass (1989)07:43 — Joining the Council for Responsible Genetics; early BWC history09:50 — Nixon’s renunciation and the intentional omission of verification11:49 — Failures of five-year review conferences; Bush’s 2001 sabotage14:10 — Context of the 2001 walkout: 9/11 and the anthrax attacks15:20 — Why the U.S. abruptly killed the verification protocol17:35 — Trump’s 2025 UN speech and executive order on GOF19:55 — The global boom in “pandemic preparedness” funding22:23 — USAID’s $44B budget and dangerous research abroad24:15 — Why narrow GOF definitions are misleading26:56 — The number of lab incidents that occur each year30:37 — Risks of basic research on natural Ebola-level pathogens31:24 — The 2018–19 Ebola vaccine rollout: unresolved issues35:06 — Rand Paul’s oversight bill vs. the broader Trump/RFK Jr. strategy36:03 — Financial incentives behind the global biodefense system40:45 — Rebuilding trust and addressing entrenched interests41:45 — The opportunity created by RFK Jr. at HHS46:22 — Concrete steps that signal real progress48:55 — AI, synthetic biology, and the future of bioweapons oversight52:33 — Why public understanding of biowarfare risks remains limited01:00:14 — Closing remarksintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels, speaks with David Zweig—a New York City–based journalist, author, and contributor to The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Free Press—about his new book, An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and the Story of Bad Decisions.Their conversation traces David’s motivation for writing the book, beginning with his early recognition of the devastating effects of remote learning on children during the COVID-19 pandemic. David explains how a mix of action bias, politicization, and institutional inertia led to catastrophic decisions on school closures and mitigation measures such as masking, distancing, and barriers.David critiques the reliance on flawed models, the role of teachers’ unions, and the class divides that deepened the harms, while highlighting how real-time evidence from Europe and elsewhere was ignored. The discussion also explores the erosion of public trust, the suppression of dissent, and the moral grandstanding that replaced evidence-based reasoning.At its core, this episode examines how “good” intentions and systemic dysfunction combined to produce policies that harmed children with little to no public health benefit, and what it will take to ensure more intellectually honest, transparent, and evidence-driven decision-making in future crises.(Recorded November 10, 2025)Timestamps00:31 — Introduction of David Zweig01:35 — Motivation for writing An Abundance of Caution05:12 — Blending personal anecdotes, data, and scientific rigor06:32 — Emotional reactions to the book and persuading skeptics10:56 — Zweig’s evolution on masking and other measures11:58 — The book as a scholarly record of COVID policy failures12:43 — Defining “lockdowns” and related interventions15:09 — Evidence behind interventions and debunking the “fog of war” defense17:34 — Decision-making biases and societal consequences19:04 — Action bias in public health and medicine21:40 — Lack of off-ramps and moral posturing23:45 — Suppression of dissent and personal backlash25:32 — Institutional inertia in prolonging ineffective policies26:56 — The “Red Dawn” emails and early pandemic decisions30:07 — C.S. Lewis on tyranny and moral sanctimony31:14 — Why non-experts sometimes outperformed professionals33:48 — The “laptop class” and unmodeled harms37:33 — Classism and the uneven impact of school closures39:57 — The “Swiss cheese” model as an admission of uncertainty42:27 — Harms to children and the inversion of priorities44:09 — Shifting definitions and moving goalposts47:35 — Media failures and socioeconomic bias49:49 — Parental pushback and excuses to delay reopening51:28 — Financial and political incentives behind closures54:52 — HEPA filters and other misplaced reopening conditions58:00 — Cuomo’s “reimagining education” and tech opportunism01:02:11 — Election-year politics and Trump’s influence01:05:46 — The AAP’s reversal on school guidance01:08:16 — The AAP’s misconduct and other “worst actors”01:10:23 — Accountability and blind allegiance to authority01:14:36 — Lessons for the future and enduring divisions01:16:02 — The current historical narrative and the book as documentation01:18:07 — Scientific resistance to evidence and institutional flaws01:20:51 — Invitation for Zweig to speak at Rutgers01:22:25 — Closing reflections intro by Tess Parks; outro by David Zweig Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science from the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels, Professor of Genetics at Rutgers University, speaks with Aaron Siri—civil rights attorney, managing partner at Siri & Glimstad LLP, and author of Vaccines Amen: The Religion of Vaccines. Together, they discuss the corrupting influence of commercial interests on scientific integrity and public policy, and how, in the case of vaccines, appeals to authority are sold to the public as unassailable fact.The conversation begins with the historical inflection point of the little known 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which established legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers and reshaped the incentives that underpin vaccine development and public health policy. The discussion then turns to how this unprecedented legal structure has contributed to shortcuts in scientific oversight, particularly in “placebo” trial design, post-licensure safety evaluation, and mechanisms for compensating vaccine injuries.Aaron argues that many vaccine claims are rooted in dogma rather than evidence, critiques the role of figures like Dr. Stanley Plotkin in shaping vaccine policy, and highlights cases of coercion, censorship, and inadequate safety oversight. He emphasizes the importance of informed consent, individual rights, and persuading the public on merits rather than mandates, while touching on potential unintended consequences of vaccination programs, including the potential disruption of humanity’s ecological relationship with certain pathogens.At its core, this “scientist meets lawyer” conversation probes how scientific integrity can be distorted by profit-driven systems, what happens when healthy skepticism becomes verboten, and the human cost of trading transparency for expedience.(Recorded October 29th, 2025)Timestamps00:30 — Introduction of Aaron Siri01:17 — Aaron’s definition of a vaccine03:03 — Aaron shares his personal opinion on vaccine policy08:32 — Dr. Stanley Plotkin: a central figure in vaccinology12:04 — Aaron’s 2018 deposition of Plotkin in a custody case15:28 — The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act19:57 — How the 1986 Act inverted market incentives for vaccine safety22:24 — Design defect claims and the Supreme Court’s ruling on vaccine liability 26:19 — Lucrativeness of vaccines for pharmaceutical companies28:26 — The Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines and HHS’s failure to fulfill it32:36 — Potential for HHS under RFK Jr. to enforce vaccine safety mandates35:55 — Mistreatment of vaccine injured: the case of Maddie de Garay42:20 — Broader societal treatment of vaccine-injured and unvaccinated44:14 — GSK’s 2017 pertussis vaccine ad and litigation over misleading claims48:19 — Exchange with Dr. Paul Offit on placebo trials57:26 — Humanity’s ecological relationship with infectious diseases01:08:35 — Measles mortality decline pre-vaccine and potential long-term effects of eradication01:11:50 — Aaron describes his vision for a world without mandatesintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the third episode of In Defense of Virology, Rutgers Professor and Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels and distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson discuss two striking examples of reckless virology research—one well known and the other largely forgotten—and issue a call to change the culture of modern science.The first example revisits the controversial resurrection of the 1918 Spanish flu, a virus that killed tens of millions worldwide. Simon explains how NIH-funded researchers extracted genetic fragments from frozen cadavers, used PCR to reconstruct the viral genome, and then revived the virus in 2005, publishing the full sequence in Science. Despite claims that the work would aid vaccine development, he argues that no public-health benefit ever materialized, while the potential for misuse dramatically increased.The second example, less known but equally concerning, involves retroviruses resurrected from fragments within the human genome. In work published in 2006 and 2007, researchers in France and New York chemically synthesized what they believed to be defunct human viruses—naming one “Phoenix.” Although performed with NIH and national-science-foundation support, there was no transparency about biosafety levels or prior ethical review. Simon argues that such experiments, however clever, violate the moral boundary between curiosity and recklessness.From these examples, Simon and Bryce turn to solutions—chief among them a Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Just as physicians swear to “do no harm,” they propose that life-science researchers and funding agencies adopt a similar pledge to avoid work that makes the world more dangerous. Simon envisions a three-part reform: NIH and major foundations embedding the principle into grants, universities incorporating it into graduation ceremonies, and scientific culture embracing it as a moral baseline.The conversation closes with a call to action for listeners: write to local universities or newspapers to support a research culture grounded in humility, safety, and moral responsibility.(Recorded October 23, 2025)Timestamps00:31 — Welcome and introduction to Episode 302:23 — “Spin doctoring” in science and how truth becomes a casualty02:43 — Introducing the concept of informational hazards03:47 — Example 1: resurrection of the 1918 Spanish flu06:43 — How NIH-funded teams recovered and sequenced the virus07:41 — Publication of the full genome in Science and public controversy09:26 — No evidence the 2005 research ever improved vaccines10:15 — Why resurrecting extinct pathogens made the world more dangerous11:22 — “Diagnostics, vaccines, and drugs” - the rhetorical trinity used to justify risky work13:21 — Example 2: resurrecting retroviruses from human DNA15:27 — The “Phoenix” virus and synthetic resurrection of endogenous retroviruses16:30 — Unknown risks and missing biosafety disclosures (BSL-2 vs BSL-3)18:25 — How such studies quietly made the world more dangerous19:35 — Lack of discussion, oversight, or institutional memory21:10 — Should dangerous publications be suppressed—or discussed openly?22:04 — Comparing resurrection of retroviruses to the 1918 flu revival23:46 — Cultural problem: institutions hide mistakes to protect funding27:22 — Proposal: a Hippocratic Oath for scientists—“first, do no harm”34:48 — Extending ethical oaths to AI and other technologies38:33 — Prior discussions about a Hippocratic Oath with current NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya42:39 — Bryce pledges to write an op-ed urging Rutgers to adopt the oath44:19 — Closing remarksintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the second episode of In Defense of Virology, Genetics Professor and Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels engages virologist Simon Wain-Hobson in a nuanced discussion on how recent advances in biotechnology have amplified both the promise and the perils of modern virology research.Building on Episode 1, Simon delves deeper into the dangers of gain-of-function (GOF) research, this time focusing on how today’s biotechnology makes it possible to build entire viruses from digital genetic sequences—blueprints that can be transmitted and replicated worldwide in seconds.Simon is blunt in his assessment: there are no redeeming benefits to dangerous gain-of-function experiments. To better describe the risk, he introduces the concept of “single-use research of concern” (SURC), a term for studies that generate genuine hazards without any plausible public good. This contrasts with the more familiar idea of “dual-use research of concern” (DURC), which acknowledges that some experiments carry risks but may also advance valuable scientific or medical progress.Reflecting on his career during the HIV/AIDS era, Simon recounts helping organize a landmark 2000 Royal Society meeting that addressed verboten questions about whether the oral polio vaccine played a role in HIV’s origins. That experience, he says, underscored the value of humility, transparency, and open communication between scientists and the public. From past vaccine mishaps to the careless publication of viral genome data, Simon warns that the real threat to virology isn’t skepticism from outside—it’s hubris and secrecy from within.(Recorded October 20, 2025)Timestamps00:31 — Welcome and introduction to Episode 201:26 — Recap of Episode 1’s themes on dangerous GOF research02:42 — How modern DNA synthesis allows viruses to be recreated05:12 — The global risk of publishing viral blueprints online08:45 — Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC) versus “Single-Use” research that serves no public good15:24 — Why creating novel pathogens without benefit undermines public trust17:17 — Lessons from HIV/AIDS and the importance of public engagement21:07 — Inside the 2000 Royal Society meeting on HIV origins23:54 — Mad-cow disease and the costs of poor risk communication33:42 — Historical “close shaves”: contaminated polio vaccines37:40 — A call for humility and openness in virologyintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science from the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Sigrid Bratlie, Norwegian molecular biologist and science communicator, about her comprehensive new book The Wuhan Mystery: The Hunt for the Origins of COVID.The conversation delves into the evidence supporting a lab-related origin of COVID-19, the politicization of science, and the personal backlash Bratlie has faced from prominent scientists. She describes how public debate and media coverage of COVID origins in Europe trail behind the U.S., as well as how trust in science and transparency have been eroded across the pond, as well. Bratlie walks listeners down her path from reflexive skeptic to one of Norway’s leading advocates for an open, evidence-based discussion of the lab leak hypothesis. She candidly describes the personal and professional costs associated with her advocacy, including harassment and intimidation within the scientific community, and underscores the importance of courage, accountability, and intellectual openness in the face of institutional pressure.(Recorded October 16, 2025)Timestamps 00:31 — Introduction of Sigrid Bratlie 01:48 — Sigrid discusses her new book: The Wuhan Mystery: The Hunt for the Origins of COVID03:13 — Conclusions on lab leak evidence and the scientific cover-up06:45 — Reception the book has received in Norway08:34 — Bratlie’s role as one of Norway’s leading voice on lab-origin discussions10:36 — How Europe trails behind the U.S. in the origins debate12:07 — Strongest evidence for a lab origin13:27 — Kristian Andersen’s involvement in shaping the origins narrative 22:29 — Bratlie discusses Andersen’s trip to Norway last year and possible motives28:52 — Other critics of Bratlie34:28 — Scientific intimidation and silencing tactics 39:52 — Bratlie discusses Ralph Baric’s role44:45 — Lessons learned: misplaced priorities, risks ignored, and the erosion of public trust intro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the inaugural episode of In Defense of Virology, Rutgers Professor and Science From the Fringe host, Bryce Nickels joins forces with distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson for a new series that aims to defend virology from bad actors within.Introducing this new segment, Wain-Hobson explains that the real threat to virology isn’t public skepticism, but the recklessness of insiders who promote dangerous gain-of-function (GOF) research and attempt to silence debate. Drawing from his popular series of essays written for the Biosafety Now Substack newsletter, Simon dissects how flawed GOF studies, perverse incentives, and bureaucratic groupthink have compromised public support for virology, and by extension, science itself.Bryce and Simon call for virology to reclaim its integrity—returning to an open, truth-driven discipline centered on understanding viral biology and advancing modern medicine.(Recorded October 14, 2025)Timestamps00:31 — Why “In Defense of Virology” means defending the field from virologists themselves 05:26 — What “gain-of-function” really is—and why resurrecting viruses like the 1918 flu was a turning point 09:50 — The infamous NIH-funded H5N1 experiments: “zero benefit” for public health 12:08 — Fauci, Collins, and Nabel’s 2011 Washington Post op-ed that shut down dissent and imposed a “global omertà” 16:19 — How publishing viral blueprints enables anyone to recreate pathogens 23:01 — Why the line between dangerous GOF research and bioweapons research doesn’t exist31:37 — Reclaiming virology’s legacy: from smallpox eradication to lifesaving vaccines intro and outro by Tess Parks Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

On this episode of the Science From the Fringe podcast, Bryce Nickels speaks with his Rutgers colleague and long-time collaborator Richard Ebright (Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Rutgers University) about the emerging threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.Ebright discusses how his research on bacterial RNA polymerase led him to uncover new compounds with therapeutic potential. He shares why the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers is referred to as the “birthplace of antibiotics,” reflects on what ended the “golden era” of antibiotic discovery, and explains how modern medicine could collapse if society doesn’t address the emerging threat of antibiotic resistance.Ebright also describes how market failures and policy neglect have stalled innovation—and why he believes policymakers continue to fail the public writ large.Other topics include the potential use of engineered, multi-drug-resistant bacteria as bioweapons, the limits of phage therapy as an alternative to antibiotics, and the ethical parameters of animal testing in drug research.(Recorded October 12, 2025)Timestamps00:38 – Introduction of Richard Ebright02:16 – Research on RNA synthesis and antibiotic discovery10:52 – The global threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR)16:57 – How AMR evolves through natural selection19:55 – Why new antibiotics are urgently needed22:12 – Top bacteria causing 11% of global disease burden23:30 – Drivers of AMR: human, livestock, and crop use25:35 – Biodefense funding after 9/11 and its impact on AMR27:29 – Market failures and underfunding of antibiotic R&D29:47 – Rutgers’ antibiotic legacy and Selman Waksman’s role33:12 – End of the “golden era” of discovery35:59 – Why Big Pharma abandoned antibiotic research41:33 – Ebright’s policy solution – delinking revenue from sales45:49 – The Pasteur Act – goals and reasons it failed48:33 – Limitations of phage therapy for bacterial infections53:36 – Dual-use risks – engineered resistant bacteria and bioweapons56:32 – Animal testing and ethics in drug development01:06:17 – APY Therapeutics – Ebright’s new antibiotic startup01:16:36 – Closing thoughts – preserving modern medicine with new antibioticsintro and outro by Tess ParksScience from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

After a thought-provoking Science From the Fringe interview —“Conversations with Bryce Nickels: Kevin McKernan (Biotech Entrepreneur)”, recorded on September 29, 2025 — Bryce Nickels invited Kevin McKernan back for a live X Space on October 9 to continue the conversation.Science from the Fringe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber.The conversation offered listeners a candid look into McKernan’s journey — from early breakthroughs in genome sequencing to founding Medicinal Genomics, where he advanced cannabis research, pushing back against significant legal and regulatory pressures.Kevin and Bryce then pivoted to the validly of the COVID-19 PCR tests used to drive case counts and death tolls, and raised his many concerns about mRNA vaccines. He explained the crux of the issues including frame-shifting, RNA degradation, DNA contamination, and the discovery of SV40 sequences associated with manufacturing changes — all of which he breaks down for benefit of the non-scientist. This segued into Bryce issuing a public mea culpa for the ultimately incorrect and harmful stances taken during the viral panic. They also touched on regulatory failures, liability protections, and potential health risks from unvetted vaccine production processes, including inflammation and cancer. The conversation emphasized the importance of scientific transparency over institutional dogma and featured contributions from Kevin’s collaborator Jessica Rose.Timestamps00:00:31 — Welcome and host introduction00:01:00 — Introducing Kevin McKernan and his career background00:01:40 — Early career in pharma marketing before the Human Genome Project00:02:07 — Founding Agincourt Biosciences; acquisition and spin-offs00:03:40 — Evolution from Sanger to next-gen sequencing; cost breakthroughs00:06:49 — Launching Medicinal Genomics inspired by cancer patients and cannabinoids00:09:06 — Personalized medicine vs. pandemic-era management00:11:25 — Legal and logistical challenges sequencing cannabis00:12:19 — Sequencing the first cannabis genome (2011) and later improvements00:13:45 — Entering COVID debates via flawed PCR testing00:15:03 — Using crypto to fund peer review, ensuring independence00:17:05 — How prohibition stunted cannabis breeding and diversity00:21:01 — Professional backlash from vaccine research00:24:23 — Discovering vaccine DNA contamination while troubleshooting RNA-seq00:25:02 — “PCR Gate”: Corman-Drosten paper flaws and case inflation00:29:31 — PCR amplification, CT thresholds, and false positives00:32:40 — Infectiousness cutoff at CT 32 and misinterpretation of results00:35:57 — Lessons from pandemic missteps and calls for accountability00:40:47 — Frame-shifting in mRNA vaccines creating unintended proteins00:46:06 — Regulatory neglect around aberrant protein products00:49:21 — RNA integrity issues and template switching00:54:21 — Codon optimization leading to chimeras; later Moderna fix00:59:30 — From trials to mass production: PCR-to-plasmid transitions01:02:09 — Manufacturing changes violating “process is the product” principle01:08:24 — Independent confirmations of excess DNA, including FDA interns01:09:39 — Outdated FDA limits for DNA in lipid nanoparticles01:12:26 — Hidden SV40 sequences; parallels to early polio vaccines01:15:09 — DNA presence undisputed, but effects underexplored01:18:03 — DNA-induced cGAS-STING activation and cancer concerns01:19:26 — Call to sequence all vaccines; outdated contamination limits01:22:02 — How liability shields enable unsafe practices01:26:50 — Fraud case efforts to revoke manufacturer immunity01:37:50 — Future of mRNA tech: potential if transparency restoredintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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.Timestamps00:31 – 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 intelligenceintro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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 Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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.Timestamps00:00:31 - 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 Colorado00:26:06 - 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 geoengineering00:39:05 - 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 Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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. Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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.Timestamps00:00:32 - 00:01:08: Introduction to Michael Nevradakis00:01:09 - 00:05:17: Transition from PhD lecturer to journalist00:06:09 - 00:12:36: Early skepticism toward Anthony Fauci and COVID measures00:13:37 - 00:15:44: Discussion of Senator Rand Paul’s probe into Fauci’s communications and COVID origins00:15:52 - 00:18:10: The Proximal Origin paper and Fauci’s influence00:20:02 - 00:23:39: Biden’s preemptive pardon for Fauci00:25:50 - 00:27:23: Fauci’s instructions to colleagues to destroy public records00:29:39 - 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 NIAID00:40:52 - 00:43:39: Closing thoughtsfeatures music by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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 Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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 Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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 Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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 Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

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, 20240:00 - 0:30: Intro Tess Parks0:30 - 2:25: Welcome and introduction2:25 - 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-off1:26:40 - 1:27:26: Outro Tess ParksClick here to learn more about Klare X. Allen and the Roxbury Safety NetClick 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) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Professors Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Bryce Nickels (Rutgers) are joined by New York Times bestselling author, surgeon, and healthcare expert Dr. Marty Makary (Johns Hopkins) to discuss a new film by award winning director Jenner Furst, titled Thank You, Dr. Fauci, which critically examines Anthony Fauci's role in the COVID-19 pandemic. They also discuss Marty's latest book, Blind Spots, which explores how groupthink, self-importance, dogmatism, and careerism in American academic medicine have hindered progress and innovation. Timestamps 00:00 – Intro (Friendlies by Tess Parks and Anton Newcombe) 00:32 – Jay Bhattacharya introduces Marty Makary and Bryce Nickels, both featured in the film Thank You, Dr. Fauci, directed by Jenner Furst. 01:05 – Bryce explains the film’s title and where to watch (ThankYouDrFaucimovie.com). 01:57 – Marty discusses censorship of the film. 02:45 – Jay discusses how the film highlights former CDC Director Robert Redfield’s early pandemic sidelining over his belief that COVID-19 resulted from a lab accident. 03:40 – Clips from Thank You, Dr. Fauci featuring Redfield. 06:25 – Bryce and Marty discuss how they wish Jay had more scenes in the film.07:28 – Marty describes platforms censoring the film’s ads. 08:13 – Jay and Marty speculate on why the Biden administration might limit the film’s visibility. 10:20 – Marty recounts his initial doubts about Fauci, beginning when Fauci transported an Ebola patient to NIH for publicity. 14:50 – Marty and Bryce discuss evidence of COVID-19’s potential research-related origins vs. natural spillover 19:50 – Jay, Marty, and Bryce explore the virology community’s possible motivations for covering up a research origin and the culture of scientific hubris.24:07 – Jay shares Simon Wain-Hobson’s proposal for a Hippocratic Oath in STEM, which he discussed during a recent conference at Stanford University.25:38 – Marty discusses why minority communities historically distrust public health officials. 27:38 – Jay and Marty discuss a PBS clip featuring Anthony Fauci and DC Mayor Bowser meeting a vaccine-skeptical resident. 33:35 – Jay critiques Fauci’s fear-mongering, especially regarding COVID-19’s threat to children. 36:38 – Marty recalls the public health community’s reaction in fall 2020 to President Trump’s mask-wearing habits. 37:58 – Marty introduces his book Blind Spots on groupthink in medicine, now a NY Times bestseller. 40:45 – Marty and Jay discuss former NIH Director Francis Collins’s focus on genetic disease causes and the downsides for public health. 50:47 – Jay concludes the podcast. 51:08 – Outro (Friendlies by Tess Parks and Anton Newcombe). Resources Click here to watch Thank You, Dr. FauciClick here to purchase Blind Spots Click here to learn more about Dr. Marty MakarySourcesU.S. Senate HELP Committee hearing: COVID-19: Safely Getting Back to Work and Back to School (May 12, 2020) Dr. Fauci visits D.C. to battle vaccine hesitancy National Institutes of Health News Conference on Ebola (October 17, 2014) U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations hearing: U.S. Response to Ebola (October 16, 2024) Stanford University Health Policy Conference: Pandemic Policy: Planning the Future, Assessing the Past (October 4, 2024) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe