CrowdScience

The Moon has always sparked human curiosity. It governs the tides and biological rhythms. It’s inspired myths and stories. It’s inspired us to reach out and explore it. And it's certainly inspired CrowdScience listeners, who have sent us a host of questions about it. And in a special lunar-themed episode we’ve brought together a panel of astronomers and planetary scientists to help answer them. What would life be like if there was no Moon? Would there even be life? Or what if we had two moons? Are the Moon and Earth equally battered by meteors? What would happen if an asteroid collided with the Moon? And could the Moon ever escape Earth’s gravity? Anand Jagatia is joined by Prof Sara Russell, Head of the Planetary Materials Group at the Natural History Museum in London; Prof Neil Comins from the University of Maine, author of the book What if the Moon didn’t Exist?; and Prof Katarina Miljkovic from Curtin University in Perth, Australia. Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Jeremy Grange Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Andrew Garratt(Photo: Landscape with the rising of the full moon during the golden hour Credit: Jose A. Bernat Bacete via Getty Images)

It seems bizarre to seek out experiences that are uncomfortable or downright painful. Yet examples abound: it’s common to eat painfully hot chillies, drink bitter coffee, or ‘feel the burn' when exercising - and enjoy it. CrowdScience listener Sandy is baffled by this seemingly counterintuitive phenomenon, and has asked us to investigate. Presenter Anand Jagatia turns guinea pig as he tests a variety of unpleasant sensations, and unpicks the reasons we’re sometimes attracted to them. He meets chilli-eating champion Shahina Waseem, who puts Anand’s own attraction to spicy food to the test. Food scientist John Hayes explains how our taste receptors work and why our genes affect the appeal of bitter food. Neuroscientist Soo Ahn Lee describes her research looking at what happens in participants’ brains when they eat chocolate and capsaicin, the chemical that makes chillies hot. As for the ‘pleasurable pain’ we sometimes experience when exercising, sports doctor Robin Chatterjee reveals the secrets of the ‘runner’s high’, while neuroscientist Siri Leknes explains why the feeling that something’s good for us can make discomfort pleasurable. Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Jo Glanville Editor: Cathy Edwards Production co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Sound engineer: Sue Maillot(Image: Young man have bath in ice covered lake in nature and looking up, Czech Republic Credit: CharlieChesvick via Getty Images)

For their fans, jigsaw puzzles are a satisfying challenge, a focus, a chance to put everything else aside for a moment and be creative. But for other people they’re a frustrating jumble of random shapes and colours, a pointless task which is best left in the box. CrowdScience listener Heather is definitely a fan. She loves doing jigsaw puzzles and she wants to know why some people are so good at them. What skills do you need to find a pattern amongst all those shapes and colours? How do our brains, eyes and hands assemble the fragments into the finished article? And why do we enjoy doing them anyway? Presenter Alex Lathbridge puts together the pieces to answer Heather’s question. He sits down to work on a jigsaw with Sarah Mills, the ten-times UK jigsaw puzzling champion (yes... competitive jigsaw puzzling really is a thing!) As he watches Sarah complete the puzzle at lightning speed he gets a few of her top tips. So what’s going on in our brains when we’re doing a jigsaw puzzle? How do we recognise and process colour and shape? Prof Mark Mattson from Johns Hopkins University in the USA has the answer. And it’s all to do with a little seahorse-shaped part of the brain called the hippocampus. Alex also explores the effect of jigsaws on our brains with neuropsychologist Dr Patrick Fissler. He’s carried out research to investigate the benefits of jigsaw puzzles on our brains as we grow older. Both listener Heather and ten-times-champion Sarah seem to be better at jigsaws than Alex is. So, based on that sample size of three, women are superior puzzlers compared to men! But has anybody actually cast the net wider to see if that’s really the case? Alex talks to Daniela Aguilar from the University of Lethbridge in Canada about her study to investigate exactly that – and she reveals the results. Heather’s also wondering if any other species enjoy puzzles. And it seems they do! Alex meets Dr Cody McCoy from the University of Chicago to find out about the optimistic, tool-using crows of New Caledonia. From crows to competitive puzzlers, it seems we all relish a challenge!Presenter: Alex Lathbridge Producer: Jeremy Grange Editor: Cathy Edwards Studio Manager: Bob Nettles Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano

Do you find your bearings quickly or are you easily disorientated? Do your friends trust you with the directions in a new city? Finding our way in the physical world, whether that is around a building or a city, is an important everyday capability, one that has been integral to human survival. This week CrowdScience listener David wants to know whether some people are ‘naturally’ better at navigating, so presenter Marnie Chesterton sets her compass and journeys into the human brain. Accompanied by psychologists and neuroscientists Marnie learns how humans perceive their environment, recall routes and orientate themselves in unfamiliar spaces. We ask are some navigational strategies better than others? Professor Hugo Spiers from UCL shares his latest lab for researching navigation and tells us that the country you live in might be a good predictor of your navigation skills. But is our navigational ability down to biology or experience, and can we improve it? With much of our modern map use being delegated to smartphones, Marnie explores, with Prof Veronique Bohbot what an over-reliance on GPS technology might do to our brain health. Presenter: Marnie Chesterton Producer: Melanie Brown(Photo: Man standing on rural road holding up a road map, head obscured by map. Credit: Noel Hendrickson/Getty Images)

As we enter our teenage years, many of us feel like life is just getting started. But for dogs, celebrating a ‘teen’ birthday is a sign of old age, entering a phase when things start slowing down. Listener Susan was besotted with her beloved corgi Copper John and wants to know why our furry companions rarely live as long as us. We investigate what accounts for the huge differences in lifespans across animal species. From fish that live a few weeks, to sharks who can survive for 500 years, what are the factors that affect the ticking on our biological clocks? Central to this field is the idea of ‘live fast, die young’, with some animals burning more quickly through their ‘life fuel’. But is this rate set in stone?Presenter Anand Jagatia find out how animals’ growth, reproduction and anti-ageing methods contribute to the length of their survival. Dr Kevin Healy, a macroecologist at the University of Galway, discusses some of these theories, explaining how the dangers and luxuries faced by animals during their evolution shape their speed of life. One example of extreme slow living is the Greenland Shark. John Fleng Steffensen, Professor of Marine Biology at the University of Copenhagen, describes how he helped figure out how old they really are, and how their cold living quarters increase their lifespan. Alessandro Cellerino, physiologist at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, finds the key to the sharks’ longevity in their DNA.Anand also goes on a hunt on the west coast of Ireland for a creature that lives fast but surprisingly, dies old. Noel Fahy, research student at the University of Galway, is his guide, while Dr Nicole Foley, Associate Research Scientist at Texas A&M University, reveals the life-extending secrets of this creature.And geneticist Trey Ideker, Professor at the University of California San Diego, busts the myth that one dog year is seven human years. But how much is this misconception off by?Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Julia Ravey Content Editor: Cathy Edwards Studio Manager: Sarah Hockley Production Coordinator: Ishmael Soriano(Photo: Copper John the Welsh Pembrokeshire Corgi, by listener Susan)

Maybe you have a deep, booming voice. Or perhaps it’s light and mellifluous. Some people’s voices are honey-smooth while others are as rough as gravel. But why does your voice sound the way it does? CrowdScience listener Hannah in Berlin is training as a teacher and will be using her voice a lot in the classroom in future. She wants to understand more about it: how can she improve the quality of her voice and protect it? And what factors - physical, genetic and environmental - determine the sound of your voice in the first place? Together with presenter Marnie Chesterton, Hannah pays a visit to speech tutor Prof Viola Schmidt at the Ernst Busch University for the Performing Arts in Berlin. Viola and actor Aurelius give us a masterclass in just what your voice can do, as they throw words and sounds to each other across the rehearsal room at a dizzying pace. And Viola gives Hannah a few top tips on using her voice clearly and authentically in the classroom. Hannah’s isn’t the only voice-related question in this episode. Peter from the Kingdom of Eswatini thinks people there speak more loudly than in other countries, and wonders why. To answer Peter’s question we turn to Prof Caleb Everett from the University of Miami. The jury’s out on whether people in some countries really do turn up the volume, but Caleb shares evidence of a link between the climate of a particular region and the sound of its native language. And finally, listener Jonathan has an unusual question for Marnie. When listening to CrowdScience, he can’t tell whether he’s hearing Marnie or fellow presenter Caroline Steel. This got him wondering whether it’s common for two people to sound very similar. Marnie gives Caroline a call, and together they set out to discover if your voice really is unique to you. Caroline tracks down a forensic speech scientist - Dr Jess Wormald from the University of York in the UK – while Marnie speaks to Dr Melanie Weirich from the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena in Germany. And both experts agree that Jonathan may be onto something!Presenter: Marnie Chesterton with Caroline Steel Producer: Jeremy Grange Editor: Cathy Edwards Production co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Donald MacDonald

CrowdScience listeners David and Tatiana have long been captivated by an unusual dinner table discussion: the peculiar change they’ve noticed over the past 16 years in the sunlight streaming through their bedroom window in Ostend, Belgium. They’re convinced that the room has not only become sunnier but that the actual angle of sunlight has shifted.Intrigued by their observations, we head to Ostend. Our mission: to investigate three of their theories, enlisting expert help along the way.Theory 1 – A celestial anomaly? René Oudmaijer at the Royal Observatory of Belgium considers whether our shifting position in the solar system might explain the change.Theory 2 – Movement in the Earth’s crust? Alejandra Tovar from the Geological Survey of Belgium examines tectonic data to see if the Earth’s crust is moving enough to alter the angle of sunlight.Theory 3 – Subsidence? Structural engineer Kath Hannigan helps us inspect the building for signs that it may be sinking or twisting.And we explore one final theory of our own, enlisting memory expert Julia Shaw to examine whether it could all be a trick of the mind. Will the team crack the case?Presenter: Caroline Steel Producer: Harrison Lewis Editor: Cathy Edwards Production co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Sarah Hockley(Photo: CrowdScience listeners David and Tatiana standing in front of a window in their house)

Fungi are a mysterious and understudied life form. And to add to the intrigue, some of them actually glow in the dark. This phenomenon has sparked CrowdScience listener Derek's curiosity, and he's asked us to investigate.Presenter Caroline Steel gets on the case. This is just one example of the natural wonder that is bioluminescence – living organisms that glow. How do they produce their light, and is there any reason for it? Caroline visits a bioluminescent bay in Puerto Rico, and Dr Brenda Soler-Figueroa explains what makes it sparkle.But it turns out there are many different explanations for why living things glow. Fungi, which listener Derek is particularly interested in, are neither plants nor animals, but an entirely different kingdom of life that we know much less about. Professor Katie Field takes on the task of trying to grow us some bioluminescent mushrooms, while Prof Cassius Stevani explains how – and importantly, why – they glow.And finally – could we ever harness the power of bioluminescence to our advantage in the future?Presenter: Caroline Steel Producer: Hannah Fisher Editor: Cathy Edwards Production co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Neva Missirian(Photo: Omphalotus nidiformis, or ghost fungus, Penrose, NSW, Australia Credit: Louise Docker Sydney Australia via Getty Images)

Can learning new languages make us forget our mother tongue? CrowdScience listener Nakombe in Cameroon is concerned that his first language, Balue, is slipping from his grasp. He has learned multiple languages through his life, but Balue is the language of his family and home. It’s central to his identity and sense of belonging. So why does it seem to be fading from him, and what can he do to get it back?We search for answers, investigating what happens in our brains when we struggle to recall languages, as well as the social and economic factors that lead to language loss. Presenter Anand Jagatia asks Michael Anderson from the University of Cambridge, an expert on memory and forgetting, whether forgotten languages disappear from our brain, or just become difficult to access. Linguist Monika Schmid from the University of York takes us through the phenomenon of first language attrition, and has words of reassurance and advice for Nakombe and others in his situation.And we meet Larry Kimura from the University of Hawai’i at Hilo, a pioneer of Hawaiian language revitalization, and Gabriela Pérez Báez, an expert in indigenous languages and language revitalization at the University of Oregon. They explain why languages around the world become threatened, and how to keep them alive.Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Margaret Sessa Hawkins Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Managers: Sarah Hockley and Omera Ahamed(Photo: Diccionario, Argentina Credit: PonyWang via Getty Images)

While there is a myriad of deodorants, shower gels and perfumes helping us stay fresh and fragrant today, that hasn’t always been the case. How did humans stay clean in the past, or did they not care so much? And is there an evolutionary reason for human body odour in the first place? These are questions that CrowdScience listener Sarah has pondered on trips in her camper van, when she wants to keep clean, but washing isn’t always convenient. In search of answers, presenter Anand Jagatia delves into the sweaty details: where body odour comes from, why some people's armpits don't smell, and whether this heady stink serves any purpose. Could our natural odour really help to attract a partner, or is it just a smelly bacterial by-product? Anand explores the intriguing mystery of human pheromones, and hears how for hundreds of years, Europeans were terrified of washing. Contributors: Dr Madalyn Nguyen, Dermatologist Dr Kara Hoover, Biological Anthropologist, University of Alaska Fairbanks Katherine Ashenburg, author, The Dirt on Clean: An Unsanitized History Dr Tristram Wyatt, Department of Biology, University of Oxford Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Sophie Eastaugh Production co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Editor: Cathy Edwards Sound engineer: Emma Harth(Photo: Girl sweating smelly armpit, Taiwan Credit: PonyWang via Getty Images)

2024 is the biggest election year in history. From Taiwan to India, the USA to Ghana, by the end of the year almost half of the world’s population will have had the chance to choose who governs them. But there are a huge number of possible voting systems – and listener James wants CrowdScience to find out which is the fairest. To do so, we create a fictional country called CrowdLand to try out different electoral systems. Presenter Caroline Steel consults mathematician David McCune and political scientists Eric Linhart and Simon Hix, and we hear from listeners around the world about how they vote in their respective countries. Can we find the perfect voting system for CrowdLand? Contributors: Prof David McCune, William Jewell College, USA Prof Eric Linhart, University of Technology Chemnitz, Germany Prof Simon Hix, European University Institute, Italy Actors: Charlotte Bloomsbury Ross Virgo Presenter: Caroline Steel Producer: Florian Bohr Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Donald MacDonald(Image: Hand of a person casting a vote into the ballot box during elections, Thailand Credit: boonchai wedmakawandvia Getty Images)

With huge heads on top of spindly stalks, how do sunflowers defy gravity to stay standing? That was a question sent to CrowdScience by listener Frank, whose curiosity was piqued by the towering sunflowers on his neighbour’s deck. They stay up not only when the weather is fine, but, even more impressively, during strong winds. Could this feat of strength, flexibility and balance inspire the construction of tall buildings? It's a question that takes presenter Anand Jagatia to a sunflower festival in England, to see how the sunflower’s long evolutionary lineage has honed its structure. And from tall flowers to tall buildings, we turn to structural engineers, asking how these concepts factor into the design of the world’s tallest skyscrapers. Can ideas drawn from sunflowers or other natural structures help buildings withstand wind, or even storm surges?Contributors: Stuart Beare, partner and grower at Tulley’s Farm Roland Ennos, Visiting Professor in Biological Studies, University of Hull Sigrid Adriaenssen, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University Koichi Takada, founder of Koichi Takada Architects Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Tom Bonnett Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Bob Nettles(Image: Tall Sunflower blooming in a field, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Credit: Naomi Rahim via Getty Images)

The Moon and Earth are drifting gradually further apart. Every year the gap between them increases by a few centimetres. We know that the Moon’s gravity has an important effect on Earth - from controlling the tides to affecting the planet’s rotation - but slowly, imperceptibly, over billions of years, that influence will diminish as the Moon moves away. For CrowdScience listener Tony in the UK that idea poses another question. What if we were to look back in time? What effects did the Moon have when it was closer to Earth? Would it counteract the planet’s gravity more so that, at the time of the dinosaurs, a Brontosaurus would weigh a little less that it would if it existed now? It’s an intriguing question. And, given that it involves both the Moon AND dinosaurs, it’s one that’s got presenter Anand Jagatia really excited! Anand begins his journey on Brighton beach on the South coast of the UK. He’s there to watch the full Moon rise - and get a few insights on Tony’s question - from astronomer Darren Baskill and astrophotographer (and cellist) Ivana Perenic. Anand talks to Darren about the influence of the Moon’s gravity on Earth today. As they stand on the beach, with the sea lapping at their feet, they can certainly see its effect on the ocean tides. But did you know that the Moon also causes tides on the land as well? Every time it’s overhead the ground you’re standing on is higher by a few centimetres. Professor Neil Comins, author of the book What If the Moon Didn’t Exist, explains why the tides are the reason the Moon is moving away from Earth – and it has been ever since it was first formed. And how was it formed anyhow? We turn back time with Prof. Sara Russell from the Natural History Museum in London to discover one of the most dramatic events in the early history of our solar system... when two worlds collided. And, of course, it helps to know what a dinosaur weighed in the first place. Anand turns to paleontologist Nicolas Campione, who’s been puzzling over the most accurate way to calculate the bulk of a Brontosaurus. Contributors: Dr. Darren Baskill, Astronomer, University of Sussex, UK Ivana Perenic, Astrophotographer Dr. Nicolas Campione, Paleontologist, University of New England, Australia Prof. Sara Russell, Cosmic Mineralogist, Natural History Museum, UK Prof. Neil Comins, Astronomer, University of Maine, USAPresenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Jeremy Grange Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Jackie Margerum(Image: Tyrannosaurus Rex and Spinosaurus in front of the moon - stock photo Credit: MR1805via Getty Images)

18 is the age of majority, or maturity, in most countries around the world. Depending where you live, it might be when you can vote, buy alcohol, or get married. But what's so special about 18 that makes it the beginning of adulthood? CrowdScience listener Lynda didn't feel very mature back then. She recalls a difficult decision that made her wonder what science has to say about when we’re truly grown up. How developed are we, physically, mentally and emotionally, by the age of 18? And how much does this differ between people, or from culture to culture? Presenter Caroline Steel digs around for answers with the aid of neuroscientist Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, biological anthropologist Barry Bogin, and cultural anthropologist Bonnie Hewlett. And even some teenagers. Contributors: Barry Bogin, Emeritus Professor of Biological Anthropology, Loughborough University Sarah-Jayne Blakemore - Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Cambridge Professor Bonnie Hewlett - Associate Professor, Cultural Anthropology, WSU VancouverPresenter: Caroline Steel Producer: Richard Walker Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Co-Ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Neva Missirian

An apex predator is a killer. Usually large and terrifying, they enjoy the privilege of life at the top of a food chain. Nothing will eat them, leaving them free to wreak carnage on more vulnerable creatures. In biology, it’s a term normally reserved for animals like polar bears, tigers and wolves. But CrowdScience listener Eoin wonders whether there’s a non-animal candidate for apex predator: the car. After all, worldwide, more than 1.5 million humans die on the roads each year, while pollution from traffic kills millions more. And that’s just the impact on us. What are cars doing to all the other species on this planet? Host Anand Jagatia hits the road to investigate. En route, we’ll be picking up some scientists to help answer the question. It turns out to be so much more than a question of roadkill: cars, and the infrastructure built to support them, are destroying animals in ways science is only now revealing. How did the wildlife cross the road? We go verge-side to test four different approaches. And we hear how cars manage to kill, not just on the roadside, but, in the case of some salmon species, from many miles away. Gathering as much evidence as possible, we pass judgement on whether the car truly is an apex predator. Contributors: Samantha Helle - Conservation Biologist and PhD student, University of Wisconsin–Madison Paul Donald – Senior Scientist, BirdLife International and Honorary Research Fellow, University of Cambridge Zhenyu Tian – Environmental Chemist and Assistant Professor, Northeastern University Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Marnie Chesterton Reporter: Camilla Mota Editor: Cathy Edwards Studio manager: Donald MacDonald and Giles Aspen Production co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano(Image: Illustration of a deer in front of a car - stock illustration Credit: JSCIEPRO/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY via Getty Images)

Many of us experience an inner voice: we silently talk to ourselves as we go about our daily lives. CrowdScience listener Fredrick has been wondering about the science behind this interior dialogue. We hear from psychologists researching our inner voice and discover that it’s something that begins in early childhood. Presenter Caroline Steel meets Russell Hurlburt, a pioneering scientist who devised a method of researching this - and volunteers to monitor her own inner speech to figure out what’s going on in her mind. She discovers that speech is just part of what’s going on in our heads, much of our inner world in fact doesn’t involve language at all but includes images, sensations and feelings. Caroline talks to psychologist Charles Fernyhough, who explains one theory for how we develop an interior dialogue as young children: first speaking out loud to ourselves and then learning to keep that conversation going silently. No one really knows how this evolved, but keeping our thoughts quiet may have been a way of staying safe from predators and enemies. Using MRI scanning, Charles and Russell have peered inside people’s brains to understand this interior voice and found something surprising: inner dialogue appears to have more in common with listening than with speaking. Caroline also has an encounter with a robot that has been programmed to dialogue with itself. Which leads us to some deep questions: is our inner voice part of what makes us human, and if so, what are the consequences of robots developing this ability? Scientist Arianna Pipitone describes it as a step towards artificial consciousness.Featuring: Professor Charles Fernyhough, University of Durham, UK Professor Russell Hurlburt, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA Dr Arianna Pipitone, University of Palermo, Italy Presenter: Caroline Steel Producer: Jo Glanville Editor: Cathy Edwards Sound design: Julian Wharton Studio manager: Donald MacDonald Production co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano(Image: Mixed Race boy looking up Credit: Jose Luis Pelaez Inc via Getty Images)

It would be quite a superpower to regrow entire body parts. CrowdScience listener Kelly started pondering this after a discussion with her friend on whether human tongues could regrow. Finding out that they couldn't, she asked us to investigate the extent of human regenerative abilities. Presenter Alex Lathbridge travels to Vienna, a hotbed of research in this area. He meets an animal with much better powers of regeneration than humans - the axolotl. In Elly Tanaka’s lab he finds out how she studies their incredible abilities – and shows off his new axolotl tattoo.Why can these sweet-looking salamanders regrow entire limbs while we can’t even regrow our tongues? Palaeontologist Nadia Fröbisch has looked into the evolutionary origins of regeneration, and it goes a lot further back than you might think. And in fact, even humans are constantly regenerating, by renewing the building blocks of our bodies: cells. New cells grow and replace old ones all the time – although, in some parts of the body, we do keep hold of the same cells throughout our lives. However, cell turnover isn’t the same as regrowing entire organs or limbs. But can we grow new body parts in the lab instead? We meet Sasha Mendjan, who creates heart organoids using our cells’ innate ability to self-organise. How far off are we from implanting organs, grown from a patient’s stem cells, back into the human body? Contributors: Dr Elly Tanaka, Institute of Molecular Biotechnology (IMBA) Prof Martin Hetzer, Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA) Prof Nadia Fröbisch, Natural History Museum Berlin Dr Sasha Mendjan, Institute of Molecular Biotechnology (IMBA) Presenter: Alex Lathbridge Producer: Florian Bohr Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Bob Nettles

Why do we have two eyes? Two ears? Two arms and two legs? Why is one side of the human body – externally at least – pretty much a mirror image of the other side? CrowdScience listener Kevin from Trinidad and Tobago is intrigued. He wants to know why human beings – and indeed most animals - have a line of symmetry in their bodies. Yet, beyond their flowers and fruits, plants don’t seem to have any obvious symmetry. It seems that they can branch in any direction. Anand Jagatia sets out to find out why the animal kingdom settled on bilateral symmetry as the ideal body plan. And it takes him into the deep oceans of 570 million years ago. Paleobiologist Dr. Frankie Dunn is his guide to a time when animal life was experimenting with all sorts of different body plans and symmetries.Frankie shows Anand a fossil of the animals which changed everything. When creatures with bilateral symmetry emerged they began to re-engineer their environment, outcompeting everything else and dooming them to extinction. Well... nearly everything else. One very successful group of animals which have an utterly different symmetry are the echinoderms. That includes animals with pentaradial - or five-fold - symmetry like starfish and sea urchins. And that body shape poses some intriguing questions... like “where’s a starfish’s head?” Dr. Imran Rahman introduces us to the extraordinary, weird world of echinoderms. To answer the second part of Kevin’s question - why plants don’t seem to have symmetry – Anand turns to botanist Prof. Sophie Nadot. She tells him that there is symmetry in plants... you just have to know where to look! Beyond flowers and fruits, there’s also symmetry in a plants leaves and stem. The overall shape of a plant might start out symmetrical but environmental factors like wind, the direction of the sun and grazing by animals throws it off-kilter. And, while the human body may be symmetrical on the outside, when you look inside, it’s a very different story. As listener Kevin says, “our internal organs are a bit all over the place!” Prof. Mike Levin studies the mechanisms which control biological asymmetry. He tells Anand why asymmetry is so important... and also why it’s so difficult to achieve consistently. Contributors: Dr. Frankie Dunn, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, UK Dr. Imran Rahman, Natural History Museum, London, UK Prof. Sophie Nadot, Université Paris-Saclay, France Prof. Mike Levin, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Jeremy Grange Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Andrew Garratt(Image: Orange oakleaf butterfly (Kallima inachus) on tropical flower, Credit: Darrell Gulin/The Image Bank via Getty Images)

It's a simple metal box that moves nearly all of our goods around the world. Designed for uniformity and interchangeability, the shipping container has reshaped global trade and our lives in the nearly 70 years since its creation. But listener Paul wants to know if these heavy steel containers could be made with lighter materials to cut down on the fuel needed to transport them, especially when they're empty. Could we make shipping containers a more efficient process and reduce the shipping industry’s sizable greenhouse gas emissions?Host Anand Jagatia travels to Europe's largest port in Rotterdam looking for answers. Speaking to environmental scientists and industry insiders along the way, he takes a look at how the humble container might be modified to once again remake global shipping, from materials, to designs, to how it’s shipped. And thinking outside the box, we explore which innovations might benefit the whole system – from machine learning to new, carbon-free energy sources. For an industry that’s not always quick to change, we speak with the changemakers trying to disrupt the way 90% of the stuff we buy moves, in hope of a greener future.Featuring: Maarten van Oosten - Port of Rotterdam Authority Marc Levinson - historian, economist and author Greg Keoleian - School for Environmental Sustainability and Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan Hans Broekhuis - Holland Container Innovations Trine Nielsen, Flexport Tristan Smith - University College London Elianne Wieles – Deep Sea Carriers, Port of RotterdamPresenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Sam Baker Editor: Cathy Edwards Production Coordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Steve Greenwood(Photo: Port of Rotterdam, Maasvlakte Deep Sea Carrier Area. Credit: Sam Baker, BBC)

When listener Watum heard about the Titan submersible implosion in the news in 2023, a question popped up in his mind: if a machine that we specifically built for this purpose cannot sustain the water pressure of the deep ocean, how do fish survive down there? In this episode, we travel with marine biologist Alan Jamieson to the second deepest place in our oceans: the Tonga trench. Meanwhile, presenter Caroline Steel speaks to Edie Widder about the creatures that illuminate our oceans, and travels to Copenhagen to take a closer look one of the strangest deep sea creatures and its deep sea adaptations. But even fish have their limits! Scientist Paul Yancey correctly predicted the deepest point that fish can live, and it all comes down to one particular molecule. So is there anything living beyond these depths? Well, there is only one way to find out… Contributors: Prof Alan Jamieson, University of Western Australia Luke Siebermaier, Submersible Team Leader, Inkfish Dr Edie Widder, Ocean Research & Conservation Association Peter Rask Møller, Natural History Museum of Denmark Prof Paul Yancey, Whitman College Presenter: Caroline Steel Producer: Florian Bohr Editor: Martin Smith & Cathy Edwards Production Co-ordinator: Ishmael Soriano Studio Manager: Steve Greenwood(Image: Deep-sea fish - stock photo, Credit: superjoseph via Getty Images)