Science From the Fringe

Conversations with fearless scientists, policy experts, and journalists who are defying dogma and defending discovery.

sciencefromthefringe.substack.com

Play

Open in

22 episodes
fortnightly
Avg 47 min
English

Episodes 22

Newest Oldest Longest

All20 Unplayed20 In progress0 Played0

Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.

August 28 · 35 min
A “Bloody Good” Gain-of-Function Policy (In Defense of Virology - Episode 12)
In the twelfth episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson discuss the newly released U.S. Government Policy for Stopping High-Risk Life Sciences Research and what it means for the future of dangerous gain-of-function (dGOF) research. Simon gives the new policy high marks, highlighting its clear definition of dGOF and two provisions he did not expect: restrictions involving the creation of mirror life and the use of AI-designed genomes to create novel biological agents. They also examine the seven categories of experiments covered by the policy, their connection to the 2004 Fink Report, and the prohibition on reconstructing eradicated or extinct biological agents. The conversation then turns to how the policy will work in practice. Bryce and Simon discuss international research, remaining gaps involving private and philanthropic funding, and whether researchers or institutions will be able to exploit loopholes. They both agree that the policy establishes a meaningful chain of accountability—from investigators to their institutions to federal oversight—with potential sanctions for noncompliance. Bryce also identifies areas where the policy could be strengthened, including language stating that violations “may” rather than “will” result in penalties. They emphasize an important distinction: restricting dangerous gain-of-function research does not mean scientists should stop studying dangerous pathogens. As Simon puts it, scientists need to study dangerous microbes that already exist—they don’t need to create new ones. Finally, Bryce and Simon discuss what comes next, including the requirement to establish an independent third-party review body, the challenge of coordinating implementation across federal agencies, and the need for legislation that would make the new restrictions more durable. They conclude by discussing how politics can distort reactions to science policy and why the new framework should be judged on its substance rather than which administration produced it. (recorded August 25, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
August 22 · 47 min
The EPA Took It Down, Roger Put It Back (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 7)
In the seventh episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s new Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard, a resource designed to make long-term trends in extreme weather accessible to scientists, journalists, policymakers, and the public. Roger explains how this project was motivated by the Trump administration’s removal of climate information from EPA websites. Although frequently critical of the politicization and exaggeration of climate science, Roger argues that removing taxpayer-funded climate data was a mistake—and that making the underlying evidence accessible is essential to a more informed climate debate. The episode explores what the data actually show about heat waves, tornadoes, floods, droughts, winter storms, wildfires, and hurricanes, as well as the crucial distinction between detecting a change and attributing that change to human activity. Roger explains why heat waves show a detectable increase while many other extremes do not, and how looking across multiple measures can guard against cherry-picking. Bryce and Roger also discuss how society should respond to increasing heat, including the roles of emissions reductions and adaptation; how Roger used AI to build the dashboard; and the importance of transparency and verification in rebuilding trust in scientific institutions and concludes with a preview of Roger’s just launched Global Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard. (recorded August 19, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
August 13 · 48 min
Tim Hunt - Moving the Goalposts or Protecting Patients?
In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Tim Hunt, CEO of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), about cell and gene therapies and the difficult questions surrounding how they should be regulated by the FDA. The episode follows a March conversation with cardiologist Anish Koka about Vinay Prasad’s controversial tenure at the FDA. Together, the two episodes explore a fundamental question: When patients have devastating diseases and few treatment options, should the FDA demand stronger evidence before approving new therapies—or accept greater uncertainty to give patients faster access to experimental treatments? In the March episode, Koka defended Prasad’s efforts to strengthen the FDA’s evidentiary standards, arguing that greater scrutiny was necessary to protect patients from ineffective or harmful treatments—particularly in the rare-disease space, where patient desperation, financial incentives, and political pressure can complicate regulatory decisions. Tim offers a different perspective. He argues that the FDA became too rigid in its demands for randomized controlled trials, effectively “moving the goalposts” for rare-disease therapies. He contends that traditional trials are often impractical or ethically problematic for small populations with rapidly progressive diseases and that patients should have a greater voice in determining acceptable levels of risk and uncertainty. Bryce and Tim also discuss the scientific risks of genetically modifying embryos, the potential for human enhancement and eugenics, whether germline editing could ever be demonstrated to be safe and ethical, and ARM’s call for a 10-year moratorium on heritable human genome editing. The episode concludes with Tim’s perspective on the future of regenerative medicine, from CAR-T therapies and rare diseases to potential treatments for autoimmune disorders, Parkinson’s disease, and other more common conditions. (recorded July 21, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
July 25 · 41 min
Science For Sale (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 6)
In the sixth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s recent essay examining the legacy of the influential 2004 Science paper introducing the concept of “stabilization wedges.” Roger’s essay was prompted by a recent ProPublica investigation revealing that this paper was heavily shaped by BP executives whose contributions were not acknowledged in the paper. Roger explains how the stabilization wedges paper became one of the most influential papers in the history of climate policy by promoting the idea that existing technologies were sufficient to address climate change. The paper became a powerful advocacy tool, shaping philanthropic investments, climate policy, and public discourse while contributing to efforts to marginalize scientists who argued that significant technological innovation would still be required. The conversation then turns to broader questions about the relationship between science, politics, and advocacy. Bryce and Roger discuss the distinction between conducting science and using scientific publications to market predetermined policy agendas, arguing that the latter can undermine both scientific integrity and public trust. Roger and Bryce also discuss the striking parallels between the stabilization wedges paper and the 2020 Nature Medicine paper, The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. They discuss how both papers were used to influence public debate, the importance of transparency in scientific authorship, and the responsibility of scientific journals to investigate allegations of ghostwriting and misconduct in order to preserve confidence in the scientific record. (recorded July 24, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
July 3 · 38 min
Europe's Deadly Aversion to Air Conditioning (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 5)
In the fifth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s recent essay which presents a data-driven analysis estimating how many lives are lost because of Europe’s low air-conditioning adoption. His analysis suggests that if Europe had air-conditioning penetration comparable to the United States or Japan, tens of thousands of deaths during severe heat waves could potentially be avoided. Bryce and Roger also discuss the political and moral dimensions of climate policy. Bryce argues that governments should not prioritize reducing energy consumption over protecting human lives, contending that Europe’s low adoption of air conditioning reflects this misplaced priority. Roger argues that the real challenge is not to consume less energy, but to produce abundant low-carbon energy that supports both emissions reductions and effective adaptation. The conversation concludes with a broader discussion of technology, democracy, and the role of adaptation in building resilience to climate change. (recorded July 1, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
June 17 · 1 hr 14 min
Anthony Bellotti - The Price of Principle: Holding NIH Accountable
In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Anthony Bellotti, founder and president of the White Coat Waste Project, a government watchdog organization dedicated to exposing and ending taxpayer-funded animal experimentation. The episode examines the tension between mission-driven advocacy and institutional incrementalism, asking whether meaningful reform comes from working within existing systems—or from holding those systems accountable when they fail to live up to their promises. Anthony discusses how a summer job in an animal laboratory at age 17 ultimately led him to create White Coat Waste and explains why the organization rejected the traditional playbook of the animal-rights movement in favor of a strategy focused on government accountability, taxpayer transparency, and bipartisan coalition-building. The conversation explores the ethical and scientific debates surrounding animal research, including whether taxpayer-funded animal experimentation is ever justified, how society should balance potential human benefits against animal suffering, and whether biomedical research has become overly reliant on animal models. Bryce and Anthony also discuss White Coat Waste’s increasingly public disagreements with NIH leadership, including the organization’s recent complaint to the HHS Office of Inspector General, allegations that NIH officials have made misleading statements about their authority to reduce animal experimentation, and broader questions of institutional accountability and public trust. Anthony also responds to criticism of White Coat Waste’s tactics, including allegations that the organization’s advocacy has contributed to threats directed at NIH officials and criticism of its willingness to work with controversial figures such as Laura Loomer to advance its mission. (recorded June 14, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
June 9 · 1 hr 5 min
'Cowards Die Many Times' (In Defense of Virology - Episode 11)
In the eleventh episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson examine what Simon sees as a decades-long failure of the virology community to seriously confront the potential risks and societal consequences of its own research. As experiments became increasingly sophisticated and controversial, Simon argues that repeated opportunities for reflection, debate, and reform were missed. Drawing on themes from his essay “Cowards Die Many Times,” Simon traces a series of pivotal moments, beginning with the 2002 synthesis of poliovirus and continuing through the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus, the controversial H5N1 gain-of-function experiments, and ultimately the COVID-19 pandemic. Each episode raised important questions about the risks of creating and disseminating information about potentially dangerous pathogens, yet meaningful debate was discouraged, avoided, or actively shut down. The discussion covers how prominent scientists and institutions shaped these debates and, in Simon’s view, often discouraged meaningful scrutiny of controversial research. Examples include a 2005 Science editorial by Nobel laureate Philip Sharp defending the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus (“1918 Flu and Responsible Science”) and influential editorials in December 2011 (“A flu risk worth taking”) and June 2012 (“Benefits and Risks of Influenza Research: Lessons Learned”) by Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci defending Kawaoka and Fouchier’s controversial bird flu gain-of-function experiments. Simon argues that appeals to authority, institutional incentives, and concerns about career advancement helped create a culture in which questioning risky research became professionally and socially costly. Using a 2020 paper on COVID-19 origins (“The Origin of COVID-19 and Why It Matters”) as a case study, Simon also explains how unscrupulous scientists can transform unsupported claims into "facts" through repeated citation, institutional endorsement, and publication in prestigious journals. Once amplified by prominent scientists and influential publications, such claims can acquire the appearance of established knowledge even when the underlying evidence is weak or entirely absent. (recorded June 6, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
June 3 · 56 min
'The Goal Is Not Your Damn Career' (In Defense of Virology - Episode 10)
In the tenth episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson discuss Simon’s recent presentation to researchers and administrators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) on dangerous gain-of-function research, as well as a recent Cell paper on the origins of viral pandemics that Simon critiqued in his essay, “Natural COVID crowd miss again.” The conversation begins with Simon discussing the central themes of his NIAID presentation. He argues that scientists must take primary responsibility for identifying and disclosing potential risks associated with their work and calls for a cultural shift within science grounded in the principle of “do no harm.” The discussion then turns to a recent Cell paper (Havens et al., Dynamics of natural selection preceding human viral epidemics and pandemics), which has been cited as evidence supporting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. Simon offers a detailed critique of the paper’s assumptions, methodology, and conclusions, contending that it attempts to answer questions that its methods cannot reliably resolve. Simon also discusses viral adaptation, tissue-culture evolution, the challenges of proving negative propositions in science, and the dangers of drawing strong conclusions from weak correlations. Bryce and Simon also discuss the role of scientific journals and media organizations in shaping public understanding of COVID-19 origins, how publication in prestigious journals can create an unwarranted perception of certainty, and how scientific institutions risk undermining public trust when conclusions extend beyond the available evidence. The episode concludes with a broader reflection on the purpose of science itself. Simon argues that scientific progress depends on skepticism, open debate, and a willingness to change one’s mind when the evidence changes. While emphasizing the indispensable value of basic research, he maintains that scientists must remain focused on the ultimate goal of reducing disease and human suffering. As he puts it: “The goal is not your damn career. It’s to beat the hell out of microbes.” (recorded April 22, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
May 25 · 56 min
The Climate Apocalypse Isn’t Around the Corner (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 4)
In the fourth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss what Pielke describes as one of the most consequential developments in climate science in years: the retirement of the extreme climate scenario known as RCP 8.5. Bryce and Roger unpack how a small international committee helped shape the climate scenarios that informed scientific research, media narratives, regulations, banking policy, and global climate politics for over a decade. Roger explains why many of the “worst-case” climate projections were based on implausible assumptions about future coal use and why recent updates to climate scenario frameworks represent a major course correction. The conversation explores the difference between exploratory scientific scenarios and policy roadmaps, the relationship between climate science and political decision-making, and how climate narratives influenced public policy around the world. Bryce and Roger also discuss parallels between climate science governance and debates surrounding gain-of-function research, including questions about transparency, accountability, expert authority, and the role of broader public input in scientific decision-making. (recorded May 22, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
April 17 · 41 min
'An Inconvenient Truth' - 20 Years Later (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 3)
In the third episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. revisit the legacy of An Inconvenient Truth twenty years after its release. Building on Pielke’s recent essay, they examine how Al Gore framed climate change through a religious lens—apocalyptic warnings, moral imperatives, and a defined path to “salvation.” Pielke reflects on how readily much of the scientific community embraced this framing and argues that the film’s most enduring impact lies not in any single claim it made, but in how it helped recast climate science as a vehicle for moral and political advocacy. A central theme is the concept of “new apocalypticism,” drawn from the work of sociologist Michael Barkun, which Roger uses to describe how scientific authority has been repurposed to support secular narratives of impending catastrophe. He argues that An Inconvenient Truth exemplifies this shift, presenting complex scientific issues through emotionally charged imagery and moral binaries that divide the world into good and bad actors. Bryce highlights specific examples from the film—including its use of extreme weather events, historical analogies, and symbolic imagery—to argue that it relies heavily on persuasion rather than careful scientific reasoning. The episode also examines what the film got right—such as the basic science of greenhouse gas emissions and warming—while emphasizing where it misled audiences, particularly on extreme weather and the role of political will. Roger argues that the film’s biggest error was its claim that solving climate change is primarily a matter of political motivation, rather than a challenge of technological innovation and economic alignment. More broadly, the conversation explores how the blending of science and advocacy can erode public trust, especially when scientific institutions adopt partisan or moralizing narratives. (recorded April 13, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
April 2 · 1 hr 6 min
The Problem With Peer Review (In Defense of Virology - Episode 9)
In this episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels speaks with virologist Simon Wain-Hobson about Simon’s essay, “WHO Wordplay on COVID Origins,” which critiques the WHO SAGO report and a related Nature commentary on what is known about the origins of COVID-19. The discussion begins with SAGO’s claim that most peer-reviewed evidence supports a natural origin, while acknowledging that key intelligence and data remain unavailable. Simon argues this creates a misleading sense of certainty—presenting a conclusion while admitting critical gaps. The conversation then turns to peer review, emphasizing that it is not a final stamp of truth but the beginning of quality control. Publication does not settle questions; real scrutiny happens afterward. Both Simon and Bryce note that top journals can give findings outsized authority before they are fully validated. They argue that in politically sensitive areas like gain-of-function research and COVID origins, the publication system can shift from gatekeeping to gate blocking, limiting debate and shaping consensus prematurely. This has downstream effects, as institutions like SAGO and the Government Accountability Office rely heavily on published literature that may itself be incomplete or biased. The episode also highlights the value of work outside traditional journals, pointing to independent researchers who have contributed meaningful analyses. Dismissing such work solely for lacking peer review, Simon argues, is circular when the formal system restricts what gets published. A key theme is openness versus defensiveness. Drawing on his experiences in the HIV-era experience, Simon argues that confronting difficult hypotheses openly builds trust, while suppressing debate erodes it. This is reflected in the muted in-person response to Matt Ridley’s NIH lecture on the likely lab origin of SARS-CoV-2, which contrasts with stronger criticism expressed online. The episode concludes with potential reforms, including reducing the gatekeeping role of journals and expanding incentives for replication. Both emphasize that science functions best when dissent is allowed, evidence is openly examined, and no single institution defines the boundaries of truth. (recorded March 25, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
March 31 · 36 min
'Stick and Jab' (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 2)
In the second episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels speaks with climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. about his recent review of Science Under Siege (SUS), a book by Michael Mann and Peter Hotez arguing that an “anti-science movement” threatens society. Roger argues that SUS is less a serious analysis than a partisan manifesto—one that treats political disagreement, especially from Republicans, as a form of scientific heresy. A central theme is the book’s use of terms like “anti-science cabal” and “anti-science ecosystem.” He contends that these categories are vague and elastic, functioning less as analytic concepts than as labels for people the authors oppose. Rather than clarifying how science is distorted in public life, he suggests, the book collapses disagreement into moral warfare. The episode also explores the broader politicization of science. Roger argues that parts of the scientific community have grown too comfortable embracing openly partisan narratives, thereby risking science’s credibility as a public enterprise meant to serve everyone—not just one political faction. At the same time, he criticizes heavy-handed political attacks on scientific institutions, arguing that restoring trust will require greater openness, pluralism, and tolerance for disagreement. (recorded March 31, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
March 17 · 43 min
The Best Kept Secret in Climate Science (In Defense of Climate Change - Episode 1)
Climate change is one of the most politically charged issues in science, often framed as a choice between denial and apocalypse. In the first episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels speaks with climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. about why that framing distorts the realities of climate science. At the center of the conversation is the role of scenarios in climate research—what Roger calls “the best kept secret in climate science.” Climate models do not predict the future; they simulate how the climate would respond under different assumptions about how the world develops, including population growth, economic activity, and energy use. These assumptions, known as emissions scenarios, determine how much carbon dioxide is emitted and, in turn, how much warming is projected. Roger explains that many of the most widely used scenarios—particularly those developed in the early 2000s—were built around assumptions of rapidly expanding coal use. These scenarios helped produce some of the most alarming projections of future warming and came to dominate both the scientific literature and public discussion. However, the world has not followed that trajectory, and many of these scenarios are now outdated—even as they continue to be used in current research. He emphasizes that climate change is real and serious, and that scenarios are a necessary tool for understanding possible futures. But he argues that failing to distinguish between plausible and implausible scenarios—and to update those assumptions as the world changes—can distort how climate science is interpreted. The episode also examines how institutional and methodological factors can slow the updating of scenarios, allowing outdated assumptions to persist in research, media coverage, and policy discussions. (recorded March 12, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
March 14 · 26 min
The Experiment That Could Have Killed Billions (In Defense of Virology - Episode 8)
In the eighth episode of In Defense of Virology, distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson joins host Bryce Nickels to discuss Simon’s recent essay, “You Couldn’t Make Body Bags Fast Enough.” The essay examines a largely overlooked gain-of-function influenza experiment involving the avian virus H7N1 (Sutton et al., Airborne transmission of highly pathogenic H7N1 influenza virus in ferrets, published in Journal of Virology, June 15, 2014). In that study, researchers engineered an H7N1 influenza virus capable of airborne transmission in ferrets while retaining high lethality, killing three of five infected animals. Simon argues that if a virus with similar properties spread among humans, the consequences could be catastrophic. The conversation revisits earlier gain-of-function controversies—most notably the 2012 H5N1 experiments by Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka—and asks why the H7N1 work drew far less scrutiny. Simon points to structural pressures within science—funding incentives, prestige journals, and deference to authority—that can discourage open criticism of risky research. He also discusses the role of journals in publishing studies with clear dual-use implications. Bryce and Simon also discuss the incentives that shape scientific behavior. They argue that current funding structures and the pursuit of high-profile publications can normalize increasingly risky experiments. The episode concludes with a call for clearer boundaries between “cutting-edge” research that benefits the public and “bleeding-edge” work that may put lives at risk—emphasizing that protecting the public from dangerous research requires confronting difficult questions about responsibility, transparency, and acceptable risk. (recorded March 8, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
March 12 · 58 min
Anish Koka - Why Vinay Prasad Didn’t Last at the FDA
In this episode of Science from the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with cardiologist and medical commentator Dr. Anish Koka about his recent article examining the forces that led to physician-scientist Vinay Prasad’s departure from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They discuss how Prasad’s efforts to strengthen evidentiary standards for drug approvals quickly ran up against powerful political, financial, and institutional interests. The conversation explores how his brief tenure became a case study in the difficulty of reforming institutions where scientific standards, patient desperation, political pressure, and financial incentives collide. As Anish explains, Vinay Prasad is an unusually independent thinker within academic medicine who built a reputation challenging weak evidentiary standards for drug approvals long before entering government. Once at the FDA, he attempted to raise those standards—particularly for vaccines and costly therapies approved on limited or indirect evidence. Those efforts quickly triggered backlash from pharmaceutical companies, investors, patient advocacy groups, biotech media, and political actors with stakes in the approval pipeline. Anish walks through a detailed timeline of the flashpoints that defined Prasad’s short tenure: disputes over gene therapies for rare diseases, conflicts with companies such as Sarepta, Moderna, and UniQure, and broader debates about how regulators should weigh desperate patient demand against uncertain clinical evidence. He explains how controversial trial designs—such as reliance on historical controls or small datasets—can allow extremely expensive treatments to reach the market without clear proof they improve patient outcomes. In his view, Prasad’s push to tighten evidentiary standards exposed deeper structural problems in the drug-approval system. The conversation also explores the political and media dynamics surrounding Prasad’s tenure, including accusations that he created “chaos” at the agency, personal attacks, and media leaks that intensified pressure on FDA leadership. Bryce and Anish argue that Prasad’s willingness to publicly take responsibility for regulatory decisions—and to challenge entrenched interests—made him an unusually rare figure in Washington. The episode concludes with a broader discussion about incentives in drug regulation: the influence of pharmaceutical profits, the vulnerability of rare-disease communities to exploitation, and whether meaningful reform of the FDA’s approval process is possible from within the current system. Despite Prasad’s departure, Anish argues that his brief tenure exposed important weaknesses at the intersection of science, regulation, industry, and media. (recorded March 8, 2026) Timestamps00:31 – Introducing Anish Koka and the Vinay Prasad story02:12 – Why Prasad’s FDA appointment was surprising03:20 – Prasad’s background and COVID-era break from consensus04:24 – The core issue: declining evidentiary standards at FDA06:41 – Prasad’s integrity and inevitable clash with the system09:57 – Was Prasad set up?12:08 – Why Peter Marks mattered politically13:19 – Prasad’s new vaccine approval framework14:18 – Sarepta and weak evidence in rare disease drugs17:13 – Media leaks and the role of Stat News19:33 – Marty Makary backs Prasad20:05 – “Bad politics” or principled regulator?21:58 – The Moderna dispute over vaccine evidence23:51 – Accountability and why Prasad stood out27:49 – Personal attacks and mounting pressure28:09 – The UniQure controversy30:53 – What a sham control is33:55 – The problem with historical controls36:00 – Who decides trial matching?38:00 – Media narratives of “chaos” at FDA40:19 – Political pressure from Congress42:39 – The chain of events leading to Prasad’s exit45:04 – Rare disease desperation and potential exploitation49:03 – What Prasad exposed about the FDA ecosystem50:45 – The rare disease approval loophole53:45 – Investors, incentives, and distorted evidence54:13 – Why few would want Prasad’s job54:39 – Final reflections on integrity and institutional pressure intro and outro by Tess Parks Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
February 12 · 43 min
Engineering Consensus on COVID Origins (In Defense of Virology - Episode 7)
In the seventh episode of In Defense of Virology, distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson discusses the science (or lack thereof) behind two of the most influential publications on the origin of SARS-CoV-2: “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” (“Proximal Origin,” published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020) and “Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combating COVID-19” (“Calisher et al.,” published in The Lancet on March 7, 2020). These publications were instrumental in establishing the false narrative that the weight of scientific evidence strongly favored a natural origin over a laboratory origin. While both papers have been widely criticized for years (including by Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels, who has been part of multiple calls for Proximal Origin to be retracted - see, Proximal Origin Retraction Request #1; Proximal Origin Retraction Request #2; Petition to Retract Proximal Origin), Simon’s comments in this episode, including his own call for their retraction, represent one of the strongest condemnations of these papers from a member of the virology community itself. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the importance of accountability in cases (such as “Proximal Origin” and “Calisher et al.”) where established scientific norms are violated in such an odious manner. This episode serves as a companion to Simon’s essay, “Distal truths,” in which he elaborates on these arguments in written form. (recorded February 2, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
January 19 · 24 min
“Really Scared” ... But Not Enough to Act (In Defense of Virology - Episode 6)
In the sixth episode of In Defense of Virology, Rutgers professor and Science From the Fringe host Bryce Nickels speaks with distinguished virologist Simon Wain-Hobson about a potentially catastrophic biosafety issue: the human H2N2 influenza virus is not classified as a federal select agent, yet live samples remain stored in laboratory freezers around the world. The discussion is prompted by Simon’s recent essay, “The virus not on the Select Agent list.” The discussion centers on a concerning exchange between NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and NIAID Acting Director Jeffrey Taubenberger on an August 2025 episode of The Director’s Desk podcast. During that conversation, Taubenberger—a prominent influenza researcher best known for his role in the highly controversial resurrection of the deadly 1918 “Spanish flu” virus—said that the virus responsible for the 1957 pandemic, H2N2, poses a serious concern. He noted that since 1968, no one has been exposed to this virus, even though it was fully adapted to humans. Despite this, H2N2 is not a select agent. Taubenberger explained that his lab voluntarily handles it under the same conditions as the 1918 virus, though such precautions are not required, and acknowledged that H2N2 likely remains in clinical, diagnostic, and basic virology laboratory freezers around the world. He admitted that this situation “really scares” him, since most of the global population born after 1968 lacks immunity to H2N2—a virus known to have already caused a pandemic. Simon highlights Taubenberger’s striking acknowledgment that live H2N2 stocks persist in numerous laboratories without select agent designation or enhanced biosafety requirements. This stands in sharp contrast to the 1918 influenza virus—reconstructed by Taubenberger himself—which is designated as a Tier 1 select agent and subject to the highest level of regulatory control. Given the well-documented record of laboratory accidents, Simon argues that keeping H2N2 stocks under minimal oversight poses an unacceptable risk of a lab-acquired pandemic. The episode questions why, if Taubenberger himself is “really scared” by the existence of H2N2 stocks in laboratories worldwide, neither he nor the NIH Director has taken concrete action since their podcast discussion. Simon maintains that H2N2 is uniquely dangerous: it is fully adapted to humans, highly transmissible, and capable of causing millions of deaths in today’s densely populated, interconnected world—potentially matching or exceeding the impact of COVID-19. In his view, any speculative scientific value in retaining live H2N2 virus stocks is vastly outweighed by their global hazard. Emphasizing that pandemic potential depends primarily on transmissibility rather than case fatality—unlike pathogens such as Ebola—Simon calls for urgent corrective measures. He advocates adding human H2N2 to the Federal Select Agent List as a Tier 1 agent, destroying all unnecessary laboratory stocks under U.S. jurisdiction, retaining only genomic sequences for possible future reconstruction if ever justified, and encouraging equivalent actions internationally. The conversation places these recommendations within the broader “Do No Harm” ethos of the series, arguing that responsible virology sometimes requires restraint, remediation, and the deliberate elimination of nonessential risks. (recorded January 9, 2026) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
Dec 31, 2025 · 20 min
AI-Designed Viruses: A Virologist’s Warning (In Defense of Virology - Episode 5)
In Episode 5 of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson have a sobering conversation about the emerging risks of applying artificial intelligence to virus design. The discussion centers on a recent Stanford preprint in which researchers trained AI models on bacteriophage genomes and used those models to generate entirely new viral sequences. From hundreds of AI-generated designs, the team synthesized 16 fully functional viruses. One replicated faster than its natural reference phage, while six displayed striking genetic stability, accumulating no detectable mutations at all. Even for Simon, whose career spans decades of studying viral evolution, the results were genuinely surprising. Although bacteriophages are often framed as promising therapeutic tools, particularly for treating antibiotic-resistant infections, Simon cautions that the implications of this work extend far beyond phage biology. Applying similar AI-driven approaches to animal or human viruses could unintentionally generate pathogens that are more transmissible or more virulent—effectively producing gain-of-function outcomes without any traditional laboratory manipulation. The episode places these findings within a broader and increasingly urgent context. Leaders in the AI community have begun sounding alarms about AI-enabled biology. Most notably, Yoshua Bengio warned in a New York Times op-ed that the implications of this technology are “terrifying.” Similar concerns were echoed at the September Red Lines AI meeting, where pandemic genesis was identified as the foremost global risk. Simon and Bryce argue that this moment demands restraint rather than curiosity. They urge scientists to refrain from applying AI-based viral design to human-relevant pathogens and call on research funders, including the National Institutes of Health, philanthropies, and private foundations, to withhold support for work that could escalate existential risk. (Such restraint would align with recent U.S. executive orders aimed at preventing the enhancement of dangerous pathogens.) The episode closes with Simon making a broader appeal for scientists to stop prioritizing technical novelty and high-risk experimentation, but for a renewed commitment to the principle of do no harm. Biology, he contends, should focus its energy on urgent human challenges (e.g., cancer, neurodegenerative disease, and mental health) where progress can be transformative without carrying the risk of catastrophic consequences. (recorded December 7, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
Dec 30, 2025 · 1 hr 3 min
Dana Parish - The Lyme Roundtable: Historic Reckoning or Optics?
In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Dana Parish—an award-winning songwriter, patient-rights advocate, advisory board member of the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, co-author of Chronic, and host of The Dana Parish Podcast—about her personal experience with Lyme disease, the broader scientific, medical, and political controversies surrounding tick-borne illness, and the historical significance of the Lyme Disease Roundtable hosted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Monday, December 15, 2025. The conversation begins with Dana’s personal Lyme story: a tick bite that abruptly derailed her music career and led to severe multisystem illness, including heart failure, after early treatment failed. She describes a long and difficult journey to diagnosis, the discovery of co-infections such as Bartonella, and her eventual recovery through extended antibiotic treatment under Dr. Steven Phillips. That experience ultimately led her to co-author Chronic, a project shaped by striking parallels between Lyme disease politics and the public response to COVID-19. Dana discusses her advocacy work with organizations such as the Bay Area Lyme Foundation and the Lyme Disease Biobank, emphasizing the urgent need for improved diagnostics, increased research funding, insurance coverage, and formal recognition of chronic Lyme disease. The episode also explores the recent HHS Chronic Lyme Disease Roundtable, featuring figures such as RFK Jr., Dr. Oz, Dr. Steven Phillips, and Dr. Bob Bransfield. The discussion highlights growing acknowledgment of chronic Lyme’s reality, the severe neuropsychiatric consequences many patients face—including rage, psychosis, and suicide risk—and calls for systemic reforms in testing, treatment, and coverage. Interwoven with humor and banter—including jokes about exterminating ticks, “limited hangouts,” and mutual suspicions of being “spooks”—the episode confronts deeper issues: institutional denial, media bias, insurance barriers, failed vaccine efforts, and the enormous personal and economic toll of untreated chronic illness. Dana and Bryce also explore links between Lyme disease, toxic mold exposure, reactivated infections, and long COVID, underscoring the complexity of chronic inflammatory conditions. The episode closes with cautious optimism about potential reforms under new HHS leadership, stressing both the urgency of alleviating patient suffering and the need for skepticism and follow-through to ensure that recent developments amount to real change rather than symbolic optics. (recorded December 19, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe
Dec 21, 2025 · 53 min
Jenner Furst - Thank You, Dr. Fauci
In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with documentary filmmaker Jenner Furst, the Director of Thank You, Dr. Fauci, which examines the career and controversies surrounding Dr. Anthony Fauci. The conversation explores Jenner’s motivation for making the film, which began when independent financiers approached him to investigate Fauci’s record during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jenner describes his deep dive into Fauci’s involvement in gain-of-function research, the lab-origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2, and what he characterizes as a vast scientific cover-up, reconstructed through emails, publications, and whistleblower testimony. They discuss interviews featured in the film with figures such as Fauci’s long time nemesis Richard Ebright, former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, and current FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, while critically examining institutional incentives, possible intelligence-community entanglements, and how crises can be leveraged for power, profit, and political advantage. Interspersed with humor—ranging from bad Christmas songs and Ghostbusters metaphors to behind-the-scenes filming anecdotes—the discussion also confronts darker themes: suppressed dissent, fraud in science, failures of transparency, and the structural weaknesses of modern biosafety and public-health oversight. The episode asks how ambition, distorted incentives, and institutional corruption may have contributed to a global catastrophe—and whether meaningful accountability or reform is possible under new leadership. Listeners are encouraged to watch the film for a fuller reckoning. (Recorded December 13, 2025) Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

Showing 1–20 of 22 episodes