Episode 195: Doug Cooke discusses NASA’s challenges in the space race to the Moon and Mars

Our guest today is Doug Cooke, an aerospace consultant who spent 38 years at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston and NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.  STEM-Talk host and IHMC founder Dr. Ken Ford, a former Associate Director of NASA’s Ames Research Center and Director of NASA’s Center of Excellence in Information Technology, interviewed Doug just four days after the astronauts of NASA’s Artemis II mission splashed down in the Pacific Ocean following a historic 10-day roundtrip from the Earth to the Moon. In today’s episode, Ken and Doug discuss the Artemis mission as well as NASA’s plans to return humans to the lunar surface by 2028. Doug also shares his concern that China could one day surpass America’s leadership role in human spaceflight. During his 38 years at NASA, Doug played critical roles in the Space Shuttle, International Space Station and Human Exploration spaceflight programs. During the last three years of his NASA career, he served as Associate Administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, which oversees the development of systems critical to NASA’s plans for human exploration of the Moon and Mars, including the Artemis program. Show notes: [00:04:05] Ken opens our interview with Doug by talking about the Artemis II mission, which is the first crewed mission beyond low earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972. Harrison Schmidtt, who was on Apollo 17, was our guest on episode 4. Ken asks Doug for his key takeaways of the Artemis II mission, which set the record for a manned mission from Earth, traveling 252,756 miles into space and breaking Apollo 13’s record. [00:06:18] Ken explains that the Artemis missions signal a new age of space exploration as well as the beginning of a new space race between the U.S. and China. NASA aims to land humans on the Moon by 2028 while China expects to land humans on the moon in 2030. Ken has previously stated that he does not have confidence in NASA’s current mission architecture to achieve NASA’s stated goal of 2028, and asks Doug for his thoughts on the matter. [00:07:28] Ken asks if it is true that Yuri Gagarin, who become the first human to fly into space, is what initially sparked Doug’s interest in science and space. [00:08:54] Ken notes that Gagarin’s orbit around the earth inspired President Kennedy to vow that the United States would ramp up its space program and become the first nation to land a man on the moon. Ken mentions that he believes the Apollo 11 mission, which landed astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface, was one the greatest technological advances in world history. Ken asks Doug for his thoughts on the success of the Apollo program. [00:10:28] Ken mentions that Doug went to college at Texas A&M and majored in aerospace engineering. Kens asks Doug how he got a job at NASA after graduating. [00:12:21] Ken explains that Doug was instrumental in the development of the space shuttle and the International Space Station during his time at NASA. Doug talks about what it was like working on those projects at NASA. [00:15:16] Ken mentions that Doug also had an instrumental role in the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), and the broader Exploration Technology Program. Ken points out that Doug became head of the exploration technology program in 1990 under then NASA Associate Administrator Mike Griffin, who was our guest on episodes 134 and 189. Ken asks Doug about meeting Mike. [00:16:17] Ken mentions that Mike Griffin and Lisa Porter were our guests on episode 189, where they voiced concerns about NASA’s current plans for a return to the moon. Ken goes on to mention that near the end of Doug’s career at NASA, he was the head of Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), which is responsible for the development of systems critical to NASA’s plans for future exploration of the Moon and Mars. Ken asks Doug to talk about his role as head of the directorate and the work he did there. [00:18:55] Ken explains that Doug has written extensively on the issues with the Artemis mission architecture, most notably in a recent article for space news. Before jumping into the article, Ken asks Doug to talk about why it is important and also a national-security concern that we return to the moon before China. [00:21:12] Looping back to Doug’s op-ed in Space News, Ken notes that Doug stressed the need for NASA to develop a plan-B for the Artemis mission, with Doug and others noting that without a plan-B, the U.S. risks of losing the space race to the Moon. Doug has also gone on record to say that China has a far simpler, more direct, and more technically conservative plan than NASA. Ken asks Doug to elaborate on this. [00:22:37] Ken asks Doug to talk about the issues he and others have identified with NASA’s current proposed landing system. [00:26:14] Ken asks Doug to give a better understanding for the listeners of just how tall the proposed SpaceX lander is, and why that is a potential problem for not only landing on the moon in the proposed locations, but also for the astronauts exiting and entering. [00:28:51] Ken asks Doug to talk about what plan-B for Artemis looks like. [00:30:12] Ken asks Doug about the powerful thrust generation of the SpaceX lander. This raises the concern of regolith blast and generating significant debris fields while landing and thus reducing the scientific value of the region immediately surrounding the landing site. [00:30:59] Ken asks if Doug has any other thoughts on a potential plan-B. [00:33:02] Ken notes that the success of the mission hinges on the least proven element, namely the lander. While other elements of the mission architecture are well established, the hardest and least tested elements are normally the weakest links. Ken asks Doug’s thoughts on this position. [00:34:31] Ken asks Doug to talk about the complexity of the Artemis mission architecture and that it is largely driven by the Lander and NASA’s requirements.  There was a high interest in re-usability which increased complexity. Neither of the two Landers under development are an optimal design for a lunar lander. [00:35:37] Ken asks Doug about the role of commercial companies sometimes called “new space” in space exploration. [00:37:02] Ken asks Doug if he feels discouraged by the fact that the U.S. has squandered a 60-year head start in space exploration. [00:37:36] Ken explains that China aims to send humans to Mars by 2050, and NASA aims to do the same by 2040, while Elon Musk proposes to send humans to Mars by 2029, which Ken says is a completely untenable notion. Ken notes that statements such as that from Musk vastly understate the difficulty entailed in a Mars mission. Given that Doug was part of the early planning of a Mars mission at NASA, he asks Doug to talk about the challenges that such a mission faces. [00:42:17] Ken and Doug discuss the problem with EDL (Entry Descent and Landing) that Mars uniquely poses. [00:43:09] Ken also brings up the issue of crew health and wellness. By the time they reach Mars, given the extended time spent in a high-radiation, micro-gravity environment, maintaining crew health in transit is critical to mission success. [00:43:47] Ken poses the concern that if it becomes likely that China will reach the moon before the U.S. can return, then NASA or the political leadership may adopt the attitude that we’ve already been to the moon, and that we should just jump straight to Mars. [00:46:24] Ken asks for Doug’s thoughts on NASA’s current leadership and workforce. [00:49:01] Ken quizzes Doug about the aims, goals, and mission architecture of Artemis III and IV. [00:51:16] Ken notes that the design of Artemis III might negatively impact the overall mission goal of landing on the Moon by 2028. [00:52:04] Ken shifts to talk more about Artemis IV, elements of which, Ken notes, need much more testing to be ready. [00:52:58] Ken closes our interview noting that Doug will return for another interview on STEM-Talk in 2028 to see if Artemis is on schedule. Ken ends by asking Doug about how he started his hobby of collecting Civil War artifacts after he retired and moved to Gettysburg, as well as his hobby of collecting antique cars. [00:55:17] Ken closes by asking Doug to name the favorite car he has collected. Links: Doug Cooke bio Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page  

Neuroscientist and frequent STEM-Talk guest Dr. Tommy Wood rejoins us today for part two of our interview about Tommy’s book that is fresh off the press and now available in bookstores and Amazon, “The Stimulated Mind: Future-Proof Your Brain from Dementia and Stay Sharp at Any Age.” Tommy is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Neuroscience at the University of Washington, where his laboratory focuses on brain health across human lifespan. Tommy is a colleague and good friend who also is a Visiting Research Scientist here at IHMC. In part one of our interview with Tommy, episode 193, we discussed his mission to dispel the myth that the brain is doomed to decline with age. Tommy gave us a fascinating history of neuroscience and how researchers go about studying the brain. Tommy also talked about what is holding us back in terms of addressing an ever-increasing burden of cognitive and mental health disorders that we are experiencing not only here in the U.S., but also around the world. Today, Tommy shares science-backed strategies to help people future-proof their brains. We talk about the importance of diet and exercise in terms of brain health as well as the importance of stimulating and challenging our brains throughout our lifespans. Tommy has a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge, a medical degree from the University of Oxford, and a Ph.D. in Physiology and Neuroscience from the University of Oslo. Show notes: [00:03:55 Dawn welcomes Tommy back for part two of his interview by asking him about his recent trip to the UK. [00:04:32] Dawn recaps where we left off with Tommy in part one of our interview, explaining that when we last spoke with Tommy about his book, The Stimulated Mind, we focused on dispelling myths about the adult brain, in particular the idea that the adult brain is fixed. [00:05:22] Ken asks Tommy about advice his father offered when Tommy got accepted into the University of Cambridge. [00:08:03] As a follow-up, Dawn asks if it’s fair to say that when Tommy first started working with patients, what he learned in textbooks and classrooms didn’t necessarily translate perfectly into the real world and that there is no one-size-fits-all fix. [00:11:54] Ken asks Tommy to expand on what he wrote in his book about the fact that while science can give us a framework for understanding the world, we are always only one experiment or one well-phrased question away from having to completely rethink everything. [00:16:44] Dawn launches into talking about what people can do to future-proof their brain, starting with diet. In the Nourish chapter of his book, Tommy seeks to help people see food as an opportunity for nourishment rather than a source of stress since there are so many conflicting messages about diet and healthy foods out there. Dawn asks Tommy if his opinion is that there is no one-size-fits-all diet? [00:22:21] Dawn explains that what we eat has a direct effect on our long-term health and dementia risk, and within the literature a common theme that emerges regarding eating for brain health is maximizing nutrients. Dawn asks Tommy to talk about what this looks like. [00:24:49] Dawn points out that people today are inundated with advice from health influencers in all directions. She asks Tommy to talk about his advice to tune out the noise and instead of chasing whatever supplement or super food that is currently in vogue, simply to focus on filling your diet with whole, nutrient dense foods. [00:29:43] Ken explains that nutrients are sometimes hard to get in the diet, with somewhere between 15 and 25 percent of people in the U.S. and Europe having inadequate intakes of most B vitamins and even higher deficits in iron, magnesium, calcium, and vitamins C and E, with nutrient deficiencies differing by sex. Women on average are lower in B12, iron, iodine, and calcium, while men are typically lower in magnesium, zinc, and various B vitamins. Ken asks Tommy to give an overview of what these nutrients do in the brain that makes them so critical to cognitive function. [00:35:51] Ken follows up on this discussion by moving on to the section in Tommy’s book titled “To Supplement or Not to Supplement” where he discusses the evidence of the benefits of targeted supplementation to fill in the nutrient gaps that exist in the diet. Ken asks Tommy to talk about this more in depth and maybe give a framework by which people can think about adding or not adding key nutrients via supplementation. [00:41:21] Given the controversial reputation red meat has, Ken asks Tommy to weigh in on how he thinks people should think about red meat. [00:46:26] Fish as well, Dawn explains, has become controversial, due to microplastics and mercury concerns. However, given the positive effects on cognitive health that fish consumption has, Dawn asks Tommy to talk about the costs and benefits of increasing fish consumption. [00:50:30] Ken asks about the genetic basis for dementia and in particular Alzheimer’s, particularly regarding the APOE genotypes and a recent paper that made the claim that homozygous APOE4/4 carriers were essentially guaranteed to develop ALzherimer’s, a strong claim that Ken is skeptical of. [00:57:06] Ken switches gears to talk about brain energy consumption, noting that while the brain is only about 2% of total body mass, it consumes roughly 20% of total energy at rest. Ken mentions that we discussed this topic in episode 59 with Steven Cunnane and asks Tommy to touch on the importance of getting enough energy for the brain and the consequences of not. [01:01:43] Dawn mentions that time restricted eating and fasting have become quite popular in recent years, and is a topic we discussed in episodes 7, and 133 with Mark Mattson. Dawn asks Tommy what some key considerations are for fasting and time restricted eating. [01:04:52] Ken contrasts low energy availability with the prevalent issue in today’s modern food environment of high energy availability, leading to epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes, both of which are associated with lower brain volume and are both also implicated in projections of higher dementia burdens in the coming decades. Ken asks Tommy to talk about this. [01:08:55] Dawn asks if Tommy has any practical recommendations on how people can assess whether they are fueling the needs of their brain properly. [01:10:38] Ken notes that brain health is tied closely to the extent to which we stimulate our brains, especially as we age, a topic which was discussed at length with Dr. Rudy Tanzi in episode 174. Ken goes on to ask Tommy to talk about the importance of stimulating our brains as we age. [01:13:38] Dawn notes that Tommy made the realization that the brain adapting to stimulus is very similar to how muscles adapt to resistance training after meeting Josh Turknet, a neuroscientist who loves the banjo as much as Tommy loves weight training. Dawn asks Tommy to talk about how his and Josh’s respective hobbies have more in common than he originally thought. [01:16:11] Ken asks if this analogy between the brain and muscle extends to ‘muscle memory’ or the phenomenon that people who were at one time more muscular are able to gain back that muscle mass more quickly than when they first trained. [01:19:11] Ken mentions that Josh Turknet, the author of the book Anyone Can Play Music, and our guest on episode 130, co-authored a paper with Tommy titled, “Demand coupling drives neurodegeneration, a model of age-related cognitive decline and dementia.” Ken asks Tommy to discuss this paper. [01:22:58] Dawn explains that Tommy writes in his book that exercise science and athletic coaching have given us a really good idea of how a specific stimulus effects performance. But when it comes to this kind of measurement tracking for cognitive function, it’s less straightforward. Dawn asks Tommy to talk about this. [01:25:22] Ken mentions that there are lots of ways to stimulate the brain, with some being more potent than others, such as learning a language or an instrument. Ken asks Tommy what some other examples are of good cognitive exercises and learning endeavors that can help develop cognitive headroom as we age. [01:29:14] Ken asks Tommy about the fact that retirement is often the point in someone’s life where their cognitive abilities are most at risk, and that delaying retirement, or retiring and choosing to reinvent oneself and engage in a new and challenging adventure can help prevent the cognitive risks associated with retirement. [01:32:32] Dawn notes that exercise is also incredibly important for brain health and asks Tommy to talk about his framework that people can use to think about movement and physical activity as a way to support brain health. [01:37:28] Ken asks Tommy about a study out of Norway that found that people who increased their fitness in their 50s and 60s decreased their subsequent risk of dementia. [01:39:52] Dawn asks Tommy to talk about the growing issue of social media causing people to lose their attention span. [01:44:03] Dawn asks Tommy how he sees AI affecting our brains today. [01:49:17] Ken notes that while most STEM-Talk guests who have written a book say that they would prefer to not repeat the experience, Tommy however, is already thinking about his next book. Ken asks if Tommy can share what this next book will be about. [01:51:26] Dawn asks Tommy about his wife Elizabeth, who was our guest on episode 71, and a researcher at the University of Washington. [01:52:52] Dawn wraps up asking Tommy if, since moving from North Carolina to Washington, if he and Elizabeth have had any luck finding good barbecue in Seattle. Links: Tommy Wood bio STEM-Talk episode 47 with Tommy Wood STEM-Talk episode 110 with Tommy Wood STEM-Talk episode 111 with Tommy Wood STEM-Talk episode 128 with Tommy Wood STEM-Talk episode 193 with Tommy Wood, part 1 Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio  

Today we have Dr. Tommy Wood, a neuroscientist and frequent STEM-Talk guest who joins today on the eve of the publication of his first book, “The Stimulated Mind: Future-Proof Your Brain from Dementia and Stay Sharp at Any Age.” Tommy is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Neuroscience at the University of Washington, where his laboratory focuses on brain health across human lifespan. Tommy is a colleague and good friend who also is a Visiting Research Scientist here at IHMC. Today we talk to Tommy about his mission to dispel the myth that the brain is doomed to decline with age. His book, which publishes on March 24 but is available for pre-order on Amazon, offers science-backed strategies to enhance mental sharpness and prevent cognitive decline, including Alzheimer’s disease. There was so much to unpack with Tommy about his book, that we decided to split his interview into two parts. Today we talk to Tommy about the history of neuroscience and how researchers go about studying the brain. We also have a conversation with Tommy about what is holding us back in terms of addressing an ever-increasing burden of cognitive and mental health disorders we are experiencing not only here in the U.S., but also around the world. In part two of Tommy’ interview, which will air in a few weeks following today’s episode, Tommy shares science-backed strategies to help people future-proof their brains. Tommy’s lab at the University of Washington focuses on brain health across the lifespan. He conducts research that focuses on ways to treat a range of brain injuries, including babies born preterm and adults who experience brain trauma. He also investigates lifestyle factors that affect long-term cognitive function and increase the risk of dementia. Tommy has a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge, a medical degree from the University of Oxford, and a Ph.D. in Physiology and Neuroscience from the University of Oslo. Show notes: [00:04:04] Dawn opens our interview congratulating Tommy on his new book, “The Stimulated Mind.” Dawn asks Tommy what inspired him to write his first book. [00:07:29] Since writing the book consumed more than 18 months of Tommy’s life, Dawn asks Tommy if he thinks he’ll write another one. [00:09:36] Dawn asks if it’s fair to say that the overarching theme of “The Stimulated Mind” is that the conventional belief the adult brain is fixed and incapable of change is wrong. [00:17:35] Ken explains that Tommy opens his book with a story about a study on barn owls, where researchers outfitted a group of owls with prism goggles that altered the perceived position of objects in the owls’ vision. While young owls were able to quickly adapt to the change in their vision and return to normal behavior and activities, adult owls, even after months of wearing the goggles, were unable to adapt and would miss mice that were directly under their beaks. However, the research group amended their study design and found something interesting. Ken asks Tommy to explain what they found when they amended their design. [00:22:40] Ken asks Tommy to share how a human study, which outfitted participants with goggles that flipped their vision upside down, demonstrated the adaptability of the adult brain. [00:25:32] Ken asks if these sorts of adaptations have been seen as beyond basic sensory modalities in higher cognitive functions. [00:31:25] Dawn zooms out in our discussion and asks Tommy, given the falsehood of our previous understanding of the adult brain as being fixed, what exactly do we know about the brain. [00:35:36] Dawn asks Tommy to talk about Santiago Ramón y Cajal, who is considered the first neuroscientist. [00:38:41] Dawn mentions chapter two of Tommy’s book, “How do Neuroscientists Study the Brain,” in which Tommy explains the complexity of the brain, which is comprised of almost 100 billion neurons which compose nearly a quadrillion synapses. Given the complexity of the brain, Tommy notes in his book that even an organ as complex as the human brain is incapable of fully comprehending its own complexity. Dawn asks Tommy to talk about how he and his colleagues approach studying the brain. [00:43:30] Ken notes the parallels between attempting to understand the function of the brain based on an understanding of its individual components to the process of trying to understand how a piece of software works on a computer by systematically studying the computer’s hardware. Ken goes on to start a discussion on the parallels between the brain as a self-referential system that is so complex it cannot even fully understand itself, to various paradoxes as well as Gödel’s theorem, while noting that such comparisons are a false equivalency, and the brain is not a formal system in the sense of mathematical proofs. Still, Ken notes, the parallels are interesting. [00:47:07] Dawn asks Tommy about a humorous but insightful section in his book that illustrates the complexity of neurological research called “Can a Biologist Fix a Broken Radio.” Dawn asks Tommy to explain what this analogy is about. [00:52:18] Dawn notes that the modern belief that the adult brain is fixed stems from work done by Cajal in the late 1800s where he claimed that after development the adult brain was no longer capable of regeneration or plasticity. Dawn asks Tommy to touch more on this. [00:56:26] Ken explains that while people are likely familiar with neurons, as the basic building block of the nervous system, most people are less familiar with glial cells, which, until recently, were considered to play a minor role in the brain. However, Tommy in his book, argues that glial cells should be seen as just as important as neurons. Ken notes that within the neuroscience community there is a renewed interest in these cells. [01:02:35] Dawn shifts the conversation to ask about the importance of cardiovascular health in brain health. [01:06:35] Dawn explains that Tommy ends part one of his book by looking at what the brain is actually for, and to answer that question, he first explains that although the brain is capable of adaptation and change over a lifespan, it requires the right environment. To illustrate this, and the fact that dementia is not predetermined, Dawn asks Tommy about the indigenous Tsimané people of the Bolivian Amazon, who have some of the lowest rates of dementia in the world. [01:08:27] Ken asks Tommy if it’s true that these people also have a lower prevalence of APOE 4/4 and 3/4 genotypes. [01:11:26] Dawn asks, since one of the aims of Tommy’s book is to help people improve their cognitive function and reduce their risk for dementia, if he could give listeners a brief history of Alzheimer’s disease. [01:17:07] Ken explains that general warnings that as we get better at treating various diseases and increasing lifespans, we will see an overwhelming number of people develop age-related dementia. Recent studies out of Europe, however, have shown the opposite trend, and that the likelihood of being diagnosed with dementia at the age of 70 is now lower than it was 20 years ago. [01:22:43] Ken and Dawn close out part one of our interview with Tommy by explaining that in part two we will focus our discussion with Tommy on ways people can stimulate neuroplasticity in their adult brains. Ken asks Tommy to close out by briefly discussing the recipe for changing and improving the adult brain. Links: Tommy Wood bio STEM-Talk episode 47 with Tommy Wood STEM-Talk episode 110 with Tommy Wood STEM-Talk episode 111 with Tommy Wood STEM-Talk episode 128 with Tommy Wood Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio  

 ChatGPT has been in the news a lot lately and, as a result, quite a few STEM-Talk listeners have tossed us questions about the reliability and limitations of generative-artificial intelligence chatbots as well as large-language models more broadly.  Ken and Dawn tackle this question and a number of others in today’s Ask Me Anything episode. We have listeners wondering why astronauts train in underwater conditions for spacewalks; icebreakers in antarctica; the value of supplementing with urolithin-A; and the effectiveness of L-citrulline in helping aging blood vessels. Ken also weights in on questions related to lithium deficiency and the onset of Alzheimer’s disease; a study that found mTOR activation may not be necessary for ketamine’s beneficial effects in the context of depression; and a paper that demonstrated short-term mTOR inhibition by rapamycin improved cardiac and endothelial function in older men. Show notes: [00:02:49] Ken opens our AMA with a listener question for Dawn, which asks why, despite the differences between diving and zero-gravity environments, why do astronauts train in underwater conditions for spacewalks. The listener goes on to mention an article they read about NASA’s neutral buoyancy lab in Houston, which contains a partial replica of the International Space Station. [00:07:42] A listener asks Ken if he is still optimistic about the value of supplementing with urolithin-A, and if so, is there a brand he recommends. Ken mentions episodes 118, with Julie Anderson, and 173, with Anurag Singh. Ken also discusses a paper titled “Effect of the mitophagy inducer urolithin A on age related immune decline, a randomized placebo-controlled trial” co-authored by Anurag. Ken also mentions clinical research supporting the urolithin-A supplement Mitopure. [00:10:53] A listener asks Ken about a paper titled “Short-term mTOR inhibition by rapamycin improves cardiac and endothelial function in older men: a proof-of-concept pilot study.” [00:14:29] Ken discusses a 2020 paper from a research group at Yale, which suggested that mTOR activation may not be necessary for ketamine’s beneficial effects in the context of depression. The paper also reported that m-TOR suppression via rapamycin might prolong ketamine’s antidepressant effects. [00:18:47] A research scientist formerly working in Antarctica asks Ken about Russia’s dominance in the realm of ice breakers. [00:23:55] A listener mentions that for some people, when they used ChatGPT to ask about the assassination of political commentator Charlie Kirk, ChatGPT sometimes responded by denying the assassination occurred. The listener asks Ken about the credibility and reliability of generative AI and large-language models. [00:28:49] Several listeners have submitted questions for Ken regarding a paper published in Nature in August of last year titled “Lithium deficiency in the onset of Alzheimer’s disease.” Ken gives his thoughts on this paper. [00:31:56] For our final question this AMA, a listener asks Ken about the arginine paradox, which regards L-arginine, which is used by the body to make nitric oxide, which is necessary to relax and maintain flexibility of blood vessels. However, several papers have reported that supplementation of arginine does not reliably improve aging blood vessels. In contrast, recent research suggests that L-citrulline might be more effective. The listeners sent questions asking about the possible effects of citrulline in vascular health and aging. In his answer, Ken cites the following papers: — Administration of L-arginine plus L-citrulline or L-citrulline alone successfully retarded endothelial senescence. — Effects of L-Citrulline Supplementation on Endothelial Function, Arterial Stiffness, and Blood Glucose Level in the Fasted and Acute Hyperglycemic States in Middle-Aged and Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes. — Citrulline Supplementation Improves Microvascular Function and Muscle Strength in Middle-Aged and Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes. — Effects of L-citrulline supplementation and watermelon intake on arterial stiffness and endothelial function in middle-aged and older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. — Citrulline regulates macrophage metabolism and inflammation to counter aging in mice. If you have questions for Ken and Dawn after listening to today’s episode or any episode of STEM-Talk, please email our producer, Randy Hammer, at [email protected].  Links: Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio    

Today we have Dr. Francisco Gonzalez-Lima, a behavioral neuroscientist who was our guest in episodes 106 and 107 back in 2020. Since those 2020 interviews, Francisco and his colleagues at the Gonzalez-Lima Lab have produced dozens of more studies and papers that have advanced their work on methylene blue, transcranial lasers, memory enhancement, neuroprotection and neurocognitive disorders. Francisco and his lab at the University of Texas Austin are recognized as world leaders for their research on the relationships between brain energy metabolism, memory and neurobehavioral disorders. In today’s interview, we talk to Francisco about his lab’s most recent research on the beneficial neurocognitive and emotional effects of noninvasive human brain stimulation in healthy, aging and mentally ill populations. This research primarily uses transcranial infrared laser stimulation and multimodal imaging, which we will discuss in today’s interview. Be sure to check out our earlier interviews with Francisco where he talked aobut his work on brain metabolic mapping and Alzheimer’s, episode 106, and his research into methylene blue and near-infrared light as therapies for cognitive disorders, episode 107. Show notes: [00:04:32] Dawn and Ken open our interview with Francisco by mentioning that his lab has been very productive pursuing new research avenues since he was last on STEM-Talk. Ken mentions that Francisco has recently begun collaborating with his sister who has a PhD in computational and applied mathematics and asks Francisco to talk about the work they’re doing together. [00:06:21] Dawn shifts to talk about the roadblocks that Francisco and his team have been dealing with, particularly that the review process for academic papers is unusually slow, not just for Francisco’s team but at large. Dawn asks Francisco to discuss this issue. [00:10:37] Dawn recaps that in our previous interview with Francisco in 2020, the discussion focused on his research into methylene blue, which has been primarily used to treat methemoglobinemia, however, the potential for methylene blue to treat declining cognitive function is an active area of research. Despite Francisco’s successful work with methylene blue, he often gets asked about its safety, largely due to various misconceptions. Dawn asks Francisco to talk about the misconceptions about methylene blue. [00:14:57] Ken asks if Francisco what some other misconceptions about methylene blue are. [00:20:43] Given the discussion of dosing, Ken asks Francisco what the safe dose range is for methylene blue in humans. [00:28:15] Ken mentions an article published a few months ago titled “Beyond plaques: How methylene blue and ketones address vascular hypometabolism in Alzheimer’s disease” Ken goes on to mention that the article did a good job of summarizing Francisco’s work as well as the work of Steve Cunnane, who was our guest on episode 59. Ken asks Francisco to discuss his thoughts on the article. [00:34:25] Dawn shifts focus to discuss Francisco’s work on photobiomodulation, specifically transcranial infrared laser stimulation, which is a non-invasive method for neuroprotection and cognitive enhancement. Dawn explains that Francisco has written two chapters on this topic that summarizes his work in the area, one of which appeared in the Oxford handbook on transcranial stimulation, and the other is in a book on augmentation of brain function, based on a series of presentations he gave in Switzerland. Dawn asks Francisco to give a broad overview of his work on photobiomodulation and transcranial infrared laser stimulation. [00:43:52] Ken asks Francisco to talk about a paper titled “Light buckets and laser beams” that he and other researchers composed after attending a photobiomodulation workshop convened in 2023 by the director of the National Institute on Aging and several NIH lab directors. [00:51:25] Ken asks Francisco if there are any commercially available photobiomodulation devices that he thinks have substantial utility. [00:56:27] Ken asks Francisco to discuss mitochondrial disfunction in the context of neurodegeneration and his work on targeted stimulation of the mitochondria with photo biomodulation. [01:06:58] Ken asks Francisco to talk about the potential benefits of photobiomodulation on the aging process outside of neurodegenerative conditions. [01:17:16] Dawn mentions that transcranial infrared stimulation stimulates prefrontal energy metabolism and oxygenation, which produces cognitive enhancing effects. Dawn goes on to ask Francisco about his recent paper exploring this phenomenon in the context of depression titled “Augmenting internet based cognitive behavioral therapy for major depressive disorder with transcranial infrared laser stimulation.” [01:23:08] In light of the promising results of this study, Ken asks Francisco what he sees as the next research step to further this progress. [01:30:15] Ken comments on how Francisco has not only had great accomplishments in his recent research but also has a lot of fruitful opportunities ahead. [01:31:07] Ken asks Francisco if he has looked at photobiomodulation in combination with transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation. [01:34:28] Ken mentions that for listeners interested in learning more about vagal nerve stimulation they can listen to episodes 179 with JP Erico, and 172 with Kevin Tracey. Francisco discusses the difficulty in knowing whether to attribute effects of vagus nerve stimulation to stimulation of the vagus nerve itself or incidental stimulation of the carotid artery … or some combination. [01:38:33] Ken mentions that Francisco is now trying to move away from animal studies and focus more on human studies. Ken asks what human trials he is hoping to conduct. [01:42:27] Dawn closes our interview thanking Francisco for once again joining us on STEM-Talk. Links: Gonzalez-Lima Lab Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio    

Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist known for her criticism of alarmist, doomsday rhetoric about climate change, returns to STEM-Talk for her second appearance. Judy most recently was one of five researchers commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy to draft a Climate Assessment Report summarizing the current state of climate science with a focus on how it relates to the United States. In this interview, Judy summarizes the climate report’s key points, including the finding that that carbon-dioxide induced warming of the planet appears to be less damaging economically than has been commonly believed. The report, which was released this past summer, also argues that aggressive mitigation strategies for carbon dioxide emissions could be more harmful than helpful. Our interview comes on the heels of the prestigious journal Nature retracting a study that predicted climate change and carbon emissions would cause catastrophic economic damage by the end of the century.  Our conversation with Judy also followed an about-face from Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who wrote last fall that it’s time to tamp down the alarmist rhetoric that climate change will lead to humanity’s demise. Curry is president of the Climate Forecast Application Network and host of the blog, Climate Etc, which you can find at JudyCurry.com.  Her blog provides  a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields as well as citizen scientists to discuss topics related to climate science and science policy. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She has published more than 100 scientific papers and is the author of “Climate Change and Uncertainty: Rethinking Our Response,” a book that provides a framework for understanding and rethinking the climate-change debate.  Show notes: [00:03:59] Ken opens the interview explaining that Judy was one of the five authors of a climate assessment report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy. Before diving into the key findings of the report and the response it has received, Ken asks Judy to explain how she became one of the five authors. [00:06:21] Ken mentions that critics of the climate working group have accused the authors of being hand-picked skeptics of the effects of climate change. Judy argues that she and her co-authors are scientists determined to get the science right. Ken asks Judy to talk about her co-authors and the working relationship of the group. [00:09:18] Ken asks Judy to talk about how she and her co-authors came to their key finding that the economic impacts of climate change are less severe than typically thought. [00:13:08] Ken asks Judy to provide examples that demonstrate how climate mitigation strategies can be more harmful than helpful. [00:16:08] Ken follows up by asking about the report’s proposal to shift climate science from alarmism to focus more on a better understanding of natural climate variability. [00:18:14] Ken asks Judy what her thoughts are on the next steps that should be taken for a better understanding climate variability. [00:20:06] Ken asks Judy to elaborate on the findings of chapter six of the report regarding global warming and extreme weather events. In particular, Ken asks about the problems with associating specific extreme weather events like hurricanes to climate change, and the issues created by the short historical records we have at our disposal. [00:24:20] Ken asks Judy to talk about chapter nine of the report, which is about the need to focus on reducing vulnerabilities in our infrastructure instead of mitigating carbon emissions. [00:28:43] Ken asks Judy to comment on the accusations that she is a “climate change denier.” [00:31:18] Ken asks Judy to talk about a paper she co-authored with her colleague Dr. Harry DeAngelo titled “A critique of apocalyptic climate narrative.” [00:36:27] Ken brings up Bill Gates’ recent about-face on climate change and the need to pivot away from doomsday views of cataclysmic climate disasters. Ken asks Judy to elaborate on what she has dubbed “climate alarmism fatigue.” [00:39:32] Ken asks Judy to give her thoughts on the issue of sea level rise, particularly in light of the pushback that the DOE report faced on this topic. He also asks her to discuss the recent paper that was released after the DOE report titled “A global perspective on local sea level changes” which proports that there is no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise for 98% of the suitable global locations. [00:50:47] Ken points listeners to Judy’s blog, Judycurry.com, where she discusses many of these same issues. Ken goes on to explain that his perspective as well as Judy’s perspective is that climate change has become a scapegoat for many issues. He asks Judy to talk about this phenomenon. [00:55:24] Ken asks Judy what she would like to see in terms of follow-up research to the DOE climate report. [01:00:23] Ken asks Judy about her book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk.” Links: Judith Curry bio Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page    

Today’s episode of STEM-Talk features a timely and wide-ranging discussion with Drs. Michael Griffin and Lisa Porter about NASA’s plans to return humans to the Moon, the history of lunar missions, and how China’s advances in space technology pose a serious threat to U.S. national security. IHMC founder and CEO Emeritus Ken Ford’s interview with Griffin and Porter came 10 days before Griffin appeared before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to give testimony on China’s advancements in space and the risks it poses for the United States. “We have squandered a 60-year head start on pioneering the space frontier to a nation that, without reason or provocation on our part, has chosen to become our nation’s adversary,” said Griffin in his opening comments to Congress. In this episode, Griffin and Porter explain why it is critical for the U.S. to return to the Moon before China. They also argue that NASA’s Artemis III mission to return to the lunar surface and establish a permanent base on the Moon is seriously flawed and should be scrapped. Griffin and Porter are co-founders and co-presidents of LogiQ Inc., a company providing high-end management, scientific and technical consulting services. Griffin’s background includes roles as the former Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the Administrator of NASA, the Space Department Head at the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory as well as Chairman and CEO of Schafer Corporation. Porter’s background includes roles as the former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the founding Director of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Associate Administrator for Aeronautics at NASA. Show notes: [00:04:44] Ken opens the interview by welcoming Mike back to STEM-Talk, who was a guest on Episodes 23 and 134. He also welcomes Lisa to her first appearance on STEM-Talk and asks her to talk about her decision to major in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [00:08:50] Ken asks Lisa why she went to Stanford for a Ph.D. in physics. [00:10:43] Ken explains that Lisa was the founding director of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), a department within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Ken asks about some of the challenges the American intelligence community faced that she addressed as director of IARPA. [00:16:15] Ken asks about Lisa’s time working for Mike as Associate Administrator for Aeronautics at NASA, and how she came to accept that role. [00:18:07] Ken explains that when Mike became Undersecretary for Defense for Research and Engineering in 2018, he invited Lisa to become the Deputy Undersecretary for Defense for Research and Engineering. Ken asks Mike why Lisa was ideal for that role. [00:21:07] Ken explains that Mike and Lisa are working together again as co-founders and co-presidents of LogiQ Inc., a company that provides scientific consulting services. Ken asks Mike to give a brief overview of LogiQ’s work. [00:24:44] Ken shifts the discussion to space exploration, noting that he wants to talk about Mike’s 2024 congressional testimony on returning to the Moon, and a paper that he and Lisa published titled “A system architecture for human lunar return.” To begin the discussion, Ken asks why it is so important for us to return to the Moon. [00:29:11] Ken asks Mike and Lisa to explain why it is important for the US to be the first to return to the Moon in the context of China’s ambition to send humans to the Moon and establish a permanent lunar presence. [00:33:24] Ken asks Mike and Lisa if they see the cancellation of the Apollo program as a mistake. [00:35:36] Ken asks Mike and Lisa to give an overview of the Artemis program. [00:41:45] Ken mentions the centrality of the Gateway in the Artemis plan, and the problem with making something that is already hard even harder for no good reason. [00:43:28] Ken mentions his concern that the focus on a Mars-forward approach might impede our success with the current Moon missions. [00:46:40] In Mike and Lisa’s aforementioned paper, they propose a dual-launch lunar landing architecture, which is simpler than the current NASA architecture and presents lower risks to the crew. Ken asks Mike and Lisa to elaborate on this idea. [00:48:41] Ken asks Mike and Lisa what they think are some of the other technical and programmatic problems with the current Artemis plan. [00:52:31] Ken asks Mike and Lisa what NASA’s response has been, as well as the response of others in the human space flight community, to their paper and recommendations for the Artemis mission architecture. [00:54:25] Ken explains that Sean Duffy, the Secretary of Transportation and acting NASA administrator, has opened the door to some additional lander ideas in light of concerns that the two current contractors, Space X and Blue Origin, may not be ready in time for the current Artemis schedule. Ken asks if Lisa and Mike think this is a good idea or if they think it would further complicate matters. [00:59:25] NASA’s current budget is around $24.9 billion dollars, approximately 0.4 percent of total federal spending. Ken notes at a time when China is increasing their investment in their space programs and launching several missions, NASA is facing a proposal to cut its funding by 24 percent to $18.8 billion. Ken asks Mike and Lisa for their thoughts on this. [01:03:13] Ken and Lisa continue Mike’s discussion on the core purpose of NASA beyond science. [01:08:55] Ken and Mike reflect on Ken’s observation that the U.S. is not as serious about space and the Moon as it was during the Apollo years, years that attracted the nation’s best and brightest. [01:09:39] Ken asks Mike and Lisa their thoughts on the way that NASA is contracting more services in the development of Artemis, rather than funding a development program. [01:15:55] Ken wraps up the interview by commenting that he believes listeners will very much enjoy today’s conversation. Links: Michael Griffin bio Griffin’s Dec. 4 2025 Congressional testimony Griffin’s 2024 Congressional testimony Lida Porter bio Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage              

Today we have Dr. Marina Walther-Antonio, a Mayo Clinic researcher who investigates the role of the microbiome in cancer and reproductive health, particularly endometrial and ovarian cancers. According to the World Cancer Research Fund International, endometrial and ovarian cancers are among the top 10 most prevalent cancers in women worldwide, and there are still no standard screenings for early detection. Marina is an assistant professor in the Department of Surgery and the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine Microbiome Program. She has a joint appointment in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Today we talk to Marina about how she and her colleagues are utilizing the methodologies of environmental microbiology and technologies used in astrobiology to improve our understanding of endometrial and ovarian cancers. Through her investigations into the microbiome, she and her team are developing early detection tests that will enable clinical interventions before certain cancers develop. Show notes: [00:03:13] Dawn opens our interview asking Marina about the history of her interest in extraterrestrial life. [00:05:49] Dawn mentions that Marina did her undergraduate studies in Portugal at the University of Aveiro, where she majored in biology. Dawn asks why Marina chose biology as her major. [00:06:39] Ken explains that the undergraduate programs at Aveiro University require students to do a year of research outside the university and asks Marina about her experience with this requirement. [00:08:34] Ken explains that while Marina was conducting her internship at NASA Ames Research Center, there were several projects under way at the astrobiology institute, with the one that Marina was assigned to looking at a Mars analogue site in Oregon’s Warner Valley. Ken asks what kind of work Marina did on this project. [00:10:06] Ken asks Marina why after earning a master’s degree in microbiology from Indiana University, she went to Washington State University to earn a Ph.D. in environmental sciences. [00:13:29] Dawn asks about Marina’s Ph.D. research on microbialites, which are microbial structures that can thrive at the bottom of certain freshwater lakes and other extreme environments. [00:16:02] Dawn explains that just as Marina began researching microbial populations, the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine created a microbiome program. Dawn asks Marina about the circumstances that led to her joining Mayo. [00:19:05] Dawn mentions that Dr. Claire Fraser, the director of Maryland’s Institute for Genome Sciences pointed out in Episode 32 of STEM-Talk that there are more microbes on a single person’s hands than there are people on Earth, as well as the fact that our gut is home to more than 100 trillion bacteria. Dawn asks Marina to talk about this microbial side of humanity. [00:21:51] Ken mentions that if listeners are interested in learning more about the microbiome and how it affects human health, they should listen to Episodes 20 and 168 with Dr. Alessio Fasano. Ken asks Marina to give a short overview of the microbiome. [00:25:37] Dawn asks Marina how the focus of her research shifted to the role of the microbiome in cancer and reproductive health. [00:29:00] Dawn explains that endometrial and ovarian cancers are among the top 10 most prevalent cancers in women worldwide; with ovarian cancer being the most common gynecological malignancy and the fifth leading cause of death due to cancer in women in the nation. Dawn goes on to explain that in a 2023 paper Marina investigated the area of microbiome that is associated with ovarian cancer to better understand the microbiome’s potential in early detection. Dawn asks Marina to talk about this study and its findings. [00:35:55] Given the small scale and sample size of her initial study, Ken asks Marina what her ideal follow-up study would look like. [00:38:37] Ken mentions that in 2019 Marina published the results of a study that found that post-menopause is a key factor in the composition of endometrial cancer microbiome. This study also investigated the impact of patient factors on the microbiome, including menopausal status, BMI, and vaginal pH balance. Ken asks Marina to elaborate on the findings. [00:44:13] Dawn notes that there is no standard screening for early detection of ovarian and endometrial cancers despite their prevalence worldwide. Dawn asks Marina about the work she and her colleagues are engaged in in this space. [00:47:17] Dawn explains that prior to Marina’s aforementioned study, vaginal pH had not been associated as a risk factor in endometrial cancer. Dawn goes on to explain that variations in microbial compositions are implicated in a number of gynecologic and obstetric diseases. Marina’s core question was that since the vaginal microbiome is so crucial to women’s health, why then do vaginal microbial profiles vary strikingly from person to person. This question, as Dawn explains, led to a study and 2020 paper titled “Daily Vaginal Microbiota Fluctuations Associated with Natural Hormonal Cycle, Contraceptives, Diet, and Exercise.” Dawn asks Marina to talk about this study. [00:54:23] Ken asks Marina about her finding that exogenous hormones in contraceptives may affect vaginal microbiota. [00:56:42] Dawn asks Marina about future research that will stem from her study. [01:00:29] Dawn asks Marina about her job as director of Mayo’s mentorship and Ph.D. program, and her passion for mentorship. [01:05:24] Given her accomplished and varied career, Ken asks Marina what advice she has for young people beginning their careers in science. [01:10:06] Circling back to Marina’s original interest in the search for extraterrestrial life, Ken explains that among the NASA scientists we’ve had on STEM-Talk there is disagreement on our chances of discovering intelligent life. While our guest Ed Wiler is confident that we will be able to prove the existence of life off earth within the next 20-30 years, Pascal Lee says he doesn’t think it is likely that we will discover intelligent or complex life anytime soon. Ken asks Marina to weigh in on the matter. Links: Marina Walther-Antonio Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio    

Today Ken interviews his co-host Dr. Dawn Kernagis about her new position as the Director of Scientific Research for DEEP, a UK startup that is pioneering a new era of ocean exploration. For listeners unfamiliar with Dawn’s background, she is a NASA-trained NEEMO Aquanaut, a Fellow of the Explorer’s Club Fellow and has been inducted into the Women Divers Hall of Fame. In addition to co-hosting STEM-Talk for the past nine years, Dawn is also a Visiting Research Scientist at IHMC. Dawn’s research over the years has been focused on protecting the brain and nervous system of people working in extreme environments. Prior to joining IHMC, Dawn completed her Ph.D. and Postdoctoral training at Duke University, where she studied the genetics of decompression sickness and mechanisms of oxygen toxicity in divers. In today’s interview, Dawn talks about DEEP’s mission to create subsea stations that will allow humans to live and work permanently underwater. Show notes: [00:03:20] Ken reminds listeners of Dawn’s first STEM-Talk appearance as a guest on Episode 19 where she conducted the interview from the bottom of the ocean floor while she was a member of NASA’s NEEMO Mission 21. [00:04:13] Ken asks Dawn what she was like as a child. [00:05:48] When Ken asks Dawn what she was like as a child, she talks about how she was an annoying kid because she was always asking people questions like, “Why is the sky blue?” [00:06:49] Dawn talks about the different places she lived during her childhood. [00:07:34] Ken mentions that Dawn was inducted into the Women’s Divers Hall of Fame. He asks her how old she was when she first became interested in diving. [00:10:35] Dawn talks about how she wanted to attend the University of North Carolina after high school but ended up at North Carolina State University and then Duke University. [00:12:18] Ken asks Dawn to elaborate on her decision to change her field of study multiple times throughout her collegiate career. What follows is an interesting conversation about the importance of a person following their passion. [00:14:53] Dawn talks about cave diving and how she and her friends used to do deep dives of six and seven hours at a time. Dawn explains how this led to her obsession with ways to protect people who dive into extreme underwater environments. [00:18:28] Ken asks Dawn how she learned that some people have a genetic predisposition to decompression sickness. [00:21:32] The conversation shifts to Dawn’s Ph.D. journey and how Richard Moon, who was a STEM-Talk guest on episode 26, played a significant role in her development. [00:26:14] Ken and Dawn reminisce on the practice of performing academic research in libraries. [00:28:20] Ken points out that despite Dawn’s extensive experience in human physiology with respect to diving, her doctoral work focused on cancer-related research. He asks her to talk about that seemingly odd combination. [00:34:10] Dawn talks about two papers that emerged from this research. One paper addressed how genes with bimodal expression patterns not only define clinically relevant molecular subtypes of ovarian carcinoma, but also provide ideal targets for translation into the clinical laboratory. The other paper looked at precise microarray-based predictions of tumor behavior in breast cancer patients. [00:39:00] Ken asks Dawn to recount the story of how the two of them met. [00:41:52] Ken asks Dawn to discuss the paper she co-wrote with Dom D’Agostino on mitochondrial health and its relationship to potentially preventing oxygen toxicity during exposure to hyperbaric environments. Dawn goes on to talk about some of her other IHMC-related research. [00:43:22] Ken asks Dawn to discuss her acceptance into the Aquanaut Program and her participation during one of NASA’s NEEMO missions. [00:46:04] Ken asks Dawn to reflect on her time on NEEMO Mission 21, and if there are any key takeaways she can discuss. [00:49:04] Ken asks Dawn to describe saturation diving, the research involved, and the health implications on saturation divers that are not present in other forms of underwater exploration. [00:52:04] The conversation shifts to how Dawn became the Director of Scientific Research for DEEP, a UK startup that aims to “Make Humans Aquatic.” [00:55:02] Ken explains that DEEP is a company that is pioneering a new era of ocean exploration and asks Dawn to give a primer on the importance of better understanding the Earth’s oceans. [00:56:12] Ken mentions DEEP’s mission to expand human subsea habitation through research and innovation. Dawn explains some of the challenges associated with constructing underwater habitats. [00:57:36] Ken asks about DEEP’s goal to create a relatively permanent deep-sea human habitat, analogous to the International Space Station. Called the Sentinel System, the underwater habitat will serve as a place for researchers to live and work. [01:01:23] Ken explains that the Sentinel System will operate at a depth of up to 200 meters, which represents the epipelagic zone, or sunlight zone, which is the deepest point where light penetrates the ocean. To put this in perspective, the average depth of the ocean is 3,688 meters. Ken asks Dawn to talk about how little we actually know about what exists below the 200-meter depth of the epipelagic zone. [01:02:58] Ken mentions that NASA has a long history of using the sea as a loose analogue for space. With renewed interest in human space exploration of the Moon and Mars, Ken asks if the Sentinel System will help in the preparation for deep space missions. [01:05:10] Ken asks Dawn to discuss what other areas of research she is excited to explore once the Sentinel System is fully operational and in the water, including a project that involves IHMC. [01:06:50] Dawn gives an overview of  DEEP’s current testing and training facility, which  is located in the UK. [01:07:55] Ken asks Dawn to talk about DEEP’s increased presence in the United States and Florida, including a project with the Florida Institute of Oceanography. [01:08:47] Ken asks Dawn about an anonymous billionaire who is funding DEEP. [01:10:06] Ken asks Dawn about her responsibility of establishing DEEP’s first U.S. office in Raleigh, N.C. [01.11.03] Dawn ends the interview talking about how much she loves the work that she does. Links: Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio          

Today we have Dr. Mari Dezawa, one of the world’s leaders in stem-cell research and regenerative medicine. Mari is a pioneer in this emerging field and is known worldwide for her discovery of MUSE cells, a unique type of stem cell with exciting clinical potential. MUSE is short for Multilineage-Differentiating Stress-Enduring Cells. The discovery of the MUSE cell in humans has many biological and medical implications, and the human body may have a greater regenerative potential than we might have ever imagined. In collaboration with major national and international institutions, Mari and her colleagues are promoting research on MUSE cell-based regenerative medicine for diseases without definitive treatments. She and her team are also exploring the differences in regenerative capacity between less and more complex animals from the viewpoint of the stem-cell system. Mari is a professor and chair of the Division of Stem Cell Biology and Histology at Tohoku University School of Medicine. She has published more than 200 papers and is particularly known for her 2010 paper on the mechanisms of MUSE cells. In 2018, she was appointed a fellow of the U.S. National Academy of Inventors and has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the Japanese Government’s Prize for the Commendation for Science and Technology. Show notes: [00:04:10] Ken opens the interview by mentioning that although Mari was born in Japan, her family moved to the U.S. when she was only eight months old. Ken asks if it is true that Mari finds it difficult to answer the question of where her hometown is. [00:05:23] Ken asks Mari how she handled moving so much as a child. [00:05:52] Ken mentions that Mari’s father was a researcher and asks when she became passionate about research and science. [00:06:58] Ken mentions that Mari attended the Chiba University School of Medicine and asks what inspired her to go to medical school. [00:07:19] Ken explains that after Mari earned her medical degree, she attended Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine for her Ph.D. Ken mentions that while Mari was initially a cardiology resident, she later decided to focus on clinical research and became a stem-cell researcher. Ken asks what led her to shift from cardiology to stem-cell research. [00:08:25] Ken explains that Mari is well-known for her research into the role of stem cells in regeneration and functional recovery of nerve and muscle cells. Ken asks how and when she first became interested in stem cells. [00:09:56] Ken asks Mari to give a brief overview of stem cells and their significance. [00:11:18] Ken mentions that Mari remained at Chiba University as a research associate after earning her Ph.D in 1995. She then took a position as an associate professor at Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine before accepting a position at Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine as an associate professor in 2003. Ken explains that while at Kyoto, Mari developed methods to induce bone marrow stromal cells to generate neuro and skeletal muscle cells, which play a crucial role in tissue repair and regeneration and are widely studied for their potential to serve as therapeutic agents. Ken asks Mari to give a quick primer on the crucial role these cells play in tissue repair. [00:13:25] Ken explains that in 2003, a member of Mari’s technical staff at Kyoto asked her whether they should discard some cultured adult rat and human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) after she had noticed several strange cell clusters. Ken asks Mari to share what happened next and how this set her on the path to the discovery of Multilineage-Differentiating Stress-Enduring Cells. [00:16:03] Ken asks Mari to elaborate on this story and explain how a mistake led to this incredible discovery. [00:20:48] Ken explains that in 2008 Mari became professor and chair of the Department of Stem Cell Biology and Histology at Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine. Then in 2010 she published a paper on the results of her investigations into MUSE cells. Ken asks about this paper and why it was so significant. [00:25:11] Ken mentions that one of the key characteristics of MUSE cells is their ability to repair organ tissues, and their ability to repair themselves quickly. Ken asks Mari to explain the significance of MUSE cell resilience and self-repair. [00:26:30] Ken asks Mari how MUSE cells are collected. [00:28:26] Ken asks Mari about her 2018 paper that looked at the use of MUSE cells in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. [00:31:03] Ken explains that stem cells go through cytokine differentiation, a process that can often take several weeks or more to complete. However, Mari uncovered that a simple mechanism could substantially shorten this timeframe, which she reported on in a 2022 paper, titled “Phagocytosing Differentiated Cell-Fragments is a Novel Mechanism for Controlling Somatic Stem Cell Differentiation Within a Short Timeframe.” Ken asks Mari to discuss this paper and its findings [00:33:51] Ken asks Mari if she sees any potential military applications for MUSE cells. [00:35:16] Mari explains what exosomes are and how they might be applied in the context of MUSE cells. [00:36:14] Ken mentions Mari’s report on nasal administration of stem cells titled “Nose-to-Brain Delivery of Human Cells Enhances Structural and Functional Recovery in the Murine Ischemic Stroke Model.” Ken asks Mari to talk about the findings in this paper. [00:37:34] Ken asks Mari about her paper in development on the use of MUSE cells in the treatment of traumatic brain injury and dementia. [00:38:54] Ken brings up the issues with models of Alzheimer’s not tending to reflect the reality of the disease in humans and asks Mari what her plans are for applying her research to human trials in Alzheimer’s. [00:40:21] Ken asks Mari for her thoughts on the use of MSCs and MUSE cells for health span optimization. [00:42:11] Ken explains that in addition to her university work, Mari also works with a company called MUSE Cell Innovations, which is looking to revolutionize regenerative medicine and longevity through advancements in cellular science. For full disclosure, Ken explains that both he and Mari serve on the scientific advisory board of MUSE Cell Innovations. Ken asks Mari to talk about her work there. [00:44:13] Ken mentions that in another interview, Mari talked about how her hobbies were a way of balancing her life and career. However, Mari never explained what those hobbies were, so Ken asks her to elaborate. Links:   Mari Dezawa bio MUSE Cell Innovations Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page