Episode 93. Attacks on University Research: Claudia Polsky

Our health, and the health of wildlife, depends on a clean environment. Since the advent of the industrial revolution, our environment has suffered from waves of pollution as different technologies came to the fore, each with its own set of practical benefits and associated chemical waste. Perhaps the most insidious of these environmental pollutants is lead. With us to discuss the history of lead as an environmental contaminant is Bruce Lanphear. For over 30 years, Bruce has investigated how toxic chemicals harm human health, especially the health of children. His research helped shape U.S. federal standards for lead in air, water, and house dust, and played a key role in the landmark conclusion that no amount of lead is safe for children.

The year 2025 has seen the most aggressive moves ever by the US executive branch against scientific research as the Trump Administration has gutted federal science and regulatory agencies and cancelled billions of dollars in research grants that had already been awarded to universities. With me to discuss the Trump Administration attacks on university research is Claudia Polsky. Claudia is a clinical professor of law and the founding director of the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley.

In Episode 62, I interviewed two Reuters journalists about how industry and government in the United States use conservation easements to avoid rigorous cleanup of contaminated sites. Today, one of those journalists, Jaimi Dowdell, is back to discuss how a federal agency responsible for community health assessments has a history of failing to protect the communities that seek its aid. Jaimi was part of the Reuters team that won the 2021 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Reporting. Today we discuss the Reuters special report published in August 2024 and entitled, "How a US health agency became a shield for polluters."

In prior episodes, we examined political interference and bias in science in a few contexts, including episode 3 on the history of U.S. congressional attacks on science, episode 57 on types of bias, episode 65 on ideology and science, and episode 84 on the academy's ideological march to the left and antisemitism on American college campuses. Since those episodes, America went back to the future with the election for the second time of Donald Trump, and the Trump Administration has attacked elite American universities such as Columbia and Harvard with historic intensity. These attacks are motivated by the right's revulsion with the dominance of leftist bias on these universities. We do not know what the outcome of these battles will be. Indeed, as of this recording, Harvard University is challenging the Trump Administration in the American courts, while many other universities are trying to placate the administration or avoid its gaze. However, the fundamental complaint by the right, that elite universities have become bastions of the left and lack diversity of thought, warrants an examination. In today's episode, I explore this topic with my brother Bill. We discuss how political bias distorts the science produced in universities, especially in the social sciences, and we discuss the implications. Bill is the author of over 150 articles in psychology, as well as the books The Social Leap, published in 2018, and The Social Paradox, published in 2025, both by Harper Collins Publishers.

In prior episodes, I have interviewed many people about the history of physics and physics-adjacent topics such as nuclear disarmament. Many of the physicists we have discussed also made forays into biology. Today I explore this transition of physicists working in biology with William Lanouette. Bill is a writer and public policy analyst who has specialized in the history of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

Prior to the rise of Nazism, the University of Göttingen hosted most of the top physicists in the world, either as resident or visiting scientists. With us to discuss the history of physics in Göttingen are Tim Salditt, Kurt Schönhammer, and Sarah Köster. In this conversation over tea at the University of Göttingen, we discuss how Göttingen became a focal point of physics, key moments and people during the decades that Göttingen hosted discovery after discovery, and what happened to the assembly of scholars in Göttingen as Germany descended into the abyss of fascism. Tim Salditt and Sarah Köster are both professors of experimental physics in the Institute for X-Ray Physics, and Kurt Schönhammer is a retired Professor from the Institute for Theoretical Physics.

The history of science is punctuated by moments of technological innovation that produce a paradigm shift and a subsequent flurry of discovery. A recent technological innovation that generated diverse discoveries, ranging from a profound shift in our understanding of the origin of humanity to a seismic change in the criminal justice system, is the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR. With us to discuss the history of PCR is one of its innovators, Henry Erlich. As Director of the Human Genetics Department at Cetus Corporation and later as Director of Human Genetics and Vice President of Exploratory Research at Roche Molecular Systems, Henry led developments in diagnostic applications for infectious and autoimmune diseases, forensic genetics, and organ transplantation. His laboratory performed the first forensic DNA case in the United States in 1986 and the first DNA-based post-conviction exoneration. Henry has published over 450 journal articles and three books, which include PCR Technology: Principles and Applications for DNA Amplification, Silent Witness: Forensic DNA Analysis in Criminal Investigations and Humanitarian Disasters, and Genetic Reconstruction of the Past: DNA Analysis in Forensics and Human Evolution. Henry has received numerous awards, including the Association for Molecular Pathology Award for Excellence (2000) and the Profiles in DNA Courage Award (National Institute of Justice, 2005).

Lise Meitner was the most important female physicist of the 20th century. She made fundamental discoveries on the atom, including, most famously, being the first to discover the idea of fission. This she did as she puzzled over experimental results generated by her colleague Otto Hahn. Hahn, but not Meitner, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this monumental discovery. More generally, Meitner overcame profound obstacles facing women in science to become a central figure in physics during its heyday as she worked with the likes of Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein to understand the atom, and hence the universe. With us to discuss the life and legacy of Lise Meitner is Marissa Moss. Marissa is the award-winning author and illustrator of over 70 books for children and young adults, including the book we discuss today, The Woman Who Split the Atom: The Life of Lise Meitner.

Humanity's understanding of the universe radically altered with the advent of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century. The theory of quantum mechanics describes how nature behaves at or below the scale of atoms, and the road to that theory was littered with seemingly insurmountable obstacles. With us to discuss the development of quantum mechanics, and the major schools of thought represented by Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein, is Jim Baggott. Today we discuss many of the key players in the development of quantum mechanics, including Bohr, Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck, and Max Born.

Societal problems big and small typically have a scientific element, often in a central way, yet most scientists are not directly involved in policy. My guests sought to change that in 1969 when they created the Stanford Workshops on Social and Political Issues, or SWOPSI. SWOPSI was founded by three students, two of whom are with us today: Joel Primack and Robert Jaffe. The third student was Joyce Kobayashi. Also with us today is my uncle Frank, who worked on some of the early SWOPSI initiatives. In this episode, I ask Joel, Bob and Frank: How did they hack Stanford's rules for course credit to create workshops run by graduate students? What were the goals of SWOPSI? How effective were the workshops in tackling local vs. national or international problems? How did SWOPSI help to create programs for scientists to advise Congress on technical issues? Why did SWOPSI perish as an institution at Stanford? How has US military-sponsored research evolved since the Second World War? And is SWOPSI a good model for young scientists today who want to solve societal problems?