How to deal with backsliding democracies, and balancing life as a scientist and athlete
Science Magazine Podcast
Deep Dive
What are the key findings from Jon Chu's study on how people define democracy across six countries?
The study found that elections and civil liberties were the top two dimensions of democracy consistently across six countries, including established democracies and non-democratic contexts. Checks and balances were less valued, and gender equality ranked third in importance.
Why did Jon Chu's team use a conjoint design methodology in their study on democracy?
The conjoint design allowed participants to compare hypothetical countries with varying attributes of democracy, helping to evaluate multiple dimensions simultaneously and avoid biases like availability bias, where participants might default to easily remembered terms like 'elections' or 'freedom' without considering comparative contexts.
What are the implications of the study's findings for leaders attempting to redefine democracy?
The study suggests that leaders who try to redefine democracy to their own ends by subverting elections or free speech may face public backlash, as people across different societies consistently value elections and civil liberties as core components of democracy.
How does Lena Svanholm balance her dual careers in science and professional sports?
Lena Svanholm, a PhD student in chemistry, is currently on academic leave from UC Davis to play professional basketball in Germany. She manages her time by prioritizing her passions and finding ways to integrate her academic and athletic commitments, despite the challenges of balancing both careers.
What challenges did Lena Svanholm face when pursuing both chemistry and basketball in the U.S.?
Lena faced challenges such as missing classes due to travel and the lack of explicit support for combining science and athletics. She also had to navigate the NCAA eligibility rules, which required her to adjust her academic path to maintain her athletic status.
What are the historical reasons for the disparity in research focused on women's health?
Historically, research prioritized men over women due to a combination of benevolent assumptions about women's vulnerability and misogyny. Women were excluded from clinical trials, and decision-makers, mostly men, focused on men's health, leading to a significant gap in understanding female-specific conditions.
What are the most promising areas of research for addressing conditions like endometriosis and preeclampsia?
The most promising research involves applying advanced sequencing and technology to understand the biology driving these conditions. For example, studying the tissue microenvironment and systemic changes months before clinical manifestations could lead to earlier diagnosis and more effective treatments.
How does understanding sex-specific biology impact personalized medicine?
Understanding the biological differences between men and women is crucial for personalized medicine. It allows for more precise treatments tailored to sex-specific responses, potentially revolutionizing care for conditions that affect both sexes differently.
What is the current state of investment in women's health research?
In 2021, only 10% of the NIH budget was allocated to women's health, despite women making up a significant portion of the population. While there are signs of improvement, more drastic structural changes are needed to significantly advance women's health research.
Shownotes Transcript