Science Friday - Science Advisor Resigns, COVID Drug Treatments, Science Drag Artists. Feb 11, 2022, Part 1

Episode Date: February 11, 2022

An Abrupt Departure For Biden’s Science Adviser This week, Eric Lander, the Presidential science advisor and head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, resigned following an investigation into bullying behavior towards his subordinates. In an apology, Lander acknowledged being “disrespectful and demeaning” towards staff. Lander, a mathematician and genomics researcher, was previously the head of the Broad Institute at Harvard and MIT. Nsikan Akpan, health and science editor for WNYC Radio in New York, joins Ira to discuss the resignation and what it might mean for the president’s science policy initiatives. They also talk about other stories from the week in science, including an advance in fusion research in Europe, concerns over the increasing saltiness of Lake Michigan, and the question of whether sequestering urine from the sewage stream might have environmental advantages.   New COVID-19 Antiviral Pills: How Do They Work? Late last year, two new drugs joined the lineup of options for high-risk patients who may need extra help fighting COVID-19: Merck’s pill molnupiravir, and Pfizer’s pill Paxlovid. The two pills join remdesivir, an infusion-only drug, as antiviral compounds that attack the SARS-CoV2 virus in different ways. But how exactly do they work, how well do they work, and what makes them complicated to use in real life? Ira talks to virologists Ran Swanstrom and Adam Lauring about the fundamentals of antiviral drugs, concerns about molnupiravir’s method of mutating the virus to death, and the long drug interaction list for Paxlovid. Plus, why timing is a critical issue for getting drugs to patients.   Meet The Drag Artists Who Are Making Science More Accessible Each generation has had science communicators who brought a sometimes stuffy, siloed subject into homes, inspiring minds young and old. Scientists like Don Herbert, Carl Sagan, and Bill Nye are classic examples. But our modern age of social media has brought more diverse communicators into the forefront of science communication, including the wild, wonderful world of STEM drag stars. These are queer folk who mix the flashy fashions of the drag world with science education. Some, like Kyne, use TikTok as a medium to teach concepts like math. Others, like Pattie Gonia, use drag to attract more people to the great outdoors. The accessibility of the internet has made these personalities available to a wide audience. Kyne and Pattie Gonia join Ira to talk about the magic drag can bring to science education, and why they think the future of SciComm looks more diverse than the past.     Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. Later in the hour, we'll talk about the tricky task of developing antiviral treatments for COVID-19, and we'll meet the drag queens, popularizing STEM. But first, news this week that the world's largest fusion reactor, called Jet, near Oxford in the UK, smashed the record for producing controlled nuclear fusion energy by some two and a half times. And while it only amounted to about five seconds of fusion, and not a lot of, a whole lot of total energy, it is notable for being a sustained, highest-powered, controlled reaction for the longest time on record. We'll have more on this landmark in the weeks to come. There were so many other news stories this week, and joining me now to talk about the Week

in Science is Sikon Akpan, Health and Science Editor for WNYC Radio here in New York. Welcome back, Seekon. Hi, Ira. Nice to have you. Let's talk about something unusual this week, the White House Science Advisor Eric Lander resign. Tell us about that. Yeah, it's interesting. You know, this story kind of started last week. My introduction to it was in a chat group that I have with a bunch of other scientists where we kind of just shoot the breeze about topics. And so somebody popped in and said, hey, had you seen Eric Landers' apology and Politico? All of us sort of sat up in our chairs because Eric Lander is a big shot in genetics. He ran the Human Genome Project. you know, he's a founder of the Broad Institute, which is part of MIT and Harvard in Boston.

And then he was appointed Biden's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy last year. And Biden even gave him the extra honor of joining the White House cabinet. So, you know, when that initial story broke last Friday, there was like there was this apology, but it was all kind of clouded in mystery. Like we didn't know why he was apologizing. But given, you know, the current moment that we're in, we could guess that it was probably harassment or bullying. So no one was particularly surprised when the full story came out saying that he had bullied and harassed his counsel and had just sort of created like a toxic environment in general in the office. Do we have any speculation about how much this will alter President Biden's science policy goals?

It's hard to say, you know, Landers' office was in charge of the Cancer Moonshot, which was a, you know, a big agenda item for Biden. and it actually predated his days as president as something that he really wanted to do. I think the indication right now, there's a really good story in Science Magazine that came out this week. The indication right now is that that will probably be fine. There was also a biomedical pipeline for funds to prop up advances and really, like, instill support for our biomedical infrastructure. It's looking like that'll probably be fine, too. I mean, I think Biden's science agenda in general is a little wobbly. You know, he's having trouble getting through his nomination for an FDA commissioner.

And there's obviously the issues around the build back better bill and what it could do for climate change infrastructure. You know, whenever something like this happens, there's always a speculation about who might be the next for this role. Any names floating around, rumors? I think people that talked about Alondra Nelson who had served with the Biden administration for a little while last year. I think the other thing that people are talking about is what this means in general for really big egos in science. So Matthew Herper of Staten News had a really great piece about that. And just wondering how far this reckoning is going to extend and how it could be potentially like a good moment for science. I think if you go to any lab, any department around the country, you're going to have these

sort of toxic personalities that people just kind of let slide by for years and decades. And it seems like, you know, everyone's fed up. Like there's just no room for it anymore. That's really interesting. We'll watch for that. In other news this week, you pointed out a story about information and storing energy. Tell us about that. Yeah, Tim DeChant at Ars Technica had this interesting story about a paper showing that information

could be used as a battery. So he doesn't mean like a literal battery. You know, it's not like something that you could stick into your computer or your phone, but it's more of the idea that the data servers that we use consume huge amounts of energy. But there are also a lot of computations, a lot of processes that we just do on a regular basis

almost at the exact same time every single day. And so what this paper was saying is like, oh, okay, what if we just siphoned off, some energy for doing those routine processes that we know are going to happen at a precise time. Like so, for instance, say, you know, every morning you wake up, you pull up Google Maps to find the best route to get to work. That process is probably made up of hundreds, if not thousands of like individual little commuted commands, right? Like the map pops up, the little lines showing the bike lanes pop up. Yeah. So let's just store energy for that,

you know, maybe even use renewable energy for that. And then by doing that, you could actually save. I think it was about 30% of the energy waste that kind of goes to data servers. So things you do over and over again, we could save energy by knowing it's going to happen over and over again. Yeah, exactly. And Tim pointed out that, like, you know, in our smartphones, we, you know, we have little CPUs that are actually making similar decisions about how to preserve energy and when to do

certain computation. So this would just be on a larger scale. Interesting. Snow is still on the minds of many parts of the country, and you have selected a story that's really important about this time of the year. That's road salt and runoff. Yeah, you know, I think, you know, we just got hit by a snowstorm. And I kind of just feel like every, around this time of year, I look out in the street, I'm like, oh, the roads have turned white, you know, what's happened. And it's just because, yeah, we put. It's not the snow, it's the salt sometimes, right? Yeah, exactly. And then, After that, I'm like, well, it's going to wash away. Where is it washing too?

Is that bad for the environment? So Robin Donovan at EOS found this really interesting paper looking at about 200 years of records of the salt levels in Lake Michigan and showing that they've risen tremendously over time. So from about 1 to 2 milligrams per liter to more than 15 milligrams per liter. Wow. It's a lot. It's a huge amount. And how the study did it was they kind of looked at tributaries around Lake Michigan. So they went over to 300 tributaries.

And they were able to figure out that, yeah, road salt is a major contributor to what's going on. And they expect that it's going to get worse and worse as the years go by. So they're worried about a rise in salinity then of the lake. Yeah, exactly. It's like the salinity, the salt levels can be a little bit worrisome for the environment. So, you know, our bodies and most organisms, they like a very particular range of salt. So one issue that has been pointed out is the danger to zooplankton or very small organisms. And if you knock those out, then you're going to have issues with the food chain.

Other studies, and there's a really good story about this in chemical and engineering news from 2019, that showed that, oh, yeah, salt levels can actually really impact. impact certain insects, which a lot of fish in, you know, these freshwater bodies depend on for food. So, you know, our road salt, just because you like sort of sprinkle it on the steps and walk away, you know, it can have sort of a chain reaction that can go throughout the environment. Let's turn to a different kind of saltwater. And I'm talking about urine recycling and reclamation. Yeah, this is an interesting story that I came out this week in Nature. It's a feature by Chelsea Wald. And I think it struck me because I've been reading Dune. And Dune, they have...

Yeah, it's where they recycle all the urine in Dune, right? Yeah, exactly. They have these suits that absorb their water content. And so this feature essentially talks about how there's like an international effort involving a lot of different labs to figure out ways to, install toilets and all types of settings, so like apartment buildings, like stadiums, that will reclaim your urine rather than letting it flow into like the general waste system with, you know, everything else that goes into the toilet. And from that, what you could do is you could start to isolate some of the chemicals that are in urine, like phosphorus. And then maybe you could use that for fertilizer, for plants. Seems like that would take a fair amount of infrastructure. change? Would it not changing all those toilets to make them special? Yeah, I mean, and that's the thing, you know, there could be a really big payoff in that, you know, certain estimates say that there's

probably enough urine to replace about one quarter of the current nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers that we use worldwide. But it would be a huge, a huge investment, right? And, you know, there are some projects that are mentioned in the story that are trying to figure out ways to scale it up. And, you know, there might be a huge investment. And, you know, there might be a huge investment, right? And, you know, there might also be some unintended consequences in that when we take drugs, right, we excrete them into our urine. So you're going to be having a whole bunch of recycled drugs that might be put into the soil and wherever. Yeah, it kind of depends. I mean, I think there are a few different ways to kind of collect and process the urine. One way is to just take it and put it in a storage tank and then take it from that

storage tank and just sprayed on your crops. But another way to do it would be similar to, like, you know, running it through like a water treatment facility. And I think if you did that, there probably are chemical processes that you could use to just isolate the fertilizer components and hopefully take out, you know, all of the medicines that we pee out on a regular basis. Finally, we all think about Chernobyl as one of the big environmental disasters of the modern age, right, but there's new work coming out about its effects on wildlife and it's sort of good news? Yeah, you know, I'll just point people to this story because it's really long and super interesting. It's in Noble magazine, and it's by the science writer that I really like, Katarina Zimmer.

And essentially what she's looking at is this debate that's getting more intense about whether or not Chernobyl, you know, was completely devastating to wildlife in the area or whether or not wildlife is resistant enough to sort of fight off the radiation that's spilled out there. It kind of speaks to a topic that I'm interested in, the replication crisis, you know, this idea that, you know, some studies that we published many, many years ago, oh, maybe the methods weren't that great, maybe the measurements weren't that great, and now we're kind of finding the opposite. And the reason I like those types of stories is because science is a process, right? You know, no one study can really prove anything.

And so it's, I enjoy sort of seeing these debates and people trying to learn, you know, what exactly is happening in the world, which is why we do science. And we enjoy having you on, Sikon. Oh, my goodness. I'm blushing. Thank you. Thanks for coming up early. Sika An Akpan Health and Science Editor for WNYC Radio here in New York. We're going to take a break, and when we come back, a closer look at the antiviral drugs of COVID patients. Stay with us.

This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. Communities reeling from the Omicron wave of COVID-19 this winter received a last-minute Christmas gift from the FDA in December. Emergency use authorizations for two antiviral. pills that patients might be prescribed to help them fight the virus. One is monopirivir made by Merck, another Paxlivid from Pfizer. The two drugs join remdesivir and infusion-only antiviral that's been around since the early days of the pandemic. We wondered how these new pills work to fight the virus. We wondered about possible side effects, drug resistance, or even

new variants. And why two years into the pandemic do we still have? few treatment options. To get some answers, we're turning to our guests. Dr. Ron Swanstrom, a virologist and director of the University of North Carolina Center for AIDS Research in Chapel Hill, and Dr. Adam Loring, a virologist and infectious disease physician at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Welcome to Science Friday. Glad to be here. Great to be here. Thank you. You're welcome. Nice to have you. You know, I think we all need a little bit of virus science 101 here. Sure. So let's go through each of these three drugs, shall we? We currently have. Monopurivir, Paxlivid, and Ramesivir. Adam, how do they work? Sure. So they target different proteins in the virus.

Paxlovid targets what's called a protease in SARS-CoV-2, which is a protein that the virus makes that cleaves other proteins. And so it's like a scissors. And then a Paxilovid essentially functions as if you stick a big stick in the middle of scissors and it can't cut anymore. Remdesivir targets the viral polymerase. So the polymerase of the virus is what copies the genome. So it's the virus's photocopy machine. And remdesivir essentially induces a paper jam. So it gets into the polymerase and then it stops the polymerase from working well.

What's different about malnopirivir and how it works is the virus takes that drug, and thinks it's a normal base. So the A, C, G's, or U's in the case of RNA, the basis of the virus's genome, and it incorporates that. And then that causes a mutation in the virus's genome. So it actually makes the virus make more mutations as it copies itself. And so it's a unique mechanism of action for an antiviral drug. One of the criticisms about antiviral drugs is that they have to be taken at just the right time. Adam, how important is that timing? It's actually proven to be pretty important. And I think that's, in my view, one of the reasons why sometimes people feel disappointed in how well antivirals work, particularly for short-term infections like SARS-CoV-2 or influenza,

infections that are, you know, come and gone in one to two weeks in most cases, as opposed to HIV or hepatitis C, which, you know, are much more chronic infections. For SARS-CoV-2, then. What is the critical stage where you need to take it? It's generally pretty early within a couple days of having symptoms. And the reason why is not that the drug doesn't work at later stages, it's just you don't get as much benefit from it. And that's because in many people, their immune responses kick in after a few days. And so your body starts clearing it. We've seen with the trials for the monoclonal antibody drugs, as well as for monopirivir, remdesivir, even Paxlovid that the people who get the most bang for the buck out of the drug are the ones

who get the drug early because, you know, later on it's not that your drug doesn't work. It's just that your body is already doing its job. And I think that was probably one of the issues with RIMdesivir. It was pretty unimpressive early on in the pandemic when we were giving it often to people a week in to their disease course. But the latest studies, which really tried to get it in to people very quickly for just a three-day course. really showed, you know, remarkable benefits. Ron, is there anything away about how the antivirals work that may be more concerning to you than, let's say, an antibiotic?

You know, for any drug, there are potential for side effects. There are dose issues, and this ratio of benefit to risk. And so these risks are different for every drug. I don't know of risks for remdesivir. Paxlovid, because it has this booster second inhibitor in there, the retonovir, that actually causes a lot of drug-drug interactions. The EUA notice includes 100 drugs in the list of drugs that you have to worry about if you want to take Paxlivid, including two I'm taking. So there's going to be some management involved there. It's the molopoeuvir that's different, though.

It's a very different mechanism of action. It's a mutagen, as Adam pointed out. And we want it to go into the cell and get metabolized and get into viral RNA and cause mutations. The potential problem with malapirivir is that when it's going into viral RNA, there's a pathway in the cell for it to get into cellular DNA. That's host DNA. And it is designed to be a mutagen. We want it to be a mutagen. But when it gets into DNA, then there's the potential for it to cause mutations in our DNA.

And we just don't know what that risk is. The FDA did, in the toxicity studies, there were some concerns about reproductive health. There were no acute toxicities. The drug is safe to take, you know, between taking it today and being fine in a month. There were some developmental toxicities in animal models that were recognized. So there are some restrictions around reproductive health issues. So definitely not pregnant women. the idea of conceiving men participating in conception event is discouraged until the drug is cleared.

But these long-term events were not considered as part of the evaluation, as far as I can tell by the FDA, or at least they were viewed to be of small enough risk to not worry about them in terms of approving the drug. Ron, you were concerned enough, though, about this drug that you wrote about those concerns in the journal science. Tell us what those, specifically what the concerns are. There's kind of a disconnect. I'm a virologist. I'm not a toxicologist, and so I'm on a big learning curve here, but I think there's a disconnect. For most drugs that get developed, we don't think they're

mutagens. And so there are a series of tests that the genotoxicity field has agreed on, and they do those tests, and they're negative. And so you look at the drug and you say, well, it shouldn't be a mutagen, and it wasn't a mutagen in my tests. So let's go forward. This one's different. This is a mutagen. And we don't have data on mutagens in these animal tests and a correlation with long-term outcomes in people. That, as far as I know, that just doesn't exist. So when you have an assay that has been negative for other drugs that have been safe, but you put a mutagen in it and the assay is negative, you haven't changed the drug. It's still a mutagen. So to me, it says your assay isn't sensitive enough to detect it. In either case, it doesn't answer the question of

Will this mutagen cause a long-term risk or not? To be balanced in this discussion, we get exposed to mutagens every day. The good example is you go get an x-ray from the dentist. You've now sent x-rays through your head and lots of DNA has been damaged. And nothing bad happens. We go through our lives getting x-rays at the dentist. So there are levels of exposures to mutagens and carcinogens that we live with, and many of those exposures are inconsequential.

I just don't know where Malonylupirivir is going to fall on this scale. Yeah. Other virologists have also raised concerns that mutating the virus could lead to new variants, as you did in your piece, Ron. Adam, are you as concerned about that? I think Ron's piece, I must say, I think, was nice and balanced. We know that mutations, of course, are random, and viruses are very sensitive to mutation. That's the whole logic behind Malinopirivir.

We know that just increasing the mutations a small amount will really, limit the virus. And so the chances of a virus hitting upon a right combination of mutations that are beneficial to it while avoiding all the mutations that it would make that are hurt the virus, I think it seems unlikely. The analogy I give, which is it's a bit like monkeys on a typewriter and, you know, them coming out with Shakespeare in the end, it could happen. It's unlikely. Maybe Monopirivirus, it's maybe generating new variance a little bit more likely than the monkeys on a typewriter, but I still think it's probably low. We know that new variants can arise without malnapiravir. I'm not sure that the malnapiravir usage is going to substantially increase that risk.

At least that's how I look at it. And Ryan, how do we balance those concerns overall with its ability to help high-risk people? For me, there's a pretty simple idea. The concerns about reproductive health or the long-term risk of cancer. Those are the place. where I think you worry about immunogen the most. And if we were just to use the drug in older people like me, and having that risk later in life reduces the chance that it'll come into play, and older in life were past our reproductive years for the most part, focusing the use of this drug in older people, where it's already a risk, age is a risk factor for COVID progression anyway, to me makes the most sense. And one thing I'll point out is that both the concerns for variance

in the virus population and concerns for mutating DNA, it's really the same thing in that we're taking this drug that is designed to be a mutagen and we're putting it into genetic systems, whether it's the virus or the host. And this is really a new experiment. Intentionally increasing diversity, either in the host or the viral population, is a new idea in biology. And I think we should be humble and proceed cautiously. Adam, that would seem to be some good advice, though? I always think we should proceed with caution, especially, yeah, it's a new mechanism. And I'm not of the camp of going so far as to say, oh, we should, we shouldn't use it or we

should restrict it. And I don't think that's what Ron is saying. It is novel. And, you know, more study is needed. And I'm confident that there will be. I think it's appropriate. You know, proceed with caution, but I think we do know. know a lot about how increasing viral genetic diversity works. This has been an idea that's been

around for 20, 30 years. This is not something that's come out of blue. There is a body of work there, but yeah, I think we need to, you know, follow this closely and follow these patients closely moving forward because there's always things that, you know, we don't know. And that's what science is all about. Moldopiravir, with these concerns in mind, only reduces the likelihood of hospitalization and death by 30%. Paxlovak does seem much more effective, despite having so many drug interactions. Is there something harder about creating antivirals that work decisively for most people? Ron?

A fair question to ask about on the piervere. Its interim analysis was 50% effective, which sounded better. Its end analysis was 30%, which was definitely less. And I think it depends a lot on when you get patients. As Adam pointed out earlier, the earlier you take it, the better. I think for any of these antivirals, the later you take it, they'll look worse. So no one's done a head-to-head comparison of Paxlovod and Molnapurivir to find out if it really is that much better in this, when you identify patients in the same way. I think Molnifurvirvir has the potential to be more active than we saw in the true.

trial. Again, no head-to-head comparison has been made. The other thing about Molnapirivir, to keep in mind is it is a broadly acting antiviral. It will work against essentially any RNA virus. We don't need to have a targeted drug because it's attacking the genetic mechanism of the virus, it'll be ready to go on day one the next time a new virus shows up. So that's one of its advantages that we should keep in mind. But right now it does look like Paxlovit is. is the big winner in terms of an orally available drug that I would certainly want to take if I was SARS-CoV-2 positive on day one. Just a quick reminder, this is Science Friday from WNYC Studios.

In case you're just joining us, we're talking to virologist Ron Swansstrom and Adam Loring about the challenge of developing antiviral treatments for COVID-19. People listening to this show are all prospective patients who might receive the these drugs at some point, if COVID is indeed not going away, how should we be listening to this conversation and making choices about what to ask for if we end up needing treatment? Unfortunately, right now, most people are not going to have a choice. These drugs are in a very short supply through the Omicron surge. There are Byzantine pathways to getting them to people that differ across localities because they're just not widely available and there's so much need.

There are elaborate criteria that different health systems and states have over who gets which drug. So it's often right now just not a choice. As we move forward in the future, there are going to be, just like with other drugs, that there are certain patients who you want to use one drug in versus the other, depending on, you know, what are the meds they take, what are the conditions they have, where we learn that these drugs can be used best. I think there's been a lot of talk about, well, this one's 30% effective at preventing hospitalization and death,

and one is 90%. So why would I want this terrible drug that's only 30%? Well, that's actually pretty good as a drug. And, you know, I think we saw with Rimdesivir that the early trials were pretty disappointing, but now we, you know, do more work and learn more about the drug and how best to use it, and we get better results. And so I think in the future, as we remember, emerge from the surge, you know, we'll learn which ones are best for which patients. Some people

might even get combinations of these drugs. Now, I know you two have worked with HIV and influenza. Do you think, and they're still around, right? We don't have a cure for either one of them. Does COVID look like it's heading in that direction that's going to be around for a long time? And we just better get used to dealing with it. Ron, what do you? you think? Yes, it's probably here to stay. There are many people who aren't vaccinated, many people who will be very slow to get access to treatment. So the virus will keep circulating. We need to have some understanding of how much pre-infection or previous infection protects against the virus coming back. That will determine how much it can continue to circulate. But then also the

thing that we seem to be incapable of predicting right now is the appearance of new variants. And so, you know, if there's a, the next Omicron that, there's something that has the properties of Omicron that allows infection, people who have been previously infected and even people who have been vaccinated, then, you know, we'll be in this cycle. But if Omicron was just a rare thing, if we don't see any more Omicron, equipment, we don't see any more Omicron, equivalence, then I think we'll be in a good spot. Adam, your thoughts? Yeah, I think I largely agree.

My sense, and I'll preface by saying I've been wrong many times over the past two years, is that, you know, as we build up immunity, that we certainly won't have the disruptions that we've been having for the past two years. My hope is that that will move us much closer to, I think, what many of us consider normal moving forward. And, you know, we're going to have to see what that means in terms of getting vaccinated again. And then these drugs and how we're going to use them. And, you know, can they be used to prevent infection? Can they be used as prophylaxis? There's a lot to learn in the next year or two in terms of, you know, what the future holds for SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ron Swansstrom, a virologist and director, University of North Carolina Center for Age Research in Chapel Hill. Dr. Adam Loring, a virologist and infectious disease physician at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Thank you both for joining us. You're welcome. It's been great. Thank you. We have to take a break.

I'll let me come back. A look at the wonderful world of science-focused drag queens. Yes. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. Who is your generation's favorite science popularizer? Was it Don Herbert, Mr. Wizard? Just sprinkle that over the camera.

Why don't you tell me what it is before you do? It's called like a podium. Like a podium? Like a podium. So it would be similar to a, perhaps a lectern. Or the legendary Carl Sagan? The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. How about Bill Nye?

Bill Nye, the science guy. Our modern age of social media has fostered a new look and new science messengers, stem-focused drag queens. These are queer folk who mix. the flashy fashions of the drag world with science education. Like Analytical, who does coding tutorials, and Dr. Sassie science, who champions diverse voices in STEM. There's a wild world of science-savvy, drag-draped communicators out there, and two prominent voices join me today. Kine, a mathematician based in Kitchener, Ontario, and Patagonia, environmental activist and educator based in Bend, Oregon.

Both of you, welcome to Science Friday. Thanks for having us. Hi, Ira. Nice to have you. Kain, let me start with you. Dreg is a very visual medium, which makes it a bit tricky for us on radio, but I want you both to describe,

for our audience, how you mix science and drag. What does that look like visually for both of you? And as I say, Kahn, you can begin. Sure. So it's funny, I started out just as a drag queen, you know, like doing shows and, lip syncing. I had a YouTube channel where I was like showing people how to style wigs. And that was

like all my side hobby, right? And my main thing was I was in school getting my math degree at the University of Waterloo. And then when this pandemic started, you know, all of a sudden I had all this free time on my hands. And I thought, why didn't I try something new? So I started making these math videos on TikTok. I didn't really think they would take off. I mean, everybody told me it was going to be like such a tiny niche. I mean, math is already an unpopular. subject, let alone math, like, taught by cross-dresser. So I was like, who's going to be into this? I thought it would just be funny. I would be like, I don't know, the troll from Dora the Explorer telling people little riddles and like these crazy costumes.

Amazing. But, you know, all of a sudden, after maybe like three, four videos, people were like, oh my gosh, I'm really understanding math through you. Like, I love learning math this way. So, you know, I just started out, you know, telling people what I found interesting about math because I think that the way math is taught makes people think it's so boring. And my whole thing is that math is interesting and fun and beautiful. So I think hearing that from just somebody on social media

who doesn't look like a traditional teacher, it opens people's minds up to math. So you was, it sounds like you were as surprised by your own work as everybody else was, how successful it was. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I've always been a big math nerd and I've always felt like more people should get into math, but I didn't really know how I could sort of get the word out there. I never once thought I'd be

doing it in a wig and a dress and high heels, but it works. And Patty, what about you? How did you get into this? Kind, I love your story so much. There's so many similar rungs to the tree of my life too. I started getting outdoors and backpacking as a kid and really was trying to get into the outdoors in a time in place and in Boy Scouts in Nebraska in an environment that really wasn't supportive of me as a queer person. And so really when I did drag for the first time in the outdoors as an adult about three years ago, I put on six inch high heel boots. I started strutting on the trails and in high heels and doing drag outdoors.

And I fell in love with nature in a whole new way. I saw how queer nature was. I saw how much science was out there, how many queer scientists were out there. And I think that it's really beautiful to take the reality of climate change, but to really be mindful of the beauty of creative solutions and highlighting amazing scientific work that's being done out there, amazing research, amazing scientists that are just doing incredible things. So I think of myself as a climate communicator.

I think of myself as trying to entertain and educate. And it's so fun to get to take a lot of abstract subjects and bring them to people and new ways and creative ways to reach a whole new population of people too. You know, we need to think about who the narrator are between science subjects. Also, who are the new communities to reach to bring into the climate movement to bring into this amazing scientific knowledge that's out there? How do you think that drag has helped you do that, reach these new communities? That is a great question.

I feel like I'm learning more about that every single day. But I think that really at the end of the day, drag is a playground where anything is possible and drag is really a chance to engage people in new ways. It's so entertaining. But also, I think when people see drag, they see the drag queen that's inside of themselves and they see what's possible when we can bend gender and communicate in new ways and connect in different ways. Kind, do you also think that there's a drag queen inside each of us? And you can tap into that? I think so. You know, I think drag, it like opens people's hearts. It makes people comfortable.

It makes people just feel more, you know, outgoing. And they want to have laugh, you know. So to have drag queens be the educators and the influencers, it, you know, makes people more ready to, you know, maybe take a pill. They wouldn't have wanted to swallow yesterday. You know, I watched your math TikTok pieces and thoroughly enjoyed your math teaching skills. Because although you are singing and you're changing outfits, I can see that you take these math lessons very seriously. Oh, I do. I do.

Math is like, it's always been my favorite subject, and it's always been my passion. So, you know, looking good is important, but also teaching the math is very important to me. And you put a lot of work into it. I mean, people might get the impression if, well, just because you're doing drag, you know, it's very easy to do. But I can see from the TikTok lessons, you've put a lot of effort into these. Yeah, well, I start out with just like an idea. Sometimes I'll get ideas from my followers or from books that I've read. And I'll, you know, maybe highlight a section in a book and think, oh, like, that would make for a good TikTok.

So from there, I start researching stuff. I put it into a script. And I really, I really think that TikTok in the whole 60 second format is really taught me to be more concise. if I were to make a YouTube video about like pie, for instance, I think I could just go on and on. But the fact that TikToks have to be like this short length, it's really forced me to think, okay, what are the most interesting parts about this? What are the most important parts? And I think, you know, because people have such short attention spans, it's really been so magical and it's been a great way to capture people's attention.

Let me address this to both of you. Do you think that you would see it as a supreme triumph of teachers assigned your lessons to their classroom students? That would be a dream. It'd be amazing. It's so awesome, too, to get to do what we do on the internet, I feel like, and be able to take that into real life and into science classrooms. It's been amazing to be a guest speaker inside science classrooms and to see kids' faces light up with someone that maybe represents them that they've never seen before in media that they've never seen as a science communicator. So that's been one of the most special parts of the journey for me. Agreed. Really interesting. Patty, you recently launched a nonprofit,

understand called the Outdorist Oath. Tell me about the mission behind this project. Yeah, we believe that we need to stop the siloed conversations of planet inclusion and adventure and really start getting people into the outdoors in many different ways outside of the definition of quote unquote outdoorsy that we've known and really embrace the outdoors because if we can fall in love with the planet, then we can better fight for it, right? Because we fight for what we love. So we want everyone to get our outside, connect to the planet, connect to themselves, connect to people that aren't necessarily like themselves or look like themselves, and then intersectionally fight for planet Earth, because

this is the only planet with a Beyonce on it. Whom do you imagine? Whom do you imagine is your audience? Do you define it in a certain way? Do you aim it at a certain audience? Because that's a question most communicators get. Who are you trying to reach? Kind of you want to go for it?

I'd be curious to hear from you. It's funny. When I, you know, write my little TikToks, my goal is to reach people around high school age, college age. I don't find that I'm that good at teaching, like very, very young kids about math. High school level, college levels around the level that I find interesting for me to talk about personally.

But, you know, the people that comment on my videos like are all kinds of ages. I get teachers who are showing my lessons to classrooms of grade four students. I get people who are long out of school and there's 30s, 40s, 50s saying that I've, you know, reignited a love for math. So I guess my videos are for everyone. But when it comes to, I guess, the curriculum, I guess they're targeted around a high school college level. Patty, any comment? Yeah, I definitely think that when I think about my audience, I definitely think about a younger version of me, someone who watched a lot of science communication as a kid and didn't see anyone like me. I think a lot about queer youth and about different ways to reach

them, especially around environmental messages. But I also think a lot about allies. I think that oftentimes we forget the power of allyship and allies in the fight for climate or in the fight for social justice or in the fight for just a more inclusive outdoors. So I definitely try to be as inclusive as possible and trying to speak to as many people as possible while also still remembering that I'm kind of speaking to a younger me. Yeah, because you're both very active on social media, which I think skews your audience to younger folks, don't you agree? I think you'd be amazed. I have a lot of 50, 60, 70-year-old people who follow me when I do group hikes and take the community offline to in real life. I have people of all different ages. I have people bring their grandparents

out and their grandparents are bigger fans than even they are, it is surreal and so beautiful. That is surprising. But I would also imagine that because we are in a new media and because the way you do what you do, there must be some pushback from people who just say, this is not the right way to teach. Do you get that kind? You'd be surprised. You'd think that, you know, teaching people about fractions should be like totally uncontroversial. And usually it is. Usually my audience is very, very supportive. Sometimes, you know, I'll get the occasional comment that I'm, I don't know, corrupting the youth or, you know, trying to emasculate the men, you know, I don't know, whatever is the talking point these days. But that stuff really

just rolls off my back. If the medium is the message, as they used to say, what message do you offer that you think is different than, let's say, Bill Nye or David Attenborough? In terms of what I have in common with them, you know, I'm trying to show that math and I guess STEM in general is wonderful and I'm trying to instill a love for learning in people. But I think being a, you know, Asian, queer drag queen, I want to show people that, you know, you can be feminine and still have a career in STEM and in math. You don't have to hide your gayness. You don't have to hide your queerness. you can look however you want to look and wear what you want to wear. And when it all comes down to it, what really matters is what's in your brain.

And if you work hard and you study, then you can achieve what you want. And you, Patty? Yeah, so much of what kind said really resonates with me. I feel like at the end of the day, I just want everyone to know that they can pursue whatever subject that they want, especially sciences, especially if they are queer, especially if they have a unique identity that they want to intersect with their passions because that's the most beautiful action we can all take. I mean, when I look at my work, when I look at Kind's work, when I look at your work, Ira, I think that we're all using our talents

and skills and applying them to things we love and work we think needs to be done. And I want a future where we're all doing more of that because I think we need it. Yeah. Yeah, I like the idea that we are all trying to find new ways to be communicators. Yeah, absolutely. And not afraid to try new things. Yeah, we have to try new things. I mean, like, let's look at like queerness in species. Queerness is a pioneering trait in species where we're figuring out new ways to do things, new ways to not only survive, but thrive. And I think nature teaches us every single day that diversity in any environment is key for an environment to thrive. And I think that we really need to apply that to STEM. We really need to apply that to the sciences field because I think that throughout diversity and who we are and our identities, we're going to, We're going to be such a beautiful future that really supports an ecosystem,

especially of youth that are different than ourselves, to join us. It is certainly true that nature really likes diversity, and you can't have nature without a lot of diversity there. Was there a science communicator who inspired you, Patty, when you were growing up? It's hard to not think of my childhood without thinking about the TVs that we rolled into classrooms into the science classrooms and see Bill Nye on the screen. And I think I just really fell in love with how such an abstract subject of science or math, for example, could be so beautifully entertaining as well.

And I think a lot of that's influenced the work that I do nowadays. And I think when I'm even thinking about the work I do now, there's amazing science communicators like Hood Naturalist, who's an amazing black femme scientist, who's a birder who is teaching an incredible thing. So I think that I'm really glad that it's being diversified in so many different ways nowadays, too. Kynne, you too? Do you have someone who influenced you? I would say Carl Sagan was a big influence for me. I think watching old episodes of Cosmos, just the way that he talked about the planet and talked about the universe,

was the first time that I really started to see science as beautiful, which I never would have described before. because, you know, the way we learn it in school is just about memorizing facts. And I think Carl Sagan was the first to really make me think, I'm so thankful to be on this planet and to be able to look up to the sky and to be able to wonder why things are the way they are. You know, it's about that curiosity and that enthusiasm for learning that I really loved about his communication. And he was never shy about speaking.

out when he thought it deserved to be done. Yeah. One of the things that we have today that, you know, Carl Sagan didn't have back in his days is social media. And of course, social media is free, right? You don't have to get a subscription to your cable box. Does accessibility play a role in what you do, Patty? What do you think? Yeah, for sure. I mean, there are so many barriers for entry to the outdoors. You have to have thousands of dollars of gear. There are so many barriers of entry to academia and being able to read through thousands of pages of paper, probably maybe not even in your first language. There are so many barriers to not feeling safe as a queer person in different labs and in different environment. So I really feel like social media is an

amazing place that removes barriers and improves access to reach new people in new ways. And I think, you know, social media gets crapped on a lot, that it is kind of a seen as just like a less than tool or can be cheap or like low quality or kind of bad for us. And I say social media is a tool. I think it depends how we use it. Right. We can use a tool for good. We can use a tool to build. We can use a tool to harm. And so I'm really trying to think about how can we use social media as a tool in science to share information to build community, to build authentic community that really removes barriers and improves access. Speaking of social media, trust in science has been a big issue forever, but especially over the past few years.

How do you build trust into what you do, Patty? I mean, I just try to be as transparent as possible as to my process and always to not be the expert, but to be a communicator of experts information. I'm always trying to do like literally work cited in my captions and to really truly bring forth the knowledge of these amazing people that are getting accreditation for what they do and communicating there. But it's also just about being real. I call out when I mess up, when I missed up, when I maybe have my mind changed or when I learn something new or contrasting to maybe some information that I shared. So I think it's just about being human. Kind, do you agree with that?

Oh, yeah, 100%. I especially agree in, you know, communicating that I'm not the expert, but that there are other experts who I'm trying to spotlight. I feel as though, you know, sometimes with math, you don't have to trust what comes out of my mouth. You know, I'll put the ideas out there and then people can research on their own and dive a little bit deeper. And, you know, there will be lots of times that I'll put up a video on people disagree with a solution. Like, I'm thinking of the recent video I did about straws. How many holes does the straw have? People disagreed about that or the famous Monty Hall problem.

People love to say, oh, like, you're wrong. You don't know about this. But I have to say, you don't have to take my word for it. No, research yourself and, you know, dive down this rabbit hole and learn for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Yeah, that's a really good attitude. But how do you know when you have been successful? with your audience and either talking to your audience, building an audience,

kind, how do you know that you've reached what you're trying to do? I think looking into the comments section and seeing a discourse with people debating different answers, saying, oh, I talk to my teacher about this and my teacher said, XYZ. Just knowing that I've started a conversation really means a lot to me because it's all about getting people thinking and getting people to talk about math around the dinner table, you know, that's what makes me feel like I've done my job. Rowan here. I thought I invented that. Patty, how do you know you're successful? I mean, is it just numbers or is it the reaction also? Yeah, I think it's the reaction. I also think it's,

again, taking it into the real world, seeing queer people outdoors, seeing them take up space in the real world and make space for other queer people, for other people that are passionate about climate that are bipak or queer come from systemically excluded communities. Like that's the real goal for me is get together online and then get together offline, get together in real life and make action and make an impact together and really harness the power of collective action, whether that is via online in a discourse like Kindset or whether that is getting together and making action happen in the outdoors or in the field of science. Last question for both of you.

What do you see is the future of science communication? And by that, I mean, do you see more room for creative personalities like yourself? I think the future of science communication is social media. I think with social media, you don't have the same gatekeepers as you have in traditional media. You know, neither I nor Patty had to get a show greenly. by some office of executives, we just went on social media and started doing our thing. And I think because of that freedom, that's, you know, opened the door to all kinds of

different creative personalities. So, you know, I'm so excited to see who will be the next, who will be the next communicators in our field. Patty, do you think that drag science is a flash in the pan? Oh, no way. Or is it going to be around forever? It's going to be around for forever, at least as long as I'm on planet Earth, as long as kinds on planet Earth. And also, like, the kids these days, I just cannot get enough of youth and where they are taking the field of science and how they are studying at Yale or Harvard and doing these incredible

media projects to really think about how are we translating what we are learning here, what we're studying here, to people and removing barriers and avoiding gatekeepers. So when I think about the future of science, I think it looks. queer as hell. I think it looks full of Bipak people. I think it looks full of people who are passionate about just sticking their talent and their special skills and their identities and applying it to the field of science and hopefully making a future where all of us feel more welcome and where we can really truly be grounded in. The one thing that unites us all is this planet and it's time to fight for her. Can't say anything better than that for an ending. We have unfortunately run out of time. I want to thank

both of you for taking time to be with us today and really love what you are doing. Kind mathematician, drag queen based in Kitchener, Ontario, Pedigonia, environmental activist, and educator based in Bend, Oregon. Thanks so much for having me. Thank you so much, Ira. If you want to know more and see photos of the folks in the STEM drag community, you can head to our website, ScienceFriday.com slash STEMDrag. Here's Charles Berkwist with some of the folks who helped make this show happen.

Thanks, Ira. Danielle Dana is our executive director. Beth Rami is our controller. Ariel Zich is our director of audience. Annie Nero is our individual giving manager. And I'm radio director Charles Bergquist. Thanks for listening. Thank you, Charles. B.J. Leitman composed our theme music. And don't forget, every week, you can learn amazing science facts, win nerdy swag, and be rewarded as a lot. the listener of Science Friday at our weekly trivia nights. Join us every Wednesday night at 8.30 p.m. Eastern Time on our YouTube channel for the best free science trivia out there. RSVP at ScienceFriday.com slash trivia. And don't forget, you can also email us, our address, SciFri at ScienceFri.com.

Have a great weekend. I'm Ira Flato.