Science From the Fringe

In the sixth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s recent essay examining the legacy of the influential 2004 Science paper introducing the concept of “stabilization wedges.” Roger’s essay was prompted by a recent ProPublica investigation revealing that this paper was heavily shaped by BP executives whose contributions were not acknowledged in the paper.
Roger explains how the stabilization wedges paper became one of the most influential papers in the history of climate policy by promoting the idea that existing technologies were sufficient to address climate change. The paper became a powerful advocacy tool, shaping philanthropic investments, climate policy, and public discourse while contributing to efforts to marginalize scientists who argued that significant technological innovation would still be required.
The conversation then turns to broader questions about the relationship between science, politics, and advocacy. Bryce and Roger discuss the distinction between conducting science and using scientific publications to market predetermined policy agendas, arguing that the latter can undermine both scientific integrity and public trust.
Roger and Bryce also discuss the striking parallels between the stabilization wedges paper and the 2020 Nature Medicine paper, The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. They discuss how both papers were used to influence public debate, the importance of transparency in scientific authorship, and the responsibility of scientific journals to investigate allegations of ghostwriting and misconduct in order to preserve confidence in the scientific record.
(recorded July 24, 2026)


Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the fifth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s recent essay which presents a data-driven analysis estimating how many lives are lost because of Europe’s low air-conditioning adoption. His analysis suggests that if Europe had air-conditioning penetration comparable to the United States or Japan, tens of thousands of deaths during severe heat waves could potentially be avoided.
Bryce and Roger also discuss the political and moral dimensions of climate policy. Bryce argues that governments should not prioritize reducing energy consumption over protecting human lives, contending that Europe’s low adoption of air conditioning reflects this misplaced priority. Roger argues that the real challenge is not to consume less energy, but to produce abundant low-carbon energy that supports both emissions reductions and effective adaptation. The conversation concludes with a broader discussion of technology, democracy, and the role of adaptation in building resilience to climate change.
(recorded July 1, 2026)


Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Anthony Bellotti, founder and president of the White Coat Waste Project, a government watchdog organization dedicated to exposing and ending taxpayer-funded animal experimentation. The episode examines the tension between mission-driven advocacy and institutional incrementalism, asking whether meaningful reform comes from working within existing systems—or from holding those systems accountable when they fail to live up to their promises.
Anthony discusses how a summer job in an animal laboratory at age 17 ultimately led him to create White Coat Waste and explains why the organization rejected the traditional playbook of the animal-rights movement in favor of a strategy focused on government accountability, taxpayer transparency, and bipartisan coalition-building.
The conversation explores the ethical and scientific debates surrounding animal research, including whether taxpayer-funded animal experimentation is ever justified, how society should balance potential human benefits against animal suffering, and whether biomedical research has become overly reliant on animal models.
Bryce and Anthony also discuss White Coat Waste’s increasingly public disagreements with NIH leadership, including the organization’s recent complaint to the HHS Office of Inspector General, allegations that NIH officials have made misleading statements about their authority to reduce animal experimentation, and broader questions of institutional accountability and public trust.
Anthony also responds to criticism of White Coat Waste’s tactics, including allegations that the organization’s advocacy has contributed to threats directed at NIH officials and criticism of its willingness to work with controversial figures such as Laura Loomer to advance its mission.
(recorded June 14, 2026)


Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the eleventh episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson examine what Simon sees as a decades-long failure of the virology community to seriously confront the potential risks and societal consequences of its own research. As experiments became increasingly sophisticated and controversial, Simon argues that repeated opportunities for reflection, debate, and reform were missed.
Drawing on themes from his essay “Cowards Die Many Times,” Simon traces a series of pivotal moments, beginning with the 2002 synthesis of poliovirus and continuing through the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus, the controversial H5N1 gain-of-function experiments, and ultimately the COVID-19 pandemic. Each episode raised important questions about the risks of creating and disseminating information about potentially dangerous pathogens, yet meaningful debate was discouraged, avoided, or actively shut down.
The discussion covers how prominent scientists and institutions shaped these debates and, in Simon’s view, often discouraged meaningful scrutiny of controversial research. Examples include a 2005 Science editorial by Nobel laureate Philip Sharp defending the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus (“1918 Flu and Responsible Science”) and influential editorials in December 2011 (“A flu risk worth taking”) and June 2012 (“Benefits and Risks of Influenza Research: Lessons Learned”) by Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci defending Kawaoka and Fouchier’s controversial bird flu gain-of-function experiments. Simon argues that appeals to authority, institutional incentives, and concerns about career advancement helped create a culture in which questioning risky research became professionally and socially costly.
Using a 2020 paper on COVID-19 origins (“The Origin of COVID-19 and Why It Matters”) as a case study, Simon also explains how unscrupulous scientists can transform unsupported claims into "facts" through repeated citation, institutional endorsement, and publication in prestigious journals. Once amplified by prominent scientists and influential publications, such claims can acquire the appearance of established knowledge even when the underlying evidence is weak or entirely absent.
(recorded June 6, 2026)


Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe

In the tenth episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson discuss Simon’s recent presentation to researchers and administrators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) on dangerous gain-of-function research, as well as a recent Cell paper on the origins of viral pandemics that Simon critiqued in his essay, “Natural COVID crowd miss again.”
The conversation begins with Simon discussing the central themes of his NIAID presentation. He argues that scientists must take primary responsibility for identifying and disclosing potential risks associated with their work and calls for a cultural shift within science grounded in the principle of “do no harm.”
The discussion then turns to a recent Cell paper (Havens et al., Dynamics of natural selection preceding human viral epidemics and pandemics), which has been cited as evidence supporting a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. Simon offers a detailed critique of the paper’s assumptions, methodology, and conclusions, contending that it attempts to answer questions that its methods cannot reliably resolve. Simon also discusses viral adaptation, tissue-culture evolution, the challenges of proving negative propositions in science, and the dangers of drawing strong conclusions from weak correlations.
Bryce and Simon also discuss the role of scientific journals and media organizations in shaping public understanding of COVID-19 origins, how publication in prestigious journals can create an unwarranted perception of certainty, and how scientific institutions risk undermining public trust when conclusions extend beyond the available evidence.
The episode concludes with a broader reflection on the purpose of science itself. Simon argues that scientific progress depends on skepticism, open debate, and a willingness to change one’s mind when the evidence changes. While emphasizing the indispensable value of basic research, he maintains that scientists must remain focused on the ultimate goal of reducing disease and human suffering. As he puts it: “The goal is not your damn career. It’s to beat the hell out of microbes.”
(recorded April 22, 2026)


Get full access to Science From the Fringe at sciencefromthefringe.substack.com/subscribe