Science From the Fringe

In the seventh episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s new Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard, a resource designed to make long-term trends in extreme weather accessible to scientists, journalists, policymakers, and the public.
Roger explains how this project was motivated by the Trump administration’s removal of climate information from EPA websites. Although frequently critical of the politicization and exaggeration of climate science, Roger argues that removing taxpayer-funded climate data was a mistake—and that making the underlying evidence accessible is essential to a more informed climate debate.
The episode explores what the data actually show about heat waves, tornadoes, floods, droughts, winter storms, wildfires, and hurricanes, as well as the crucial distinction between detecting a change and attributing that change to human activity. Roger explains why heat waves show a detectable increase while many other extremes do not, and how looking across multiple measures can guard against cherry-picking.
Bryce and Roger also discuss how society should respond to increasing heat, including the roles of emissions reductions and adaptation; how Roger used AI to build the dashboard; and the importance of transparency and verification in rebuilding trust in scientific institutions and concludes with a preview of Roger’s just launched Global Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard.
(recorded August 19, 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 Tim Hunt, CEO of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), about cell and gene therapies and the difficult questions surrounding how they should be regulated by the FDA.
The episode follows a March conversation with cardiologist Anish Koka about Vinay Prasad’s controversial tenure at the FDA. Together, the two episodes explore a fundamental question: When patients have devastating diseases and few treatment options, should the FDA demand stronger evidence before approving new therapies—or accept greater uncertainty to give patients faster access to experimental treatments?
In the March episode, Koka defended Prasad’s efforts to strengthen the FDA’s evidentiary standards, arguing that greater scrutiny was necessary to protect patients from ineffective or harmful treatments—particularly in the rare-disease space, where patient desperation, financial incentives, and political pressure can complicate regulatory decisions.
Tim offers a different perspective. He argues that the FDA became too rigid in its demands for randomized controlled trials, effectively “moving the goalposts” for rare-disease therapies. He contends that traditional trials are often impractical or ethically problematic for small populations with rapidly progressive diseases and that patients should have a greater voice in determining acceptable levels of risk and uncertainty.
Bryce and Tim also discuss the scientific risks of genetically modifying embryos, the potential for human enhancement and eugenics, whether germline editing could ever be demonstrated to be safe and ethical, and ARM’s call for a 10-year moratorium on heritable human genome editing.
The episode concludes with Tim’s perspective on the future of regenerative medicine, from CAR-T therapies and rare diseases to potential treatments for autoimmune disorders, Parkinson’s disease, and other more common conditions.
(recorded July 21, 2026)


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

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