Open to Debate

Modern science has given us the ability to edit our genes, life-saving vaccines, and glimpse the origins of the universe. But is the same system holding itself back? Critics argue that the pressure to publish and fierce competition for funding rewards safe, incremental work over bold thinking. Others see a system still capable of paradigm-shifting discoveries — one where global collaborations and long-term thinking motivate scientists to pursue grand, ambitious ideas. Now we debate: Is the Scientific Enterprise Too Risk-Averse?  This debate was produced in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series. Arguing Yes:  Tyler Cowen, Author of "The Great Stagnation"; Economics Professor at George Mason University; Founder of Emergent Ventures; Host of "Conversations with Tyler" podcast   Brandon Ogbunu, Computational Biologist; Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University; Professor at the Santa Fe Institute  Arguing No:   Kate Biberdorf (“Kate the Chemist”), Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame; Science Entertainer  The Honorable Sethuraman Panchanathan, 15th Director of the National Science Foundation; University Professor of Technology and Innovation and Foundation Chair at Arizona State University  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For centuries, museums in Europe and the U.S. built their collections during eras of empire and unequal power. Now, institutions face growing calls to return artifacts taken through colonial rule or war, from the Benin Bronzes to Indigenous objects. Supporters say repatriation corrects historical injustice and restores sacred objects to their communities. Critics argue that museums serve a global public and that these works represent shared human heritage. Now we debate: Should Museums Repatriate Cultural Artifacts? Arguing Yes:   Chika Okeke-Agulu, Artist, Curator, and Professor of Art and Archaeology and African American Studies at Princeton University  Leila Amineddoleh, Art and Cultural Heritage Lawyer; Chair of the Firm’s Art Law Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin  Arguing No:   Dominic Selwood, Historian, Author, Journalist, and Barrister  Mario Trabucco della Torretta, Classical Archaeologist  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It turns out your favorite artist is a monster. Say they committed murder, advocated genocide, or engaged in some other act so outside the scope of a dignified, respectable society that it cannot be redeemed. What now? Must you throw the art out with the artists? It's a question at the heart of both pop culture and high art critique. For some, a work of art is an entity in itself. It should be appreciated and revered without regard to the life of its creator. If we disregard all great art for the sins of the artists, we risk losing many of the world's greatest cultural touchstones and masterpieces. But for others, the act of supporting a work of art translates directly affirming its creator's evil acts. In this timeless debate, we ask: Should we separate the art from the artist? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in September 2022. ARGUING YES:  Randy Cohen, Writer & Humorist     ARGUING NO:  Aruna D'Souza, Writer & Art Critic      Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates    Join the conversation on Substack—share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your doctor tells you that, should you wish to have a child, that child is likely also to carry the disease. But a new gene-editing technology could ensure that your baby is -- and remains -- healthy. Should you do it? Critics say the technology will exacerbate inequality and meddle in the most basic aspect of our humanity. Now, we debate: Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies? This ethical conundrum is at the crux of this week's debate, originally broadcast in February 2022. Arguing Yes: Dr. George Church, Geneticist & Founder, Personal Genome Project; Professor, Genetics, Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School Amy Webb, Chief Executive Officer, Future Today Strategy Group; Professor, NYU Stern School of Business  Arguing No: Marcy Darnovsky, Executive Director, Emerita, Center for Genetics and Society  Françoise Baylis, Distinguished Research Professor, Emerita, Dalhousie University; President, Royal Society of Canada  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Artificial intelligence has ignited one of the most spectacular surges of investment, hype, and technological promise, but some worry that the enthusiasm is resembling a bubble, with valuations racing ahead of fundamentals and enormous compute and energy costs that could undermine long-term profitability. But others note this bubble is different because AI is already embedded across the economy, not confined, and infrastructure is being created to sustain demand. Now we debate: Will the AI Bubble Burst?  Arguing Yes: Ryan Cummings, Chief of Staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Arguing No: Magnus Grimeland, Venture Capital Investor; Founder and CEO of Antler  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Join the conversation on Substack - share your perspective on this episode and subscribe to our weekly newsletter for curated insights from our debaters, moderators, and staff.  Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, Facebook, and TikTok to stay connected with our mission and ongoing debates.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices