science PR

Just less than a year ago, the national biotech editor at Xconomy, Luke Timmerman, left his post. Yeah, he just left it. Gone was the regular Monday column that helped us all absorb the newest trends in biotech. Gone were the lists of companies to watch out for that made sense even if we weren't up to date on Luke's sports analogies. One day the columns were here, then they were gone. Luke said he was busy with a biography of Lee Hood, the guy who brought us automated DNA sequencing. But we all knew Luke just wanted to go climb more mountains.

This week Luke jumped back into the game with the new Timmerman Report, his own venture. Today he tells us what he’s up to with the new life science media site and why he just couldn’t resist the biotech beat.

Working in a dramatically changing media landscape, Luke favors "old school journalism". Using the tried and true subscription model, he says the new platform offers him ultimate editorial independence.

“If somebody doesn’t like what I write, I just lose a $99 subscription. There’s really not much more to consider than that," he says. "This is a journalist owned and journalist run company, and I’m going to run it according to my own editorial sensibilities."

We wish Luke much success and look forward to having his independent voice back on the biotech beat.

Guest:

Comfort, Nathaniel, PhD, Author, Professor, History of Science, Technology and Medicine, Johns Hopkins University

Listen (4:20) Debate about race and genetics is really about social justice

Listen (2:32) The radical middle

Listen (4:45) How to define race when genetic variation is continuum

Listen (6:03) As a society are we trusting science more as the ultimate source of knowledge?

Listen (6:04) Does Wade's book help free scientists and clinicians?

Listen (2:04) On blogging

Is race biological, or is it a cultural construct?

This question lies at the heart of a debate sparked by this year’s publication of “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History.” Writing that race is biological, former New York Times science journalist, Nicholas Wade, ignited a furor in the life science community, with many scientists denouncing the book and the misrepresentation of their research. Science writer, David Dobbs, called it a “dangerous book.”

Joining us today to work through some of the tough questions in this debate is Nathaniel Comfort, a science historian at Johns Hopkins University. Comfort describes his position in the debate as the “radical middle”, accepting some of Wade’s arguments but insisting that science is always in a context, that it’s always political.

“The debate over race and genetics is really about social justice,” Comfort says in today’s show.

Comfort argues that Wade is not honest about the book’s agenda and uses science as a proxy argument for his own preconceptions. Comfort warns that genetic explanations, such as the one Wade makes for race, usually tend to reinforce the status quo.

So what about using race as phenotype for treating various diseases? For example, some racial groups are more likely to get certain diseases than other groups. Working at a major medical research facility, Comfort has the opportunity to talk to clinicians on a regular basis about whether, in today’s world of personalized medicine, race is still relevant as a phenotypic marker.

For more, visit Comfort’s blog on the topic.

Podcast brought to you by: See your company name here. - Promote your organization by aligning it with today's latest trends.