This week, guest host Michael Magoulias takes the reins to conduct a lighthearted interview of your intrepid authors, partly to take the sting out of this being tax day in the US.

Michael has worked in scholarly publishing at the University of Chicago Press and is currently at Elsevier. He’s a trenchant observer of the scene and mutual friend.

We tackle some introductory questions and then . . . the Colbert Questionert!

• What is the best sandwich? The scariest animal? So many topics.

Enjoy this lighthearted episode, including three “Discoveries of the Week.” We’ll be back with more interviews and serious topics next week.

• Subscribe on Apple Podcasts
• Subscribe on Spotify
• Subscribe on Amazon Music/Audible
• Subscribe on YouTube

Music provided by Provoke the Truth — https://provokethetruth.net/

Susan Wise Bauer is a historian and author of The Great Shadow: A History of How Sickness Shapes What We Do, Think, Believe, and Buy. I reviewed her book a few weeks ago, and Joy attended a talk she gave William & Mary. Her engaging book seems to come from an era when the history of science existed outside of politics, restoring a calm sense of historical perspective much needed in these troubled times.

In addition teaching for 18 years at William and Mary and writing books, Bauer is a farmer and a publisher.

We discuss a grab-bag of topics, including:

• Kleenex
• How physicians evolved out of acolytes at temples
• The English sweat
• The library book panic
• Copernicus and corpses

We also share our “Discoveries of the Week:”

• Susan’s: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/brian-merchant/blood-in-the-machine/9780316487740/?lens=little-brown
• Kent’s: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/242976013-how-the-internet-disrupted-science
• Joy’s: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=slow+vacuuming

• Subscribe on Apple Podcasts
• Subscribe on Spotify
• Subscribe on Amazon Music/Audible
• Subscribe on YouTube

Technology and media have become entangled and confused, so much so that the free speech of “no, thanks, not for us” is now called “censorship” and discussing public officials or people on the public payroll in accountable roles is being equated to “doxxing.” Meanwhile, it’s becoming clearer AI isn’t about knowledge, it’s about power.

Media manipulation is what tech has become all about — from social media to AI.

President Trump has been a media manipulator since the beginning:

• John Barron, John Miller, David Dennison as his fake personas to plant stories
• National Enquirer “catch and kill” stories (Stormy Daniels)
• Ghost-authored Art of the Deal
• The Apprentice
• First Twitter President
• First TikTok President
• Truth Social

Which brings us to the new President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which is mostly a who’s who of media manipulators masquerading as technologists:

• Marc Andreessen — VC, on Meta board
• Sergey Brin — Alphabet, in the Epstein files (island, Ghislaine)
• Safra Catz — Oracle
• Larry Ellison — Oracle
• Michael Dell — Dell
• Jacob DeWitte — Oklo Investors (nuclear power)
• Fred Ehrsam — Coinbase
• David Friedberg — Investor (sold business to Monsanto)
• Jensen Huang — NVIDIA
• John Martinis — quantum physicist, UCSB, 2025 Nobel Prize
• Bob Mumgaard — fusion energy
• Lisa Su — AMD (on Biden’s PCAST before)
• Mark Zuckerberg — Meta

These CEOs have a combined wealth in excess of US$900 billion.

Overall, it looks like a group formed to deliver the Singularity and realize Adam Becker’s worst nightmare — nuclear power, fusion, compute, AI, and techno-authoritarianism.

How are these people being propped up?

• “CEO Said a Thing!” journalism: https://karlbode.com/ceo-said-a-thing-journalism/
• Attention economy conceits: https://www.altmetric.com/solutions/altmetric-attention-digest/

We discuss where science fits or doesn’t, and share our zero-gravity “Discoveries of the Week.”

• Subscribe on Apple Podcasts
• Subscribe on Spotify
• Subscribe on Amazon Music/Audible
• Subscribe on YouTube

Music provided by Provoke the Truth — https://provokethetruth.net/

Today, we’re joined by Amanda Licastro, Head of Digital Scholarship Strategies and Visiting Associate Professor in English at Swarthmore College.

Amanda recently participated in one of Rick Anderson’s debates at the Researcher to Reader conference in London. This one was titled, “Resolved: AI Tools Will Provide a Net Benefit to Scholarly Communication.” Amanda took the side of opposing that statement.

In these debates, a poll is taken before the participants speak to gauge audience sentiment at the outset. Then, after the speakers exchange opening statements and responses, the poll is repeated.

Before the start of the debate, 80% of the audience believed AI would be a net benefit to scholarly communications. After a professional and well-natured presentation of facts, 52% of the audience came to believe that AI would not be a net benefit to scholarly communications.

We discuss a variety of great and relevant topics, including use of AI in colleges, the dark downsides, and fears of skill, cognitive, and information degradation, as well as tricks and techniques companies are using to force these on us or convince them of their benign value.

It’s a great conversation.

• Amanda’s discovery: https://searchengineland.com/google-search-ai-headline-rewrites-test-472146
• Kent’s discovery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busta_Rhymes_Island
• Joy’s discovery: https://www.phl.org/newsroom/Longestlinecheesesteaks

• Subscribe on Apple Podcasts
• Subscribe on Spotify
• Subscribe on Amazon Music/Audible
• Subscribe on YouTube

Music provided by Provoke the Truth — https://provokethetruth.net/

A recent episode of Paris Marx’s “Tech Won’t Save Us” podcast featured Tim Schwab, author of the 2023 book, The Bill Gates Problem: Reckoning with the Myth of the Good Billionaire. Recent revelations about Gates and Jeffrey Epstein have led to a reckoning at the Gates Foundation, making Schwab’s book more relevant and causing us to pause and revisit the role of the Gates Foundation and funders in general in the scientific and scholarly publishing space.

Started to reputation-wash himself after Microsoft lost its 2001 anti-trust case — with Gates himself testifying in a memorable set of exchanges — the Gates Foundation’s reputation has been eroding for some time. The Epstein Files may be the end of the line for this effort to rehabilitate Gates’ reputation.

As we write in our upcoming book, Gates is not alone in trying to use money to influence priorities in science, medicine, and scientific publishing:

They are all proving problematic.

We discuss Phase 1 of funder involvement, and how this has created a bridge into a more dire potential Phase 2 as MAHA grifters have learned the tricks of sheltering cash and spending on grifter science.

We also share our Discoveries of the Week.

Music provided by Provoke the Truth — https://provokethetruth.net/

John Wiley & Sons is at it again with its “date anyone with a cute AI” approach, announcing yesterday a deal with OpenEvidence (OE). This is nothing new for Wiley, a company that seems more infatuated with tech than it is with science and scholarship, a massive departure from its roots.

OE is certainly happy to make the deal, but not for the quality of the content. Rather, it keeps their targeted ad business growing. Platforming medical and health content is simply laying the groundwork for making a Facebook of medical information — a platform designed to sell user-targeted ads with the quality of content barely registering as a concern.

OE has proven susceptible to eugenics-adjacent pay-to-play misinformation, pay-to-play articles placed to help shill colostrum, and pay-to-play articles published to promote “functional medicine,” a MAHA-related pseudo-specialty. And nobody at OE seems to care, because that’s just part of the Section 230 platform game — don’t interfere in the content, just use it to get qualified leads to interact with your ad system.

While Facebook leveraged the trust of your social network — friends, family, neighbors, acquaintances — to get users into their ad platform, OE is leveraging trust markers in medical science, from brands to the concepts of peer review and evidence.

Bottom line? OE is an advertising platform being rolled out to target physicians with premium targeted ads, likely selling for a cost-per-view (CPV) of $500-$800. With major agencies backing it and others suffering FOMO, OE is positioned to clean up. However, with only about $7 billion in annual pharma ad spending, is this enough to justify their massive valuation? And will they be able to unseat actual point-of-care tools like UpToDate? Or will they just be a second-rate sideshow after the dust settles, the fundamental flaws become clear, and the short-term wins have been pocketed?

We also share our “Discoveries of the Week.”

Fish doorbells: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-dutch-fish-doorbell-helps-migrating-fish-each-spring/

• Subscribe on Apple Podcasts
• Subscribe on Spotify
• Subscribe on Amazon Music/Audible
• Subscribe on YouTube

Music provided by Provoke the Truth — https://provokethetruth.net/

The last 25 years in scientific publishing has been about privileging technology-backed insurgents — business models, philosophies, belief systems, information theories. Natural science empowered by digital tools flipped to “digital science” at the expense of funding for natural science.

Things are more complicated now in the sciences. Insurgents are coming from all directions, so we have to distinguish between bad insurgents and good insurgents — and some of the new bad ones are playing an updated version of the tech game, too.

• Disruption is so embedded now that normies are insurgents.

Good insurgents want to align with pro-science players for the long-term and to the benefit of all. Bad insurgents continue to exploit communication channels and others, primarily for their own enrichment and benefit.

In addition, bewildering controversies have emerged between the science-aligned incumbents and science-aligned insurgents, in particular AAAS and Stand Up for Science.

We discuss the value of the newer, unencumbered insurgents vs. encumbered incumbents, how the battle is against anti-science players unencumbered by rules, norms, or bureaucratic process, and how we need to support the good insurgents who are focused beyond the horizon of crazy in-fighting.

The incumbents have the power to influence, and they have a choice to make.

We also share our “Discoveries of the Week.”

• The Murder of Jane Stanford: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-murder-of-jane-stanford/id278981407?i=1000751170391

Music provided by Provoke the Truth — https://provokethetruth.net/

Carl Rhodes is Professor of Business and Society at The University of Technology Sydney Business School. Carl researches the relationship between liberal democracy and contemporary capitalism.

Martina Linnenluecke is an internationally recognized scholar who conducts research on corporate adaptation and resilience to global climate change. She is also at The University of Technology Sydney Business School.

Their work caught our attention when we saw their January 5, 2026, article in The Conversation entitled “The 5 stages of the ‘enshittification’ of academic publishing.” It was related to their 2025 “speaking out” article in the journal Organization entitled “The junkification of research.”

From academic capitalism to the secondary market for careerist OA publishing, the discussion is wide-ranging and lively, with a focus on their five stages of junkification/enshittification:

1. The commodification of research
2. The proliferation of pay-to-publish journals
3. A decline in quality and integrity
4. The sheer volume of publications
5. Enshittification

We also share our “Discoveries of the Week.”

• Tony Hawk’s “Ollie 720 Challenge” won by a 12-year-old from Japan, Ao Nishikawa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGScJcp-Y3c

• Subscribe on Apple Podcasts
• Subscribe on Spotify
• Subscribe on Amazon Music/Audible
• Subscribe on YouTube

Music provided by Provoke the Truth — https://provokethetruth.net/