STEMology s1e11

Sophie: [00:00:00] Welcome to episode 11 of STEMology

[00:00:03]David: [00:00:03] A podcast sharing some of the interesting fun, and sometimes just patently  bizarre news in science, technology, engineering, or maths.

[00:00:10]Sophie: [00:00:10] Your hosts are Dr. David Farmer and Dr. Sophie Calabretto.

[00:00:14]On today’s episode, we’re going to be talking about persuasive sperm, morphing pasta,

[00:00:19] David: [00:00:19] Translating brain implants and bottom breathers

Persuasive sperm

Sophie: [00:00:38] Hey Dave, guess what I learned this week.

[00:00:40] David: [00:00:40] What did you learn this week, sophie?

[00:00:42] Sophie: [00:00:42] I learned that sperm a not only great reproducers, they’re also great negotiators.

[00:00:48] David: [00:00:48] That’s right, Sophie. It turns out that sperm are not only good for fertilizing the female egg. They’re also quite good at persuading, the female body to get ready for pregnancy.

[00:00:58] Sophie: [00:00:58] So this is some research that’s come out of the Robinson research Institute and Adelaide medical school from the university of Adelaide. And apparently we already know that proteins in seminal fluid modulate the female immune response in conception and encourage the body to accept foreign embryos.

[00:01:15] And we’ve talked about accepting foreign things into the body. And immune responses are quite important, but apparently, sperm’s involvement, the actual sperm itself, the spermatozoon or spermatozoa for plural. We didn’t know how they were involved until now.

[00:01:29] David: [00:01:29] That’s right. so Basically what these researchers have done is they’ve looked at global gene expression in the uterus  of mice.  What that means is they’re looking at using something called  Um, a gene micro array. They look at a huge some thousands of different genes across the uterine wall  of the mice. And basically they looked in both some very poor vasectomised mice, and some normal mice that were not vasectomised and basically they looked at gene arrays in both females that had been, shall we say entertained by the vasectomised  or the non vasectomised mice.

[00:02:02] Sophie: [00:02:02] Wine, dined and something else.

[00:02:04] David: [00:02:04] Exactly. Whatever the mouse equivalent of wining and dining is.

[00:02:08]Sophie: [00:02:08] You did refer to the poor, vasectomised mice. I want everyone to know that,  they were vasectomised at six to eight weeks of age, but under anesthesia. They’re perfectly happy mice.  They don’t know that there’ve been vasectomised and What they found was that females plus sperm produced stronger immune tolerance than those females who’ve mated with vasectomised mice by doing this microwave thing.   . I have no idea how any of that works, but it’s the fact that  seminal fluid is seminal fluid, but if there’s sperm in it, it elicits this very different response, which is then quite important in terms of implantation of an embryo.

[00:02:43]David: [00:02:43] That’s right. So,  it’s essentially an immunology paper and immunology is just a hell of all these, thousands of different kinds of cells and  chemical mediators that attract them or repel them, or switch them on or, switch them off.

[00:02:55] And because immune cells, they’re not like located in one organ. They’re just kind of flying around your body willy nilly. It’s really hard to look in an animal and work out exactly what’s going on when and how.  So one of the ways they try and get around this is look in particular tissues.

[00:03:08] You’ll do a micro gene array, where you just look at, okay, we’re just going to look at everything. Cause to look at one or two things, it’s really hard to interpret. So we just have to look at everything. So yeah, what they see is that the genes that are upregulated and the genes that are down-regulated, that’s what they call a phenotype. Like when genes are upregulated or downregulated in a particular way to facilitate something. The phenotype here is one that facilitates embryo implantation. So the gene changes are all gene changes that facilitate embryo implantation. And as you say, promote generation of immune tolerance.

[00:03:41] So obviously you’re going to be growing something that’s not a hundred percent your DNA. So the immune system needs to recognize it as not something it wants to reject something it wants to grow, or in the case of my several somethings. Cause there’s probably going to be a litter of pups.

[00:03:55]Sophie: [00:03:55] Yes. And so what’s interesting is that, so conditions like recurrent miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm birth and stillbirth are affected by the female’s immune response.  But  we know that it’s in a way that the partner’s sperm contributes to. And then we also know that there are many factors that affect sperm health as well. So this is sort of adding an extra layer of knowledge to know why these conditions occur.

[00:04:17]David: [00:04:17] I think that’s right.  It’s adding to a trend lately. you know, It used to be considered that the egg was not necessarily the egg that the health of the mother was very important and that the sperm were just the sperm and now with things like epigenetics, where it turns out that actually you can have methylation of the DNA and you can have changes happening that are health dependent in the sperm. Then actually the health of the spectrum is something that’s going to be quite important. And what kind of babies that you end up with and the health of those babies throughout their lives.

[00:04:42] Sophie: [00:04:42] So there you go. So anyone who wants to make babies make sure that you need super healthy sperm along with your healthy eggs.

[00:04:48]David: [00:04:48] but know that they will be very persuasive in addition to being very reproductively active as well.

[00:04:54] Sophie: [00:04:54] That’s right. That’s the main thing. Good negotiators. Great at making tiny babies.

Space-saving pasta

David: [00:05:08] From spermatozoa to spaghetti, Carnegie Mellon university in Pittsburgh researchers have worked out a way to make pasta that was not twisty, become twisty.

[00:05:19]Sophie: [00:05:19] Yeah, so it’s the ultimate in space saving pasta, Dave. So apparently we’ve got a huge problem with the plastic packaging on pasta, right?  Before this research and they found that more than 60% of the packaging space for pasta actually holds air. Right. Cause if you think about, you’ve got like penne you’ve got your tubular pastas you’ve got your pasta of your fancy shapes. Most of that package is actually air and  it needs to be enveloped by this plastic. So the more air you have to hold, the more plastic you use. But Dave, let’s talk about this pasta.

[00:05:49] David: [00:05:49] Yeah. So I didn’t actually realize this, but apparently according to the article and according to the researchers, pasta afficionados are very picky about the shapes of pasta and how they pair with different sauces.

[00:05:58]Sophie: [00:05:58] That is true, Dave. if you’ve got like a sauce that has like bits in it, you want something that it sort of can cling to. So,  you’ve got  the shell shapes,  that’s good for holding stuff.  If you’ve got bits in your pasta sauce,  you don’t want to do it with like a spaghetti or something that’s like longer.

[00:06:11] David: [00:06:11] It’s a bit practicalities and logistics and not just flavour

[00:06:15]Sophie: [00:06:15] A hundred percent. Yeah. And so what they did is they started off testing this, I think on Silicon rubber. Right? So the idea is we’ve got our flat pasta shapes and then we putting specific kinds of grooves. So we’ve got grooves that are arranged in very sort of carefully designed ways. The basis of this is because pasta, when we cook it, it absorbs water, right. That’s why it goes from being like crunchy and unpleasant to delicious.

[00:06:38] So the idea is on the groove side, the liquid can’t sort  fully penetrate the non-grooved side as the grooved side. So you’ve got more liquid penetration on one side of the pasta than the other. And then that causes this kind of curving, cause basically you’re making one side floppier than the other. And so you’re going to get sort of curvature of the pasta.   So they started off doing this with Silicon and putting it in solvent.

[00:07:01] David: [00:07:01] I mean, this is something that I love. There’s two things that I love about this one is like, they’ve done this by putting grooves in the pasta and listeners, just to be clear, this is a science story, but we’re not talking about micro grooves or even nano grooves. They’re just like quite macroscopic, very clearly visible grooves in the pasta.

[00:07:18]Sophie: [00:07:18] Here’s our groove stamp and they just stamp right on and then dry the pasta.

[00:07:21]David: [00:07:21] Beautiful and sophisticated. The other thing I love about it is there’s this line in it where he talks about the other purposes for this, and they talk about doing it in Silicon, like you say. And so, one of the researchers is quoted as saying the reversible bending process could be harnessed for other purposes, such as a grabber for robot hands. a bit too casually, in my opinion, like, why is this story about pasta? When you could be talking about robot hands?

[00:07:44] Sophie: [00:07:44] And we never revisit. Right. Cause yeah, the whole idea is with the Silicon, is that when you use the Silicon, apparently it doesn’t retain its shape.  Because pasta is kind of like, you’ve got that starch-y, glue-y nature, once it’s curved and you drain it,  it retains the shape because of the glue-iness that sort of holds itself together.

[00:08:01] But with the Silicon, apparently if you remove it from the solvent, it causes it to like bend in the opposite direction, which is great for hands. Like, I want you to think about calamity. Rubber hands. Excellent. But yeah, as you say, we never revisit, like, that’s it, this thing, but let’s get onto pasta is basically what they say.

[00:08:17]  it’s Quite funny that I had a bit of a problem  with this paper though, Dave, because they do experiments. They also do simulations and I get a bit worried when we’re doing simulations on things, but we don’t include a lot of detail about what we use to do the simulations. So there is a reference to multi-physics. and there’s a reference to a finite element method.

[00:08:37] David: [00:08:37] Multi-physics.

[00:08:38]Sophie: [00:08:38] I mean, So the only multi-physics that I’d heard of this wasn’t capitalized though. So I don’t know what it means, but it’s not capitalized, but there’s a MATLAB package and it’s like a finer element toolbox. And basically you create the mesh of what you’re doing and  it’s a bit of a black box. I want to  know the actual computational method you use to do this. However  because they’ve done their experiments, and apparently they match up very well, they get a bit of like a green light there, but just as a rule of thumb, everyone at home is doing computations and then publishing these. Please just include a little bit of detail about your computational method. These results need to be reproduceable.

[00:09:13]David: [00:09:13] Or  if you can’t, if you’re not going to do that, just include pasta related proof of concept experiment with your data. No matter what it is, just anything pasta related that proves your point .

[00:09:23] Sophie: [00:09:23] As long as those curves match up.  When you talk about the models that you use and then don’t include what the models are, as long as those lines all match up eventually then  I’ll be a little bit happier. I have a question though. Dave, do you make pasta? Have you ever made pasta?

[00:09:37]David: [00:09:37] Have I physically like rolled it out and made it?

[00:09:39]Sophie: [00:09:39] A homemade pasta

[00:09:41] David: [00:09:41] No, I’ve never done that.

[00:09:42]Sophie: [00:09:42] Anyone who’s listening at home and makes pasta, I just want to know what you think of this recipe. So apparently to make the pasta in this paper, they used 112 grams of semolina flour with 43 grams of water. They poured it into a dough mixer and they’ve specified that it’s the Cuisinart SM 50. They mixed it for 15 to 20 minutes and that was their pasta dough.  I don’t think they talked about eating the pasta. It was just making the shapes. And I want to know  is this a good pasta recipe? So anyone at home who makes pasta, let us know your pasta recipes and whether or not our friends from Carnegie Mellon are making delicious pasta as well as strange shaped pasta by grooving their dry pasta.

Brain implants

So Dave, from pasta and your mouth to electrode in your brain.

[00:10:34] David: [00:10:34] Absolutely.  For a completely different reason than to sage to your hunger. I’m A 65 year old man has had two tiny grids of tiny electrodes implanted on the surface of his brain, which allow him to type by imagining the shape of each individual letter in sentences at rates of up to 90 characters per minute.

[00:10:53] Sophie: [00:10:53] Yeah. this is crazy. So this comes from Stanford university. And so this 65 year old man is paralyzed from the neck down due to a high level spinal cord injury.  And so what they did was they got him to imagine writing words or letters. So he was instructed to, and I quote, attempt to write as if his hand were not paralyzed while imagining that he was holding a pen on a piece of ruled paper.

[00:11:17]So they got him to imagine that he was writing . So they’re basically, they got this whole algorithm to make this thing work. So we’ve got our probes in our brain, Dave, I know you want to tell me something.

[00:11:28] David: [00:11:28] Oh, no, I just love, like, I just think this is a classic version of people saying something very complicated very simply, which was,  he imagined writing letters softly with his hand with an algorithm. Researchers then figured out the neural patterns that went with each imagined letter and transform those into text on a screen. Like with an algorithm I just feel like represents probably about five years of work

[00:11:48] Sophie: [00:11:48] Yeah. And like 12 million steps that have all been like very fine tuned. Yeah.

[00:11:52] So I think they, from my understanding, they analyze the neural activity and what they found was that there were consistent underlying patterns of neural activity that were unique to each character.  Then they attempted to reconstruct each character by linearly, decoding the pen tip velocity from the trial average neural activity.

[00:12:11]David: [00:12:11] Yes. That’s my understanding as well. They did some principal component analysis, which is not something I  understand terribly well to identify each character, but here’s, What’s amazing about this. So, because he was asked to imagine drawing each individual letter as though with his hand, that produced very distinct patterns for every character, very distinct patterns of neural activity that could be read.

[00:12:36] So basically that says to me, the reason it’s identifiable is because the letters themselves are identifiable, the letters themselves that we use in order to write have to be distinct from one another so that we can tell the difference.

[00:12:50] So the motions for drawing each character must be different. Therefore, the neural activity that produces each must be different and that’s why they can do this. And I just think that’s so beautiful.

[00:13:01]Sophie: [00:13:01] It’s astounding. They’ve now worked out what each letters were, but then obviously when you write a sentence, it’s many letters after each other. So they got a recurrent neural network or an RNN and they trained it to convert the neural activity into probabilities, describing the likelihood of each character being written at each moment in time. So basically they gave this guy a bunch of sentences, got him to write, you know, imagine, write them at his own pace. And they think they had 572 training sentences all together.

[00:13:30] So this was to train this thing up so it could sort of decode in real time, basically.

[00:13:35]David: [00:13:35] Yeah. So it’s basically my understanding of that. So , they use this recurrent neural network and then they applied, what’s called a large vocabulary language model and a language model I looked up is a statistical and probability distribution over sequences of words . So basically given a sequence of length, M it assigns a probability to the whole sequence that letter or that character is that character based on all of the other characters in the sequence.

[00:13:59] So it’s basically autocorrect. when you type ” your”, Y O U R instead of Y O U apostrophe R E. Depending on the context of the sentence, your Apple device or your Google device will then say, well, based on the next word that followed, it’s probably this. So,  it’s context sensitive.

[00:14:14]Sophie: [00:14:14] I think they did both. actually  that led to the different accuracies. I was just about to say those predicted things. I think my phone has gotten worse. I swear my phone only used to auto correct a word. Now it auto-corrects the sentence and changes a word that I’ve previously spelled correctly, but it thinks it’s the wrong one in the sentence.

[00:14:30] And I’ve sent some weird messages to people where a word has just been auto corrected. It changes the meaning of the sentence, but like the meaning that I picked in the beginning was. The one that I meant anyway. So I think what they did was then they’ve trained up this, recurrent neural network and then they evaluated the performance of it.

[00:14:45] So they did two things. They got him to, again, write sentences. They told him the sentences to write, but they were ones that the neural network hadn’t been trained with. So the idea was it wouldn’t do any sort of pattern matching or anything. And then they got him to answer open-ended questions and write the stuff into it.

[00:15:02] I think they found that. For the one with the large vocabulary language model applied to that was sort of offline. So he did it and then offline, this thing got applied after the fact, it was 99% accuracy. And that’s including these open-ended questions that he was answering that this neural network had no idea about. And then it was for the ones that they were doing raw online without that large vocabulary language model, it was still 94.1% raw accuracy.

[00:15:28]David: [00:15:28] Which is pretty good.

[00:15:29] Sophie: [00:15:29] yeah,

[00:15:29] As you said, 90 characters are 15 words per minute, and they think that’s about as fast as the average typing rate of people around the participants aid on a smartphone, which has 111 characters per minute.

[00:15:41] And I thought it was great. So obviously this is, it’s sort of like a proof of concept. They’ve done it with one person and it took a lot of training, but they say that those micro electrode arrays. Apparently after they’d been implanted, they retained functionality for more than a thousand days. Cause I guess if you were doing this thing and it was working, you wouldn’t want to have to get your micro electrode array replaced like every couple of weeks or something because it is sitting on your brain.

[00:16:04]David: [00:16:04] Yeah  it’s not a minor procedure to undergo, which is why these kinds of experimental procedures are only really being done on people who have an absolute urgent need to like people who are paralyzed from the neck down. yeah, I think that’s a big problem in these interfaces and  people who are looking at controlling arms, like robotic arms with using motor cortex activity, the big problem is not training people to do it. It’s the fact that the electrodes, they start to get what’s called gliosis, which is where you have basically this insulating material starts growing around the electrodes, which means they become non-functional. But I guess if you’ve got a procedure like this, that can be applied quickly then yeah.

[00:16:39] A thousand days is three years. And theoretically, this person could work in an office job

[00:16:44]Sophie: [00:16:44] Yeah. It’s I mean, it’s like the results are astounding  the fact that  the equivalent speed of this guy was typing on a smartphone and he’s doing it by imagining that he’s writing words with his paralyzed hand.

[00:16:55]David: [00:16:55] I wonder if it’s exhausting. I wonder how difficult it is. They don’t talk about that so much.

[00:16:59]Sophie: [00:16:59] They didn’t talk about the emotional or the toll on our guy.

[00:17:03]David: [00:17:03] But undoubtedly, absolutely an astounding bit of work and a really exciting thing been done.

Breathing bum

[00:17:19]Sophie: [00:17:19] Dave, why is it that on this podcast every week, if we’re not talking about poop, we’re talking about butts I know it sounds like I’m getting angry at you. I’m not, I’m just confused.

[00:17:29] David: [00:17:29] Well there’s just happen to be a lot of notable research coming out of that particular end of  science, I guess.   And it follows the brain. So we’re from one end to the other, really in this particular case. So I love this.  I think this is a beautiful paper led by Kyoto university researchers, about breathing through the bum.

[00:17:47]Sophie: [00:17:47] Yes, Dave breathing through the bum. yeah, So apparently intestinal respiration is a thing that we’ve actually known about for some time, but mainly in fish. So apparently in an emergency low oxygen or hypoxic condition, there are some aquatic animals like sea cucumbers, freshwater, catfish, and freshwater loaches, which can maximize their oxygen intake by breathing through their guts is the way that it’s described here. so apparently now, rodents and pigs can also respirate through their butts.  this is the work that’s been coming out of Kyoto university.

[00:18:21] David: [00:18:21] That’s right. And the hope is that this can be applied to humans. And to give this context, this is actually a problem because we’ve just been through and we’re still undergoing the COVID epidemic where access to respirators has been severely limited and sometimes if your lungs are compromised, respirator still, isn’t going to help you.

[00:18:36] So the question is how can we get oxygen into people, if their lungs are compromised. And it seems like based on this good paper, I think

[00:18:44]Sophie: [00:18:44] It was a good paper. I thought this was very readable for someone who knows nothing about respiration or respiration via butt

[00:18:51] David: [00:18:51] Yes. So basically  in the first instance they had some mice, and  they anesthetized them they give themselves the  option of introducing a low oxygen or a zero oxygen gas mixture into the mice, and they did this in control mice and not a single mouse lasted longer than 11 minutes. After that they were dead. However, mice that received internal intestinal oxygen, which was just literally oxygen into the bum, 75% of them survived for 50 minutes.

[00:19:19]Sophie: [00:19:19] Which is a huge difference. And then having said that, Dave, that was in the mice where  they had gone straight into the gut lumen.

[00:19:26]David: [00:19:26] Yeah. So basically  the reason they choose the gut is because the gut is a thin, highly vascularized, which means there’s lots of blood vessels tissue, and that’s accessible from the outside by, you know, the usual route.  But it’s also got a lot of what they call drainage. So it like, there’s constantly within the tissue there’s fluid being drained away and taken to the bloods and it’s cycling around, which means if there’s oxygen there, it’s taken up. And if there’s carbon dioxide there, it’s released into the limit of the gut.  It turns out in mice that maybe  the tissue is a bit too thick to allow this to happen effectively. So what they did was they abraded it, which is basically, they just rubbed it with something.

[00:20:01] Sophie: [00:20:01] Yeah. You know, like when you skin your knee, but in your gut gently.

[00:20:05]David: [00:20:05] So that improved the survival enormously. This is an amazing result, right? Surviving for 50 minutes without enough oxygen.

[00:20:12]Sophie: [00:20:12] And even so apparently the ones without the gut abrasion, they still, the median survival time was 18, which is still seven minutes, better than 11. which you know, Which is significantly better. And then with this, abrasion it’s much better. So as you said, excellent result, but then yeah, they went, they went even further, Dave.

[00:20:28]David: [00:20:28] They went full Sci-Fi with it. So because that had kind of worked, they decided to switch from using gas to using PFD, which is Petra flora chemicals. So basically this is if anyone’s seen the movie, The Abyss,  when you go very, very deep diving, you can use this fluid to breathe  that contains oxygen and will carry oxygen and carbon dioxide about in the same way.

[00:20:51] But it’s a liquid instead of a gas and it’s very difficult to breathe and you need assistance, but it works like people have done this. They’ve breathed this for substantial periods of time. So they switched to using this Petro flora chemical,

[00:21:03] Sophie: [00:21:03] I think it’s a per flouro chemical.

[00:21:05] David: [00:21:05] Oh perfluoro chemical.

[00:21:06] So, this was also amazing. So this was a different paradigm.  Instead of hooking the mice up with the low oxygen mixture, they put them in a hypobaric chamber, so they could control the amount of oxygen in the chamber. And basically all they did, they didn’t even continuously supply this stuff.

[00:21:22] They just took a milliliter of the PFD  chucked it in the bum

[00:21:27] Sophie: [00:21:27] Gave it a quick enema, a quick emergency enema before they stuck them in the chamber.

[00:21:32] David: [00:21:32] And then when they reduced the oxygen, all the measures that they took of , hypoxia at the heart, et cetera, and how much the animals like behaved how much walking around and they did were improved. So this works, even if you just put some in the bum, like you don’t even have to have it circulate, you just

[00:21:47] Sophie: [00:21:47] Yeah.

[00:21:47] David: [00:21:47] some in the bum and leave it there.

[00:21:49] it works.

[00:21:51] Sophie: [00:21:51] Yeah. And so the ones that hadn’t had this in the bum. yeah, Basically they just couldn’t walk around for as long and also more oxygen reached their hearts, which is very important. So then they up the ante. So  we’ve done mice and so they went to peaks, but also just to test safety. So I like that they refer to have rats are the safety animal, but pigs were the efficacy animal. So they wanted to assess whether or not,  these rat bodies absorbed the perfluorochemicals to determine the safety. I can’t remember what the conclusion was. must be safe

[00:22:19] David: [00:22:19] must be safe and I think it’s safe and that’s consistent with the per fluorchemicals.

[00:22:23] Sophie: [00:22:23] Yeah. And so then what they did is they got their anesthetized pigs this time. And again, they gave them, a little shoot of output flora, chemical up the butt, and they put them under sort of non-lethal hypoxic conditions. So again, they  you know, reduce the oxygen around them and they found that the respiratory distress that was experienced by our anesthetized pigs was reduced if they’d had this up the butt injection of PFD. And in fact, when treated, their skin grew warm and flushed and their oxygen levels increased without obvious side effects.

[00:22:54] David: [00:22:54] Yeah. And just to really  Ram them home, they, um, they, they repeated it. So they would give a shot of the PFD and see all the indicators recover and then they would gradually come back down and they would do it again and they would recover and it would come back down and they’d do it again and recover can come back down. Just really, really convincing.

[00:23:11] I just think it’s a great bit of science.

[00:23:13] Sophie: [00:23:13] You know that there are serial killers, like Harold Shipman, who would do that as well. They would bring someone to the brink of death and then they would like fix them and then they would watch them be alive again. And they would do it. I mean, I know this is for science, But, also there are people who do this for problematic reasons

[00:23:25] David: [00:23:25] but did they report their results transparently? That’s the question? ,

[00:23:29] Sophie: [00:23:29] To be honest, I don’t, I don’t know if any of their um, experiments have appeared in peer review publications, but yeah, so this is amazing though. So basically  it’s butt breathing

[00:23:38] David: [00:23:38] Perfluorochemicals up the bum

[00:23:39] perfectly the chemicals up the bum

[00:23:41]Sophie: [00:23:41] And as you said, it’s important because, you know, we’ve realized that we’re like we ran out of ventilators. If we have another pandemic, which a hundred percent we will,  and you just need to give someone oxygen super quick.  I guess, if there are any anethetised and non uncomfortable way of, um, just upping the amount of oxygen that we can absorb, without using a ventilator.

Outro

[00:23:59]  David: [00:24:04] And thank you for listening to another fun episode of STEMology. Be sure to check out all the links to these great stories on our show notes.

[00:24:10] Go visit www.stemology.com.au.

[00:24:13]Sophie: [00:24:13] If you have any news that you think is STEM ology worthy, drop us an email stemology@ramaley.media. We would love to give you a mention, if you give us some good ideas,

[00:24:23]David: [00:24:23] Your hosts have been Dr. Sophie calabretto and Dr. David Farmer.

[00:24:26]Sophie: [00:24:26] This is a podcast from Ramaley Media.

[00:24:29] Our executive producer is Melanie De Gioia.

[00:24:31]Our Music is from Elizabeth Maniscalco.

[00:24:34]David: [00:24:34] Be sure to hit subscribe on your favorite listening app. So you never miss our episodes.

[00:24:38] We look forward to sharing the latest in all things, science, technology, engineering, and maths with you next week, and be sure to bring your friends.