Send a text

In this episode, we’re joined by Dr. Eugene Manley, founder of the STEM & Cancer Health Equity Foundation, for a powerful conversation about representation, health equity, and the structural barriers that continue to shape cancer outcomes.

Drawing from his experience growing up in inner-city Detroit and navigating academia as a first-generation scholar, Dr. Manley shares why he launched the foundation — and how it works to address disparities in lung cancer diagnosis, clinical trial access, and STEM participation.

We explore:

· Why lung cancer outcomes differ across communities

· How implicit bias shows up in clinical decision-making

· The importance of biomarker testing and clinical trial inclusion

· The role of mentorship pipelines in diversifying STEM

· How AI in healthcare can either reduce or amplify inequity

· Why representation in research and clinical teams matters

This episode is a candid and thought-provoking look at what health equity looks like in practice — not just in principle — and why intentional action is essential to create lasting change.

If you’re interested in public health, medical research, social justice in healthcare, or the future of equitable innovation, this conversation is not to be missed.

Find out more about Dr. Eugene Manley and his work at the STEM & Cancer Health Equity Foundation here: https://scheq.org/

Support the show

Send a text

In this episode of The Science Intersection, we continue our conversation with Russell, exploring whether innovative literacy and learning approaches can be successfully replicated across education systems.

We discuss large-scale outcomes for dyslexic and neurodivergent students, the idea of “academic specialists” versus generalists, and why traditional education models often fail learners with spiky cognitive profiles. Russell explains how structured writing can help organise complex thinking and why beginning with concrete, specific ideas can dramatically improve learning outcomes.

The conversation also explores differences between UK and US higher education pathways, alternative routes for neurodiverse learners, and the opportunities and risks of using AI in academic writing and education.

This episode challenges common assumptions about intelligence, ability, and what effective learning should look like in modern education.

Support the show

Send us a text

In this episode, I speak with Russell Van Brocklen, a New York State-funded dyslexia researcher whose own educational journey challenges traditional assumptions about learning ability.

Russell struggled to read and write until law school, where he unexpectedly discovered that his dyslexia gave him a unique cognitive advantage. This experience led him to develop teaching methods that help students with dyslexia and other learning differences dramatically improve reading, writing, and critical thinking skills.

We explore how the dyslexic brain processes language differently, why traditional education methods often fail neurodiverse learners, and how structured writing and interest-based learning can significantly accelerate academic progress. Russell shares real case studies, including students who advanced multiple grade levels in reading and writing within months.

We also discuss how these approaches can reshape how we think about intelligence, learning differences, and educational support more broadly.

In Part 2, we explore how these methods can be replicated across schools, teachers, and education systems, and what they reveal about neurodiversity and different ways people think and learn. With thanks to Russell for this interview.

To learn more go to:

https://dyslexiaclasses.com/

Support the show

Send us a text

In the second part of this interview, we continue our conversation with Courtwatch about what volunteers observe when they sit in on magistrates’ courts across England and Wales.

This episode focuses on court efficiency and delays not in the abstract, but as they are experienced in real hearings. We discuss the kinds of delays court watchers see most often, where time and resources are wasted, and where taking time is both necessary and welcome in the interests of fairness.

We also explore how court delays disproportionately affect marginalised groups, including people with mental health conditions, neurodivergent defendants, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and why better preparation and resourcing matter for access to justice.

If you’d like to find out more about Courtwatch and the work of Transform Justice and the Courtwatch programme, you can visit:

Transform Justice
👉 https://www.transformjustice.org.uk

This podcast is independently produced. If you found the episode useful, please rate, follow, and share and if you’d like to support the work, you can find a donation link in the show notes.

Support the show

Send us a text

In this episode, I’m joined by Finola from Transform Justice, a UK charity working to make the justice system more humane, transparent, and effective.

We explore how the criminal justice system actually functions at its “bulk end” particularly in magistrates’ courts, where around 95% of criminal cases begin and end, yet where public scrutiny and understanding are often limited. Finola explains Transform Justice’s focus on what they call the “dark corners” of the system: everyday processes that affect huge numbers of people but rarely make headlines.

A major focus of the conversation is CourtWatch, a public court observation programme that trains volunteers to sit in magistrates’ courts, observe hearings, and document what they see. We discuss what CourtWatch has revealed about fairness, accessibility, legal representation, and whether defendants truly understand what is happening to them.

We also unpack what Transform Justice means by compassionate justice, why punishment alone is often ineffective, and how alternative approaches including out-of-court resolutions can better serve both victims and defendants. Throughout, we reflect on transparency, dignity, and the gap between how the justice system is imagined and how it operates in practice.

This conversation was so rich that it’s been split into two parts.
In Part 2 (out next week), we’ll focus on court inefficiency, delays, pressure on the system, and who is most affected by the way the courts currently operate.

Support the show

Send us a text

Cities were never meant to be lifeless landscapes of concrete, steel, and heat. In this episode, we speak with the founder of Leaf Island, an award-winning urban planning initiative that’s transforming rooftops, walls, and underused spaces into thriving green ecosystems.

Drawing on decades of environmental restoration experience, our guest explains how lightweight, plant-based infrastructure can cool overheated cities, reduce air pollution, manage stormwater, extend building lifespans, and restore biodiversity—all at once. From tackling the urban heat island effect in New York City to rethinking waste materials like styrofoam as ecological assets, this conversation explores how nature-based solutions can address multiple climate challenges simultaneously.

We also discuss why cities must be treated as living systems, the social and public-health benefits of bringing plants back into daily life, and what it will take to scale green infrastructure globally. This episode offers a hopeful, practical vision of urban futures where people, plants, and buildings work together—not against each other.

Support the show

Send us a text

With thanks to Diana Colleen who joins me in this episode, she is a novelist, essayist, and psychedelic facilitator whose work explores transformation, responsibility, and social change.

We discuss her latest novel, They Could Be Saviours, which brings together three challenging themes: extreme wealth, climate change, and psychedelic-assisted insight. Rather than offering easy answers, the novel functions as a kind of ethical stress test; asking readers to sit with discomfort and question what we accept as “normal” in times of urgency.

Our conversation explores how Diana’s lived experience as a psychedelic facilitator has shaped her understanding of change and connection, why she chose fiction as a vehicle for engaging with complex moral questions, and what she means by framing “billionaireism” as a psychological and systemic issue rather than a personal moral failing.

We also talk about maximum salaries, structural versus individual responsibility for climate change, the limits of behaviour-focused environmental messaging, and whether fiction can help us think more clearly about what is, and isn’t, justifiable when the stakes feel existential.

This is a wide-ranging discussion about insight, ethics, and hope, and about what it might take to imagine meaningful change without collapsing into either cynicism or simplistic solutions.

With thanks to Diana for this interview.

Support the show

Send us a text

In this first reflective episode, I step back from the usual guest format to explain why I’m including reflection episodes in this series.

I come from a science background, and something I’ve always cared about is not just what we know, but how we know it. Even within the biological sciences, different questions require different methods, types of evidence, and levels of analysis — especially when systems are complex. That challenge becomes even more pronounced in the social sciences.

I use Diversity, Equality and Inclusion as a case study of that complexity. DEI sits at the intersection of individual psychology, group dynamics, organisational systems, and moral and political values — which helps explain why people working in this space often focus on different parts of the problem and propose very different kinds of solutions.

Drawing on conversations with Paulo Galliano, Sarah Taylor, and Katherine McCord, I explore three distinct approaches to DEI: measurement- and outcomes-focused work, experiential and practitioner-led insight, and framework- and research-informed interpretation.

I also reflect on why bias — and bias training — has become a contentious topic, where it can be most useful, and how its importance varies depending on context and stage, from hiring to life inside organisations.

Rather than deciding who is right or wrong, this episode is about unpacking what different kinds of evidence can and can’t do, and how listening more carefully to those differences can help us make better sense of complex social issues.

Next week, the podcast returns to the usual guest format.

Support the show