The DISRUPTED SCIENCE Podcast

March 25, 2026 — Interview with Amanda Licastro

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.

“Discoveries of the Week”

• 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 to our podcast

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

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

March 18, 2026 — More Harm Than Good

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:

Five funders rose to prominence in “open” scientific publishing relatively quickly — Max Planck, HHMI, Wellcome, Gates, and CZI — representing an interesting historical trajectory of wealth shifting from nation-states to manufacturing to chemistry to computer science to social media. In some ways, it is the preceding century in a nutshell.

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/ 

March 4, 2026 — Why Should We Trust You?

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 to our podcast

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

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

February 25, 2026 — Insurgents vs. Incumbents

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/ 

February 18, 2026 — Martina Linnenluecke and Carl Rhodes

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 to our podcast

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

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

February 11, 2026 — Maxwell K. Riggsbee, Jr.

Maxwell K. Riggsbee, Jr., is a technologist currently specializing in developing machine learning systems around content serving US government policy-makers and related stakeholders via his company Gadget Software. 

Max is also well-known for the cartoons he puts out on LinkedIn. Inspired by his love of 19th century political cartoons, these are timely, well-designed encapsulations of current events. One he did in honor of my post about “Rachel So” and aixiv.org was particularly lovely. 

We wanted to talk to Maxwell about his career, his cartoons, and his vision for where this is all going.

We also discuss his idea for “compute-ready documents,” and share our “Discoveries of the Week.”

Show Notes

• “Then Is Now Diaries:” https://thenisnow.substack.com/p/1954-from-here-to-there
• “Goldie & Frenchie” YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@dogpackapp
• Skyride maintenance: https://liftblog.com/aeronaut-skyride-busch-gardens-williamsburg-va/comment-page-1/

---

Subscribe to our podcast

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

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

February 4, 2026 — Real Talk

Earlier this week, Ben Collins, the owner of The Onion, was interviewed on Kara Swisher’s “On” podcast. The interview raised some core questions about the digital information age and how we in scientific publishing are handling it so far.

Collins is from Massachusetts. His mother is a librarian, and he initially pursued a sports journalism career. In 2024, he became CEO of a company called Global Tetrahedron, which purchased The Onion. He wanted to rescue it from being purchased by Elon Musk and becoming “an AI slop farm.”

• Collins is also attempting to buy InfoWars from Alex Jones, mainly to make sure victims who have been awarded money from Jones’ lies and defamations can finally get some. 

The interview touched on a core difference in the media space, one that I pondered independently before listening to the interview — Why is there one fake media space that is currently thriving but starting to crack under the strain, and a separate reality-based media space growing stronger and more interesting and relevant by the day?

What does this portend? Where does scientific publishing fit into this now? Are we indulging unscientific fantasies of our own?

And why is it so much more fun and impactful to be in the reality-based world today?

We also share our “Discoveries of the Week.”

• “Stuff You Should Know” podcast about the color orange (and more): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/stuff-you-should-know/id278981407?i=1000747999454
• The Ransomware Hunting Team: https://reneedudley.com/
• • Now available in paperback

Show Notes

Interview with Ben Collins: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-onions-ben-collins-on-political-satire-why-trump/id1643307527?i=1000747679219

• Subscribe to The Onion: https://membership.theonion.com/

Wired article about infiltrating Moltbook: https://www.wired.com/story/i-infiltrated-moltbook-ai-only-social-network/

“Polymaths” fantasies: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2025/01/20/in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence-polymaths-are-back-in-vogue/

Subscribe to our podcast

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

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

January 28, 2026 — Interview with PJ Puterbaugh

PJ Puterbaugh’s skills exist at the intersection of art and science.

Working as a painter and portraitist, years ago she found herself utilizing her abilities to help people by becoming a forensic artist. This meant certifying with the International Association for Identification (IAI) and becoming a Certified Forensic Artist.

PJ works by assisting various law enforcement agencies with John and Jane Doe images and skull-to-face reconstructions. The same methods can also apply to museum and historical projects. Her work for medical examiners and cold case investigators bridges forensic science, creative visualization, and multimedia storytelling to bring human faces to life with accuracy and impact. She has helped law enforcement identify various victims and close years-old cold cases. 

We also have our “Discoveries of the Week,” which are quite toothy.

Related Links

PJ Puterbaugh’s site: https://pjputerbaughartist.com/

Forensic Art and Illustration: https://www.amazon.com/Forensic-Art-Illustration-Karen-Taylor/dp/0849381185/

GOLF: What You Know Can Hurt You: https://www.amazon.com/GOLF-What-Discover-fundamentals-swing/dp/0615268404/

Ologies podcast about paleohistology: https://www.alieward.com/ologies/paleohistology

Subscribe to our podcast

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

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