Cutting Edge Ocean Research: Deborah Bronk, CEO of Bigelow Laboratory

Today we’re going to dive into the world of marine research. 

Our guest is Deborah Bronk, President and CEO of Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, a Maine-based marine research institute specializing in ocean microbes like algae, plankton, viruses, and bacteria.

Bigelow Laboratory is a relatively small institute but it's growing fast and having a global impact. Under Deborah's leadership,  interdisciplinarity reigns. Deborah believes in removing silos in ocean research and encouraging the interaction and cooperation of researchers from different disciplines.  Even the layout of their laboratory is designed to reflect this operating principle. And science isn't the only discipline Deborah seeks inspiration from for her researchers. Bigelow currently has an art show installed on campus to inspire her team. 

This strategy seems to be paying off as they are commercializing their research and planning for expansion. 

Deborah Bronk
Bigelow Laboratory For Ocean Sciences

Transcript

Abigail

Welcome to the podcast today where we celebrate Innovation for a Happy Planet. I am your host Abigail Carroll. Today we’re going to dive into the world of marine research.  Our guest is Deborah Bronk and she’s the president and CEO of Bigelow Laboratory, a Maine based marine research institute that specializes in ocean microbes. And while that might seem very small, Deborah’s Philosophy is quite the opposite. Deborah is adamant  that research should get out of its silos and people from different disciplines should communicate and collaborate more. The architecture of the laboratory reflects this operating principle. Bigelow even has an art show installed on campus to get people inspired. Deborah’s strategy seems to be paying off. This relatively small institute in mid-coast Maine is growing fast, having a global impact, and planning for expansion. 

Abigail 

Welcome to the podcast, Deborah.

Deborah 

Thank you. Lovely to be here.

Abigail 

So, tell me a little bit about Bigelow Laboratory. What are you guys doing up there?

Deborah 

So, Bigelow is an independent research lab. It was established back in 1974 by two real visionaries, Clarice and Charlie Yench. We are all about microbes, ocean microbes. So we have a little over 110 full-time staff year round. We get much bigger in the summer. People love to be in Maine in the summer in terms of interns and visiting scientists. We occupy a 64 acre campus in East BoothBay, Maine, just this gorgeous 60,000 square foot platinum leed certified building, which is quite lovely. Our annual budget is about $20 million and that's nearly doubled in the last decade. So we really have been in a period of growth. And our research is all focused on the base of the Ocean food web. So it's the microscopic phytoplankton bacteria and viruses that interact with them.

We also study things like corals and kelps, which are kind of those foundational base of the food web and where they exist. And then we go one level up and we study the things that eat those things. And that's really it. And we really try to have a, a, a very focused approach. What we say is we don't try to do everything but what we do, we wanna be able to make a case that we are one of the best in the world at it. Right? We really wanna be a center of excellence rather than a very broad institute.

Abigail 

I'm interested also in your philosophy as an institute of research. And you've done something very interesting there that seems to me is a little bit out of the box. You have an art show ongoing called Majestic Fragility. And I'd like to know what inspired that and how you see the relationship between art and science.

Deborah 

One of the things that I've been saying for years is I feel like great science is like great art, right? It's a creative process. Just like an artist is trying to create something that didn't exist before, a scientist trying to push the boundaries of what we know about something is really, again, trying to create something that didn't exist before. That takes inspiration. And so Majestic fragility is, was just one of a whole series of partnerships we've had with artists and the goal of that is one, you know, we wanna support our artist colleagues, right? But also we wanna inspire each other. 

If you look at the history of science, a lot of scientists, especially the most successful, the Nobel Prize laureates, they are artists as well. They play instruments, they are painters, they are sculptors. I mean, there is very much a connection people that wanna be creative on the humanity side and how their creativity impacts the science that they do. So anything we can do to nurture that. And as a country, we invest in science, but I worry that we don't always invest in the humanities to the degree that we should. and you are cutting us off at the knees if you don't really invest in those things that will inspire people. 

Abigail 

That's really wonderful. You believe in an interdisciplinary approach to science as well. I think that speaks to that.

Deborah 

Absolutely. One of the unique aspects of Bigelow is we are an ocean institute, but we are not all oceanographers. We have people, people that are trained more as classical mathematicians or they study disease organisms, or they are physicists. And I think that's been part of the reason Bigelow has been able to be so impactful in its history, is bringing lots of different scientists together to look at ocean issues and these foundational species in the ocean. This is gonna be really critical as we move forward in terms of addressing climate change. We talk about the importance of diversity. When we think about diversity and the work we're trying to do at the national level right now, for me 20 years ago, it was very much a moral issue, right?

Deborah 

If you are a good moral person, you will do the very best you can to treat all people in an equitable manner, right? But it is also an incredibly important strategic issue, right? Bringing all those different brains to look at a single question, you have a much better chance of solving that problem. And Bigelow really tries to double down on that.

Abigail 

And is that part of the Bigelow model? What makes Bigelow different than other research institutes?

Deborah 

So the model is actually what attracted me here. I mean, there's still a part of me that can't believe I'm not doing research full-time <laugh> I never set out to be an administrator. One of the things that I did is I went and served at the National Science Foundation, the federal agency that's responsible for funding foundational research ,re knowledge for knowledge's sake. And it is an amazing, amazing place. I mean, every taxpayer should be very proud of NSF. 

But What became really clear to me is we cannot afford to do research the way we're doing it right now. It's too expensive. We've gotta get more efficient. We've gotta get cheaper, quicker, especially when we think about addressing climate change. So I was invited up to Bigelow to give a talk on my Arctic work. And I was blown away by the model because I think the model is what we need more of in this country in a lot of different disciplines.

So what is that? One, we have very little bureaucracy. So the buck kind of stops with me and the executive team, which was incredibly important during the pandemic. We pivoted and changed policies in the beginning on a daily basis. We don't have any departments, right? So there's no boundaries between scientists and silos in science are really a barrier to advancement in some areas. Each of our scientists, like when I was at my previous institution, I had all the various instruments I needed to do my work. Bigelow coalesces all the instruments in what we call discovery centers.

So the instruments get used much more than an individual scientist may use it. They are run by highly trained professionals that's what they do. It allows our scientists to operate and think about questions instead of what I did, which was like, you know, making incantations to my mass spectrometer, hoping it would, it would behave on the day I was running the lowest, most sensitive samples. 

Our scientists are largely self-supported. We give 11 weeks of guaranteed salary a year. Everything else they have to raise themselves on contracts and grants and we don't have any tenure, right? So you can't just ride on your laurels. You have to bring it every day. And I think the combination of those two things keep the environment very vibrant, right? I think back as a college professor, I, you know, if you fall off your, whos, your proposal doesn't get funded, your paper gets rejected. You don't have to get right back on that horse. If you're tenured here, you do. We also, we don't have a big endowment. We're not part of a big university. The scientists here they keep the doors open. Their work is critical to us meeting our budget every year. Um, and so it creates very much a collaborative environment. They are invested in helping each other succeed because when another scientist succeeds, they all do. And so it's the least competitive environment I think I've ever seen. 

Abigail 

That's really exciting. It also seems like you interact with the community locally and globally quite a bit. I mean, you have a whole list of services that you offer around your research that people can come to you for.

Deborah 

We do. And part of that is it helps us to pay for the centers. Because we're always trying to push that envelope, we're always trying to develop that next method. It's expensive. And maintaining these instruments are expensive and instruments run better when they are run. 

So by taking samples in for other places, one, we build this fabulous collaborative network, which is wonderful. It generates revenue that helps us maintain these centers and it helps us, um, have the funding to always be looking at what's the next improvement we could make. 

Abigail

Let's get to some of the science that you're involved in. So you mentioned that you work with foundational species, so that's everything that's little and that we can't see probably with our bare eyes. 

Deborah 

We focus on the microbes very little of what we study can you see. Although, you know, Copepods, those are kind of like the cows of the ocean and those are visible. They're like, about the size of a sand grain. 

Abigail 

Now you have to tell me what a copepod does.

Deborah 

Copepods eat phytoplankton.

Abigail 

Oh okay, so they're grazing.

Deborah 

Excellent, excellent, excellent. Yes, they graze. They're kind of the step between the microscopic plant and the fish. Right? So the Copepods eat the phytoplankton and the fish eat the Copepods.

Abigail 

Are microbes and phytoplankton the same thing?

Deborah 

Yes. Microbes are things that are microscopic. Phytoplankton, bacteria, viruses [Got it.] That are all kind of in their own little food web, the microbial loop is what we call it. So they are the foundation of the ocean food web. So that's where everything starts, whether it goes on to be a lobster or a whale. You know, every other breath you take was generated by phytoplankton in the sea.

Abigail 

I like the image of these little cows in the ocean. I wanna step back because you mentioned microbes in the sea a few times. Should we be worried about getting into the sea because we're gonna get some microbes, bad microbes?

Deborah 

But there are toxic species and there are toxic species that seem to be increasing in number and severity. One of the beautiful things about the Gulf of Maine is compared to the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay, where I did a lot of my own research, it's relatively pristine Maine does not have a huge population. And so there's not a lot of pollution flowing into the Gulf of Maine, like, by comparison, Chesapeake Bay.

Deborah 

But we are seeing these harmful species and phytoplankton can, can cause us trouble kinda in two ways. One, if you're in a very polluted environment where there's lots of nutrients flowing in from fertilizers or, or sewage plants, they just grow to such thick blooms. You know, just like your garden blooms, the phytoplankton's bloom, you get really high concentrations. And when they die, the bacteria, just like the bacteria in your soil in your garden decompose the plants. When they die. The bacteria, which are like us, they breathe oxygen and they produce carbon dioxide. They use up all that organic matter and break it down and use up all the oxygen. In areas, if you have a lot of phytoplankton, too much phytoplankton, that's a big problem. The other problem is that they can be toxic. So there are organisms that produce domoic acid, saxitoxin, brevetoxin, and they cause amnesic shellfish poisoning and respiratory issues, headaches, a whole slew of symptoms. And in fact, one of the things Bigelow does we analyze for the state of Maine in a number of other states, all of their seafood for these toxins using just a real state-of-the-art chemical approach as opposed to mice. Let's stop killing little mice, please.

Abigail 

<laugh>.

Deborah

So yeah, so phytoplankton are generally very good. Everyone should love phytoplankton, but you know, just like people, they can turn bad.

Abigail 

Harmful algal blooms are one of those bad outcomes. After a short break, Deborah and I will dive into innovative science and technology that can help predict when and where these outbreaks will happen. 

BREAK

Abigail 

Welcome back to Happy Planet. I wanted to know how oyster farmers dealing with algal blooms like Red Tide - which can cause paralytic shellfish poisoning - could be affected by ongoing research at Bigelow. 

Abigail

As an oyster farmer, this was something we had to think about quite a bit. [Yes.] I was down in the Scarborough Estuary, which had a very narrow opening. And so several times Red tide creeped around the land mass, which was cap Elizabeth and Prouts neck, and came very close to my farm, but never quite made it in. And then finally it came one summer and we lost like eight weeks of summer 

Deborah 

That issue is really important in Maine, because Maine is really building up its aquaculture industry. [Yeah.] And so one of the research projects that we've got, we started the Tandy Center for Ocean forecasting. It's led by Nick Record. And he is working with people in the aquaculture industry to try to forecast so that you can help them determine when this is coming. And that can tell you,pull your oysters out maybe  for the next week, or let's harvest your whole crop. Or, now in the case you were in, if it's not gonna leave, then you're just, you're in trouble. 

Abigail 

You just hang out. The red tide didn't kill the oysters, but it does prevent you from being able to harvest. I've heard there's some correlation between slower growth and the presence of red tide. Like the oysters won't, won't grow as well. But there are also been some very strange, uh, algal blooms in Casco Bay, and there was one that was sort of sucking all the oxygen out of the water, and so they needed to remove shellfish. This is one of the things that I think is so, Interesting and yet problematic is like these prediction models are only as helpful sometimes as your ability to react. And a lot of these farms, you know, moving a million or 2 million oysters off a farm is not something that's really doable. You can move them into refrigeration, maybe if you've got an enormous refrigerator. But, moving oysters back to the ocean in the summer months would create a temperature shock that would kill the oysters. And I know this because I had to get rid of mud worms once, and we got rid of 'em, but we also got rid of a lot of oysters, not when we treated them, out of the water for, for mud worms. But rather when we put them back in the water, we didn't have a way of staging the temperature, to get them back in the water. And that created a lot of hock for the oysters. And we lost quite a few.

Deborah 

Right. One of the barriers to being able to develop ways to address the problem of harmful algal blooms is we still have a lot of questions about how do they start. And oftentimes it's because scientists, they don't hear about it. [Yeah.] Until it's already full blown. Right. So really identifying what's the key variable, that change that triggered this. And so these forecasting models, if we can identify when it's likely to happen, and then we can be on site to see if it actually is happening,, the farther out you could identify when there was a problem, then it becomes, I think, cost effective to start designing ways to approach it. If it's an oxygen issue, you know, is it, can you bubble, can you try to, mix the water column in various ways? So I think we are gonna have to get better at manipulating our environment on a scale that's hard for us to imagine at this point, but you'd have to have certainty in order to invest that kind of money that you know exactly what's going on. 

Abigail

The state could do that too. I mean, there's certain ways that the state could intervene but you're right. If we could do more predicting, then we could at least start to fathom what those solutions are. But in the absence of predictability, the ramp up time's always gonna be too short to do anything really thoughtful.

Deborah 

Absolutely. And one of the problems too is man, you wanna solve the harmful algal bloom problem, fund scientists to study it because the number of cases I can remember of either me or colleagues of mine that they finally get funded to study a harmful species, and then it doesn't bloom those years <laugh>. Right. We're like, damnit, so <laugh>. It's a very challenging area to work in because it's ephemeral. Although that's getting unfortunately less of a problem cuz they're hitting places every year.

Abigail

Interesting. I wanna ask you a little bit more about what are the tools that you're using to predict these algal blooms? 

Deborah

So all phytoplankton, their growth is gonna be controlled by the things that they themselves need. Right. And so what controls phytoplankton growth? It's nutrient concentrations, its types of nutrients, its temperature, it can be salinity or the amount of salt in the water. Many of these things we as a country monitor, extensively all around our coastal areas. What I don't think we're very good at is utilizing all of that information effectively on a time scale that is useful.

So what the Tandy Center, what Nick and his team are doing is trying to develop ways to pull all of these different data streams together so that you can look at, in this case, what's the basic structure of what's going on in the physical environment? And then how is that gonna impact the phytoplankton? Another area that we're working on is we've got a large project with University of Maine on environmental DNA. So environmental DNA is, if you could go out, you could take a, a cup of water from the ocean and we bring it back to the lab and we basically just through like brute force, we isolate the DNA that's in there for all of the various species, to figure out, to take a snapshot of what organisms had passed through that water recently, because organisms like you and me just sitting here, we are s sloughing off DNA into the environment.

It's the same thing. And so really the future of managing marine resources is gonna rely heavily on this environmental DNA. There again, the challenge is how do we get this information in, quick enough that we can turn that around into a product that is useful, for industry and the community in this case. One example could be, when do you first see the appearance or increases in harmful species, right? Because we know that they're there long before they become a problem. Right? And so being able to determine when they appear, what's the physical environment like when their numbers start increasing. Um, so try, It's basically trying to pull lots of things that in some cases we're already doing and in some cases the science community is developing new approaches, but then we gotta turn that over in, you know, 24, 36, 72 hours so that, somebody like you as an oyster farmer gets up in the morning with their cup of coffee and goes on to the ocean forecast. 

Abigail 

It's so interesting to even imagine that cuz it felt like we had so few tools and that climate change was really working against us. I mean, cuz these harmful algae blooms are really becoming a bigger problem as the waters warm. 

Deborah 

Yes, they seem to be, in some areas I think we've got robust data that yes, they're increasing in other areas. You wonder if, are they really increasing or are we just doing more monitoring? I think there's no question in a lot of places that they are definitely increasing.

Abigail 

But I think that's interesting because we haven't done all this monitoring, which is why what you're doing is so important and so innovative.

Deborah 

Another thing that we're trying to do is do more community science. So we will never be able to afford to collect all of the samples in all the places that we want. We're too limited and the funds available. On the other hand, people, especially in the communities around Maine where I live, they are very tied into the ocean. And so there are these community groups that have started monitoring, collecting samples, and doing measurements, which then just through their cell phone can get uploaded into databases. We are expanding the data that's available,through these other, relatively inexpensive ways of collecting data. The other advantage of that is it's really exciting to see people see the impact of what they're doing. Right? I think a lot of people feel powerless. I feel powerless sometimes on what is going on in the environment. And so you can empower them to help you collect the data. They will pay much closer attention to what's going on. Um, And they will likely be much better supporters of science in this country because they're part of the science in this country.

Abigail 

That's amazing. I love this idea of a citizen scientist. I will make sure that I get a link or two of where people could do that in the show notes. 

Deborah

One other area that we're also working is this is again going back to aquaculture. One of the barriers, especially in the muscle farming industry, is the cost of testing is expensive, right? Yeah. These are, you know, we are not cheap <laugh> Yeah. Unfortunately. So, but we are working, we've got a number of projects where we are trying to develop tools that the farmers themselves can do the analyses, right? So for example, during Covid, you know, we got very good labs around the country developed these instruments that many, many sites were doing Covid tests. And basically that's just looking for the presence or absence of covid. It's not that different to looking for the presence and absence of a species that is producing amnesic shellfish poisoning, for example.

Deborah 

[Yeah.] So in a way, our approach is, it would be great if we largely got put out of the business of measuring toxins because we were enabling the people that need that data most. 

Abigail 

Well, that gets me to my next question. How do you get your research to market? I mean, are you know, working with, you know, venture people? How do you take what you are doing and get it out to,make it a product or a service that sort of happens outside of your lab?

Deborah 

That's a really great question and it's a question that we have not completely solved. So in terms of where we get our funding, federal agencies, we get some state funding, we have philanthropic funding, we've got some venture capitalist type people that are working with us. And we've got a lot of projects right now that are in the phase where they're in preliminary patents or going for full patents. And then depending on what the project is, the next step could be very different, right? In some cases the market might be small enough and  the product we are making, like a sensor for example, could be close enough to what we do as a nonprofit that we might actually choose to manufacture those internally. Other things we will license, right? We'll be like, we're gonna go to the next thing.

If you wanna use what we developed, go for it and give us some revenue back to help support the next, I would say that is the number one topic of conversation is how do we take it to that next step? And there is no one answer cuz it really depends on the project. So for example, our largest project right now is [inaudible] affectionately known internally as Burp Busters. And it is developing, using, kelp or actually something that kelp produce to limit the production of methane in the guts of cows. [Mm.] Methane has the 25 times the warming potential of CO2 in the atmosphere. [Yeah.] It is really bad when it gets in the atmosphere and a lot of it comes from the upwards of a billion cows that are on the planet. So that approach and we're way down the, we're way down the line on that one. And it's one of those projects that it started as this wacky idea and it just keeps getting over one hurdle after another. It's been really fun and very exciting and an enormous learning curve

Abigail 

For sure

Deborah 

To do that. And we were very lucky in that case. I mean, one challenge all scientists have is how do you fund those, those steps, right? How do you bring the people together with the expertise that you don't have as an oceanographer to help you through that? So, the Shelby Cullom Davis Charitable Fund, and Andrew Davis, who has been just this fantastic partner in this project funded, millions of dollars in the early days to really help us through all of these various hurdles. So we hired IP lawyers and an FDA consultant to help us determine how to design experiments not as oceanographers to publish in a journal, but how to get it through FDA approval. Economists. So it's been really fun and now we're in cow trials.

Abigail 

Oh, wonderful. And then you're gonna have to market it. I

Deborah 

Now that is, you know, if that is gonna be successful and really do what we want it to do, we need to get it into hundreds of millions of cows. Now that is not something Bigelow is gonna tackle, right? Right. So that is, we will work with, uh, a business partner through licensing or sale of IP

Abigail 

like a Cargill

Deborah 

Exactly. So yeah, so we got what, 13 million in USDA funding for cow trials. [Amazing.] And that is the beauty of Bigelow, right? We are an ocean institute, but there is no limit on what we can approach because, you know, I'm not having to defend to my university administrator why we have to find more cows, research cows [right] to have access to.

Abigail

Right. You can go down the sort of the trails that seem to have crumbs on them without worrying about the silo that you're in. That's just super exciting. And, and the idea that one day we could have a guilt-free cheeseburger is also very exciting.

Deborah 

Yes. As somebody who likes cheeseburgers,

Abigail 

<laugh>. I'm really actually a pescatarian, but I I know that would bring great joy to many people. Um, so what is your strategic vision? Where is this organization headed?

Deborah

Good question. Getting things to market, getting it across the line and then what's the next stage? So I think when I first got here, it was all about shoring up the finances, because we had just moved into this new building. We went from paying a dollar a year in lease of kind of crummy space - the joke is we overpaid - to the state, to this state-of-the-art building with a $14 million mortgage. So a lot of it was spent shoring up the finances. The kind of last three years have been really pretty rapid growth. So we've brought on a lot more scientists and we're building out. And the answer is we continue to grow.

What's tricky is having a vision that I don't break what is so beautiful and impactful about Bigelow. So, we are now, we're building a new wing. Once we get that new wing in, we will be probably between 130 and 150 people. And if you look at the science of organizations, that's about as big as we think we can get with our current model, where the scientists are engaged in governance, where we can get every, senior research scientists in a room to discuss governance, where everybody can know everybody else, so that there's a very free flow of information. 

We're in the third year of our five year strategic plan. So I'm in the process of in my own mind, like, where do I think this next stage should go? Is really, do we need the next Bigelow? So for example, we have a real strength in aquaculture. And we've got the foundational research to support it. But as we're moving through all of this, thinking about how to use our research to support commercial endeavors, whether we are thinking about it as scientists or whether we are doing it in service and in partnership with industry, that could be a whole nother area of research. Do we start another Bigelow either across the street from our lab right now, and then start growing that entity?

Or do we put one in Portland? Which is such an economic center. And then what is that core topic around which we are building that next Bigelow? Like right now it's the foundational species. If we do that, there are some of our scientists that would probably move over and kind of be the seeds to start that next entity, which then would open up room for us to bring in again, other types of scientists to again, keep us at the cutting edge. That's where my thoughts are. So we are, we still have two more years in our current plan. So I've started all these off the wall conversations with scientists around the institute. Like, can I get support to do that?

The alternative is we spend much more time, you know, maybe it's a spinning off an entity that becomes a commercial arm, right? We're a nonprofit. Yeah. We can't do commercial activities. So that's, that's, that's the non-research side of things. Do we really try to spin off? I think that gets a little more problematic because what we do is so broad. I'm not sure one entity is the way to go with that.

The question is we want it to be bold. How bold? <Laugh> 

Abigail 

I love the creativity. I wanna know, how do you see the role of the ocean and its opportunities for the future? 

Deborah 

When you think about how we deal with climate change, the ocean is almost the whole ball of wax, right? 70% of our planet is water. When you think about the size of the ocean ecosystem, right? We just see the silver at the top. Utilizing the ocean and the capacity of the ocean to absorb carbon, without creating a whole slew of other environmental problems. There's no question in my mind we will be doing geoengineering of our planet, whether it is putting aerosols in, in, in the atmosphere, or [wow], there's a whole slew of carbon dioxide removal approaches that are being investigated in the ocean. And, you know, there's a lot of promise to those approaches.

But man, you know, we have done a very poor experiment on our planet so far, and that did not turn out well. So by all means, let's solve it by doing another massive experiment on our planet to solve it <laugh>, right?10 years ago if you had asked me, I would've been like, no way. We should never do that. I don't think we have a choice now. Everything's speeding up. I think we need, um, much larger focus not just in the US but around the world, to really do the studies necessary to figure out the impact, because there's no question we're gonna start messing with the ocean on a scale that is terrifying to me. On the other hand, you,,,

Abigail 

You mean like deep sea drilling and things like that?

Deborah 

Right. So that is, gosh, talk about, you know, no answer is a good answer. You know, deep, not so much deep ocean drilling, but [or mining], deep ocean mining, right? Do you what will very likely be destroy vast regions of the bottom of the ocean for, you know, we have no idea how long it will take for those, if they're mined to heal. I've heard hundreds, I've heard thousands. It could be tens of thousands of years. On the other hand, is it worth doing because we so desperately need what we can get? I am no expert on this. We have Beth Orcutt who is an expert on this, and I think kind of where I'm coming down is the answer is no.

Especially when you consider the amount of these rare earth elements that are sitting in our landfills. But yeah, big, big, big questions, but, I am hopeful, my hope goes up and down <laugh> sometimes based on what I'm reading in the newspaper. But I think the most important thing we gotta do moving forward is we gotta start talking to each other in this country. You know, the political division is the biggest danger. It's almost more dangerous than climate change because we won't address climate change if we don't solve this. This lack of communication between the parties in this country and what happens in this country is hugely consequential to the world.

Abigail 

Right. So I think you answered my question about are you optimistic about the future and our ability to solve climate change?

Deborah :

I am optimistic. But it's hard right? Science communication research is saying the message should always be about hope. And yet I give climate talks all the time. There is a part of me it's like, yes, I am hopeful, but we gotta get our act together now. Right? I don't want you leaving with a warm, fuzzy feeling that all will be well cuz it won't be unless all of us  really take this seriously. And one of the sobering things is the realization that individuals are not gonna be able to do it on their own. Right? Even if everybody as an individual in our residents, we do everything we need to do that in terms of composting and solar panels and, you know, everybody could live off the grid, but industry, right?

What is it for every ton of garbage residential households in the US generate, industry generates 70. Right? [Wow.] And so it is, it is industry that we have got to transform, right? It's the transportation sector, it's the energy sector, it's the manufacturing sector and that is legislation. That is not gonna change quick enough unless we legislate. So that we need people to pay attention to demand of the people they vote for to what is your stance on climate change? How are the policies you promote going to address it? What limits are you gonna put on carbon production in your district to have a national impact? We've gotta start asking those questions of our legislature. Cuz that's the only way it gets solved. We can be kumbaya and say, let's all, you know, drive electric cars and we should. But that alone is just part of the puzzle. It's essential, but that alone is not getting it done.

Abigail 

A big thank you to Deborah for coming on the podcast. To her point about her guarded optimism for our future, we will only be able to tackle climate change if we all get out of our silos, not just in research but in society at large and work together to tackle the problem.

Thank you for listening. Please follow Happy Planet wherever you listen and leave us a rating and review - it really helps new listeners discover the show. Happy Planet was reported and hosted by me. I am also the Executive Producer. The talented Dylan Heuer [hoyer] is our producer and editor. Composer GEORG BRANDL EGOFF created our theme music. Learn more about my work and get in touch by visiting happyplanetpodcast.com.