Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Talking Biotech is a weekly podcast that uncovers the stories, ideas and research of people at the frontier of biology and engineering.
Each episode explores how science and technology will transform agriculture, protect the environment, and feed 10 billion people by 2050.
Interviews are led by Dr. Kevin Folta, a professor of molecular biology and genomics.
Talking Biotech Podcast 411
The Shill Accusation and How to Respond- Dr. Chris MacDonald
Dr. Kevin Folta, podcast host
===
Kevin Folta: [00:00:00] Hi everybody. And welcome to this week's talking biotech podcast by Colabra. Remember back when the COVID vaccine first came out and you were so excited to talk about mRNA and how it might end the pandemic. And remember how excited you were when you heard that golden rice was finally going to be planted in the Philippines and this 20 something year old technology would finally reach the people who needed it.
And remember how you heard about Ms. Victoria Gray and how she was the first person cured of sickle cell disease because of genetic engineering that ended up back in her bone marrow and fix the problem. And then remember when you went to Twitter or Facebook and discussed how excited you were to see technology helping people.
I remember all this. And then remember the response you received in return?
Chris MacDonald: How much are they paying you to say that? [00:01:00]
Kevin Folta: You know, it's, it's the dreaded shill accusation and happens like clockwork. Anytime you show enthusiasm for a given technology or scientific approach, you obviously don't love it because it's transformational and can help people in a planet you love it because someone's paying you to love it.
And then extol your unbridled excitement in social media. Yeah, that's how it works. It always seemed really strange to me because it happens constantly. And I've been called a shell from everything from Pfizer to Monsanto to big solar panel. And so I had to ask, where does this come from? And today's guest I think has some answers.
So we're speaking with Dr. Chris MacDonald. He's the chair of the law and business department and the director of the Ted Rogers Leadership Center. At Toronto Metropolitan University. He's also a veteran of the podcast. So welcome
Chris MacDonald: back, Chris. Thanks very much. Great to be here.
Kevin Folta: I really appreciate you coming back on the podcast because this is something that drives me nuts.
And [00:02:00] in trying to understand how we better can share ideas and communicate some of these small kind of artificial barriers are important to understand and how to navigate them and how to get around them. But first let's talk about. What are your favorite areas of research? It seems to be a really interesting mix of things like philosophy and ethics and business.
And, and you've been really helpful with me in understanding things like conflict of interest and the kind of funny edges we discuss when we discuss science. So what do you do mostly and why is it important?
Chris MacDonald: Well, I, I teach at a business school, so most of what I teach is about business ethics, ethics in the world of commerce and that has to do with, so, and so when you think of it from a, from a biotech point of view, for example I'm interested in the business side, I'm interested in how it is that, that companies whether they're biotech companies or traditional pharma companies or other kinds of companies conduct themselves.
And I think it's important because, you know, for my, my students, my students are idealistic young people. They want to go out into the world and [00:03:00] make the world a better place. And they want to act with integrity and make their families proud. And I help. Prepare them for those challenges. But
Kevin Folta: is that really part of a modern business education?
And is there a lot of value in turning to disciplines like philosophy to help shape better folks in these disciplines?
Chris MacDonald: Well, a lot of what philosophers like me do has to do with kind of digging deeper into everyday folk concepts and trying to make them more precise in some ways. It's, it's actually a lot like what scientists.
Do take genetics, right? Like for hundreds of years, people all across the world talked about heredity in a very rough way. You know, she has her mother's eyes or he's got his father's temper and it took, you know, Mendel and then the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule for scientists to start saying, no, we can do this in a much more precise way and use much more precise language and make precise predictions and so on.
And philosophers sort of do the same thing with ethical or moral concepts. So, so when someone says, and this is something I've written about [00:04:00] when someone says, I have a right to know what's in my food, sort of part of the labeling debate. Well, philosophers are going to say, okay, well, let's look at what it means to have a right to something.
Let's break down that concept and see where, whether it really applies here. And my current project basically has to do with that, doing that same process with the concept of being A corporate shill.
Kevin Folta: Oh, we had this conversation on Twitter a few months ago and you mentioned that you were thinking a lot about how credible voices are sometimes removed from conversations in social media with the shill accusation.
So what does it mean to be a shill and how do you know if you actually are one?
Chris MacDonald: Well, in, in my view, to be a shill an unremediated conflict of interest. So it means that you're in a position where people or, or you're expected to provide advice or to have people rely on your judgment. And people are in a situation to worry about it, right?
Because of some other interest you've got, and yet you do [00:05:00] nothing to fix the situation. And I mean, conflicts of interest are common. You know, if you, you know, as a professor, if your daughter, let's say, signed up to take a course you teach, well, now you'd. In a conflict of interest through no fault of your own, the question is what you do about it.
And a shill is someone with a very serious conflict of interest, but who doesn't do anything to try and fix
Kevin Folta: it. Yeah. And that's really what's unfortunate because you get accused of having these conflicts when really the conflict is you're just excited about some sort of new technology. And it drives me nuts because as a scientist, as someone who's always loved new technology, it's very easy for me to get excited about some new way that something that someone created can help either people or the planet or whatever.
And it just is really, really strange that it's that we slip into this. There must be some other motivation for your enthusiasm.
Chris MacDonald: Yeah, for sure. There's always this kind of you know, I'm, I'm expressing an opinion either as a loyal customer or as a, you know, as a professor like you and I do and, but, [00:06:00] but somehow it's coming out as real enthusiasm for a product or for a technology in a, in a way that hides some underlying or the worry is that it's hiding some kind of underlying thing.
Yeah. Interest or underlying a financial relationship that is the real, is doing the real work in generating the enthusiasm rather than the quality of the product or the the benefits of the technology. And you
Kevin Folta: mentioned money, but is that really the normal course of this discussion that it's a financial remuneration for the, your
Chris MacDonald: enthusiasm?
Well, I think pretty much always, yes, or at least that's always the implication, but part of the challenge is and I think, you know, you and I are both aware that there are. Real shills in the world, and then there are people getting accused of being shills, but the real part of the real challenge is that there's so many ways people can receive compensation or more neutrally be incentivized.
You know, it doesn't have to be a paycheck or an envelope full of money but we tend to focus on the money because it's relatively concrete and people think they understand its impact [00:07:00] on other people's behavior. I mean, it's almost always other people's behavior. People very seldom worry about how how money affects their own.
judgment, but they worry about other people a lot. But
Kevin Folta: how, how prevalent is this where people are actually paid off or, you know, giving some sort of remuneration for their enthusiasm? I mean, it sounds ridiculous in a way, but are there cases where people actually are Going out and being corporate shills for cash.
Chris MacDonald: It's a really hard thing to gather statistics on for obvious reasons. I mean, I think it can happen, and it probably does happen, but we got to keep in mind there are two importantly different kinds of cases to think about. One is the literal payoff, right? Here's 50, 000. We want you to go out and say cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Right. I don't think it's entirely cynical to say, yeah, that probably happened at some point in history. But it has to be a pretty risky proposition for all the parties involved, and that probably helps keep it relatively rare. But the other kind of case is the one we've traditionally worried [00:08:00] about.
In the pharmaceutical industry where a company says, Hey, we'd like to pay you 10, 000 to speak at our next conference. Oh, and it's being held in Hawaii and you should bring your spouse and the kids and there's going to be lots of free time to go, you know, play on the beach. And, oh, by the way, what do you think of our new product?
Now in that kind of case, the opinion isn't literally being bought, but there's good statistical evidence that, you know, that it still kind of gets. It's the job done. So there, there are legitimate worries out there. I think we don't want to, we don't want to paper over that. Well, yeah,
Kevin Folta: especially when I've heard people talk about this before professionally and they say that it doesn't take a sweet honorarium in Hawaii trip that some people say that even giving a physician a pen.
And so that's why, why I and when I have friends and companies, if we go out to dinner, we split the check because if I disclose any kind of niceties, like someone buying me dinner, it's viewed as some sort of high corporate corruption.
Chris MacDonald: Yeah, that's one of the one of the kind of interesting and troubling findings and again, this is [00:09:00] what this is with regard to pharma and it's a little easier to track because we can track prescription rates and things like that.
But yeah, there's, there is evidence that surprisingly minor interventions, it doesn't have to be a 10, 000, you know, consulting fee, relatively minor things can can create a allegiance, people's, you know, human psychology is a wonderful thing. That way, wonderful. And in the sense of being amazing and odd people build allegiances for all kinds of all kinds of reasons.
And, you know, we, again, we tend to focus on money because money is tangible. And relatively easy to track. I mean, the government does a lot of, puts a lot of effort in tracking what money goes where. And so we tend to focus on that, but it's not the only thing that matters for sure.
Kevin Folta: Well, here's the devil's advocate question is what's wrong with being paid to endorse a product or opinion.
I mean, we're bombarded with it all day through ads, especially with AI and selective advertising targeting us. So what's wrong with an expert being paid or. You know, given dinner or whatever [00:10:00] to take time to be a more visible expert endorsing a given product or service.
Chris MacDonald: Yeah, I think, I think, you know, in, in principle, that's fine.
It's just, for me, it's all about, you know, transparency and that's, you know, why, why I connect this to conflict of interest. The first rule of conflict of interest is disclose the. Disclose the relationship. And so, you know, companies employ lots of scientists to, and once when you're employed by the company, then you have a, a duty of loyalty to the company and it's perfectly fine for you to say nice things about the company's products.
And the same goes with being, you know being hired on a contract basis, as long as it's clear, you know, and I think this is especially when it comes to you know, people who do science education like yourself or people who do kind of ethics education like I do people want to be able to rely on what we say as being really based in our expertise and And so, you know, as long as we're clear about who it is, [00:11:00] that's that's you know, paying that's, you know, who it is we work for, then, then, you know, other things being equal.
I mean, there's still going to be concerns because, you know, people often don't understand, especially with with professors, frankly, higher education, people, people tend not to understand. Our finances very well, right? You get paid X, but then you get this grant from this government organization. Plus you've got this, you know, a student got funded by this company or something like that.
People don't understand this stuff very well. So there's, there's a little bit of room for, for caution. But not, not necessarily alarm all the time.
Kevin Folta: Oh, it's totally true. Back in 2017, I wrote for a grant from Bayer, real small one, 57, 000 to fund a postdoc. And she was awesome. And it didn't even cover her whole salary.
I had to pay fringe and things out of other funds in the laboratory. And people don't understand that if we're going to do any research, we have to find the money to pay to do it. And that people are extraordinarily expensive to hire. [00:12:00] Everything comes from grants. I go out and get that my salary and the box I work in is covered by the university.
Everything else is what I have to finance. So they just don't understand this. I just still don't understand why it makes it so easy. Why is it so easy to try to disqualify, you know, using that, that two 2017, one year grant that hired a minority postdoc, you know, which is a good thing. Why is it so easy to twist that and make it sound nefarious when really it absolutely wasn't.
I mean, it just seems like like such low hanging fruit and such an easy. Thing for people to just kind of whip out at you, right?
Chris MacDonald: Yeah, it's the standard phenomenon of, you know you know, the person who's trying to sell the book on alternative medicine, you know, tells you, you know, don't, don't trust anyone who promotes pharmaceuticals because they're all bought and sold.
Except and they're, they're, they're trying to you know, trying to promote their book that they're, that they're making a living on.[00:13:00] And yeah, it's, it's, it's a, it's a weird thing. I mean, the, the accusation of, of shilling or of conflict of interest, I mean, more often, you know, the, yeah, it's the simpler vocabulary is, you know, it's attractive because it's, it's easy, it's low hanging fruit, it's, it's a pretty easy weapon rhetorically to grab hold of, and it saves people having to do the hard work of looking at evidence. And, and in a lot of cases, you know, you and I both know that a lot of the people out there, you know, don't have the, you know, in the best, in the, in the cases I'm most sympathetic with, people just don't have the skills to look at the evidence.
And in other cases they don't have the, don't have an interest. Yeah.
Kevin Folta: That's the old case of if you can't elevate your argument, disqualify the speaker, right? Disqualify the other person. And it's just, it's just the way it goes, but let's talk about this more on the other side of the break. We're speaking with Dr.
Chris McDonald. He's the chair of the law and business department at Toronto [00:14:00] metropolitan university. And this is the talking biotech podcast by Calabra. And we'll be back in just a moment. And now we're back on the talking biotech podcast. We're speaking with professor Chris McDonald, and he's with Toronto metropolitan university.
And we're talking about the. argument of the shill gambit. So like when someone accuses you of having enthusiasm because of some sort of a conflict of interest. And to me, it never seems like it's a very effective strategy. Like to me, I see right through it. Right. And when I see it, it's clearly just a kind of a low grade ad hominem.
Disqualifying the speaker, but is this something that with the general public actually matters? Do people actually respond to this and and really accept the shill accusation as a way of disqualifying a credible speaker?
Chris MacDonald: I mean, I think it's effective for Well, I mean, to the extent that it's effective, it's it's kind of [00:15:00] hard thing to measure just how effective it is.
I know how frustrating it is for sure. But I think, you know, there's, there's this old common sense saying that people have and it's, you know, philosophers have have. We always worry when we have old common sense sayings, sometimes they sound better than they are, but there's this old saying, follow the money, right?
And we all learned that from watching, you know, B movies as kids that it's always about, you know, you got to figure out who done it. And they always done it because there was money in it. And so people have this tendency or they find it really easy to believe whenever you see something surprising, whenever.
You know, someone hears a scientist saying you know, positive things about a particular pesticide or herbicide or saying, you know, it's safe when I always thought it was dangerous. Well, the easy assumption is that, Oh, someone must be paying them to say that because I know, you know, it's, it's common sense.
Everyone says, follow the money. And well, sometimes money makes a difference, but that's not always the cause for people disagreeing with you. Well,
Kevin Folta: [00:16:00] for me, it always seems that this revolves around new technology, that it's either the SARS CoV 2 vaccine, genetic engineering, glyphosate, you know, the herbicide, and that it's kind of technologies that people always find a little bit unsavory or maybe unusual, but are technically maybe just as complex as if I get excited about saying, I love the new iPhone.
It's got a great camera. No one says that I'm a shill for big Apple. And so what is it about these particular technologies that makes them especially Vulnerable to being targeted for the shill accusation.
Chris MacDonald: Yeah, it's an interesting question. And my, my first, you know, my first thought is that it has to do, has something to do with with complexity.
You know, we tend to, we tend to fear things we don't understand and, you know, biotech and the mechanisms of vaccination, you know, are, are very. You know, there are the sorts of things most people, you know, even if you could, [00:17:00] you could do well in high school biology and still not really have much understanding of you know, of of modern biotechnology.
And so you know, coming to an understanding, you know, even reading. You know, the amount of reading you would have to do in the lay science journals, for example, or, you know, in, in the lay science magazines is just kind of daunting. And there are also things that, that tend to make people angry, right?
So people. People hear about new technologies and biotech and they sound scary people hear about vaccine, you know, anything that where you're poking something into the arms of large numbers of people sounds at some level, I guess, for some people kind of menacing and so it makes you want to lash out and if I think something's dangerous and you say it's not, well then, you know then it's just, it's easy just to resort to To this in, in kind of, you know, in the same ways that people do, I guess, around partisan politics, which is an unfortunate kind of parallel to have to draw.
Kevin Folta: Oh yeah. It's super unfortunate because [00:18:00] we should have a, our obligation as public scientists to be stepping into those. Engagement opportunities and actually talking to the public about new technology and and showing good enthusiasm when it's warranted. Because if it doesn't come from us, where does it come from?
I mean, the company itself, right? So here's an opportunity for us to help people understand what new technology is, its risks and its benefits and all that stuff. But then you get. you know, torn apart online, canceled discussed as a shill, as a scumbag who's working as a corporate pawn. So does it actually dissuade people from actually wanting to engage the public and participate in more visible science communication efforts?
Chris MacDonald: Yeah, I'm, I'm never quite sure just how strategic it is to me. It, it so often just feels like someone lashing out. Right. I remember, I remember years ago, actually in the, in the in 2008, 2009 during the, the financial meltdown and. You know the, the obligations of the companies involved had during the, during that time were very, [00:19:00] very complicated.
And I remember at one point, you know, there was some question of one of the companies, should they, should they pay you know retention bonuses to keep some of their top talents around and people got very angry about that. And I said, well, I think they. They should honor their contracts. If the contract says they should get paid, then they should get paid.
And people immediately said, okay, who's paying you, right? Cause you have such, do you have this outrageous opinion? And so it just felt like they're lashing out and saying, you know, you must be bought and paid for because what you're saying conflicts so much with my common sense, but of course. That's, you know, as a scientist, that's what you do for a living.
And as a philosopher, that's what I do as a living is, is try and push past common sense and say, no, well, let's look at underlying mechanisms. Let's look at this in a more sophisticated way. And so, you know, it's not much of a surprise when something you or I. Say flies in the face of common sense because that's literally our jobs
Kevin Folta: and that's literally what we're supposed to be doing.
But so how do we respond to this when it happens? Because it's really hard to [00:20:00] try to push back against it sometimes.
Chris MacDonald: Yeah, I think there are a couple of things to do. And if this is the sort of thing where, you know, I would, I would like to develop a more. A more robust and well-tested set of responses.
But, you know, one of the things I have often done, and, and you know, I, I try not to be too defensive and I try not to get angry even when people say things that are, that are insulting, but I, you know, I tend to say, well, you know, should, should everyone listening to this conversation, you know, say to the other person, I say, well, should everyone listening to this conversation assume that you are likewise.
You know, paid by someone to say the opposite thing that I am, if you're, if you're assuming I'm paid, should I start to worry about, you know, who you're being paid by? And I'm trying hard not to do that. And, and, you know, shouldn't we be on an even footing here? You know, so that's, that's one thing. And another thing I've.
I've done is I said, look, if you look at my Twitter bio, it's very easy to figure out who I work for. I work for a public university [00:21:00] and you know, it's, it's, it's very clear who I'm paid by and you know, it's, it's hard to reassure people on the financial side because there's always the possibility of dark money, I guess, but, you know, I just try and point out, look, I'm, my main mission is to, is to serve my students and the public through the work I do as a professor.
It's not. It's not you know, it's not to to, you know, I don't have relationships with big pharma. I don't have relationships with big banks that, that are interested in and, and that would be a, you know, kind of a gross exaggeration of how much influence and power. Any organization thinks I have for them to, you know, start paying me to say stuff.
So it's, it's, it really is kind of a hard question, Kevin. I think we, we all kind of do our best. I think you do a really good job of keeping your cool when people say silly things at you. That's one of the things I've always liked about the way you communicate it. Cause I think it is easy to get a mappy and snippy and start.
Responding angrily to people who say ridiculous things. But I think, I think you and I both [00:22:00] agree that that's, that's not the way to go.
Kevin Folta: No, it's absolutely not the way to go because the minute that you become difficult, you turn off the people you need to influence. And that's the folks who are watching because the internet's a spectator sport.
Right. And, and people are constantly gauging how we respond to those who are attacking us. And for me, it's always, it's always sobering to think that if I wanted to work for big egg or for big farm or whatever, I could double my salary and, and not have as much work to do. It seems, you know, so it's a very strange accusation to throw at me.
I also think that as public educators, we have an obligation to be taking a role in furthering this conversation and people need to understand that because if we're not the ones who should be leading the conversation, then who should be?
Chris MacDonald: Yeah, I think that sounds, that sounds, sounds just right that it's, you know, part of our obligation as educators is, you know, to provide our opinions on the things we know about, but also to help people have smarter [00:23:00] conversations about it
Kevin Folta: and also to maybe be participating in those conversations to reinforce each other.
And I think this is something we don't do terribly well, that when we see folks, you know, experiencing pushback online in that environment, we tend to just kind of let it go. Or, you know, we don't jump in and say, yeah, you know, here's a second thought that maybe they're on the right track here. And so is there more room for us to be playing a role in.
Defending each other from these kinds of baseless accusations,
Chris MacDonald: I think to some extent because you know, it's, I think it's good when, you know, one scientist, I mean, it's, it's kind of this informal form of peer review when, you know, scientist a says something that some, someone takes as controversial and then scientist B comes along and says, well, you know actually, no, that's, you know, scientist A is right.
That's just consensus within our, within our field. I think part of the challenge, though, is that, you [00:24:00] know, social media and Twitter in particular, that kind of piling on, on one side or the other is, it just gets taken just, or gets mistaken as just more taking sides, right? So it's like, Oh, great.
You guys are lined up on that side. I'm lined up on this side. So I think it has to be done, you know, really carefully and really thoughtfully. I think, you know, we do want to support each other. But it's, it's, I think it's really hard to avoid the impression that it's just, you know you know, one side lining up against the other.
Kevin Folta: And when you get down to the brass tacks of this, is it really just another. Logical fallacy. It's just a form of an ad hominem where you're going after the speaker rather than the content Yeah,
Chris MacDonald: it's it is an ad hominem. And I mean for and for those of listeners who aren't fully clear on the concept and not ad hominem is attack is just is where we Ignore the quality of someone's argument or the evidence they bring to bear and they just say yeah But you know, aren't you a communist deep at heart?
Aren't you? [00:25:00] You know, you know Receiving a paycheck from so and so, aren't you? So they try and cast doubt on you rather than, you know, as I point out often, you know, two plus two is four and it doesn't matter who says it. Even if someone I don't like says it, I still have to admit that two plus two is four.
And you know, the tricky thing with that with ad hominems is that. Sometimes, and you know, there's a lot has been written about this. Sometimes ad hominems are, are fair because sometimes, you know, there are not going to name names and make this into a partisan politics thing, but there are some politicians who have earned our mistrust, right?
There are some politicians who just tell, say, who, who through their behavior or their talk become people. That we don't trust. And then whenever they say something, we immediately mistrust them. But setting those kinds of cases aside yeah, starting with the ad hominem attack, especially on a stranger, right?
Especially on someone you just met on social media. It's just, it just really is you know, outside the bounds of [00:26:00] of you know, you know, polite constructive debate. So
Kevin Folta: is there a way to really enhance polite, constructive debate when you're being accused of being a shill? Is there some sort of good response that we can come up with?
Well,
Chris MacDonald: it's, it works for a certain audience, I think, right? It works for people who want to hear it and, and, and for, for people who want to hear their own point of view reinforced, then it's probably, it's probably still going to work. And that's a regrettable thing. I mean, I, I, you know, when I teach my own students about various fallacies various argumentative errors, like ad, like ad hominem attacks and philosophers count these as errors.
We, we always have to admit that, well, you know, sometimes they work. They're common and and, you know, people use them in debate every day because sometimes they will fool people, they will distract people from asking, you know, you know, so, so someone can toss an ad hominem attack [00:27:00] at Kevin Folta and then.
You know, someone else could, who was just about to ask about the evidence base now is all distracted by this accusation of shilling. And and that's really unfortunate.
Kevin Folta: Yeah. It's unfortunate. And I guess it's really a good place to wrap it up because there's really nothing we can do about it. It's going to exist.
It's going to be a barrier in our communication strategies, no matter what we do. But the idea that maybe we can point it out as a fallacy as an error, if you're, if you're a philosopher and, and. Indicate that this is just another way in which people distract from trying to talk about evidence. I guess that's all we can do So dr Chris mcdonald if people want to find you online learn more about your programs and maybe follow you on social media Where do they look?
Chris MacDonald: i'm A pretty easy guy to find online just because I've been running websites related to ethics in a range of areas since the late nineties, basically. So Google, if you Google Chris McDonald and ethics, you'll find me on, on Twitter. I'm my Twitter [00:28:00] handle is ethics blogger because I've done a fair bit of blogging about ethics.
So I'm, I'm pretty easy to find that way. I've got a bunch of different websites on topics, everything from the ethics of alternative medicine through my the business ethics blog I wrote for a, for a number of years. So. And I'm always happy to chat and engage. Yeah. Very
Kevin Folta: good. And, and you should know that's Chris MacDonald, M A C Donald when you're looking him up online.
So Dr. Chris MacDonald, thank you very much for talking with me today. I really appreciate you being on. I'm trying to learn more about your field and appreciate all your input. So come join me again next time we get a good topic.
Chris MacDonald: Okay. My pleasure. Take care.
Kevin Folta: And to everybody out there, thank you for listening to another week of the talking biotech podcast.
Remember that the folks who are usually casting the shill accusation typically have some sort of conflict of interest themselves. And so it's important for us to get out there and.
The new breakthroughs of [00:29:00] biotechnology are coming fast and furious in medicine and agriculture, and it's pivotal for us to be participating in those conversations because moving innovation to application requires communication. So this is the talking biotech podcast by Calabra. Thank you very much for sponsoring us.
And we'll talk to you again next week. The
Chris MacDonald: Talking Biotech Podcast is produced by Dr. Kevin Falta. Episode website is generated by K. M. Falta. Planning and administrative work are performed by K. Michael Falta. Social media promotion is done by, at K. E V I N F O L T A. Funny voiceover is provided by, well, you guessed it.
Thank you for listening to the Talking Biotech Podcast.