Regenerative Medicine - Stanford podcast review

Stanford has released the third podcast lecture series on the subject of Stem Cell Research and it is called: Replaceable You. This will be about regenerative medicine, which is more widely set up than the previous Stem Cells: Policy and Ethics and Straight talk about stem cell. This series consists of four two hour long lectures of which I have heard, so far, the first two. These lectures are given by a new lecturer: Professor Jill Helms.

This series until this point does in one way more and in one way less than the previous. Helms gives, at least until half way, much less attention to ethical and legal issues and seems intent on continuing to do so. She happily tries to assume that her whole audience is in favor of Stem Cell Research and get the normative angle off the table. As if being in favor means you are not interested in addressing ethics. That is a deception

On the other hand, she very effectively explains in a much wider range what Stem Cell Research means and this is where the lecture series is significantly adding to where professor Christopher Scott in the previous series left off. Stem Cell Research and technology are part of the scheme of regenerative medicine. In stead of supplying the maligned body with prostheses, or leaving it to heal itself, which mostly gives useless scar tissue, the goal is to allow man to grow anew, like newts that grow back entire limbs in case they lose them.

More bioethics:
Straight Talk about Stem Cell Research,
The Ethics of Stem Cell Research,
Human rights and the body,
Life and bio-engineering - podcast review,
Bioethics without Christ, please,
A useful map into Bio-Ethics,
Stem Cell Research: Science, Ethics, and Prospects,
Stem Cells - Biology and Politics.

Why don't I give ratings to podcasts?

There are several places where you can go for podcast reviews (directories, podcasts and blogs). A lot of those have a rating system, just as you see with reviews of books, movies and so many other products. On-line reviewing seems to beg for a rating system, yet I feel very uncomfortable to apply such over here. I cannot bring myself to use one and I think I must explain why.

There are enough relatively objective standards one could measure podcasts by. Audio quality can be very easily rated. One could give an indicator to represent the informative and entertainment value, but I think you cannot add these up. One element may compensate for the other. One element may be more important than the other, or so strong in particular situations, it saves (or ruins) the whole thing. Most of the university lectures have rather poor audio and little entertainment value, but they are so good. Most of the radio shows turned podcast, are great on audio levels and entertainment, but yet can be so bland and predictable, I feel they are not so good.

I have noticed, not just with myself, some podcasts do it for you. What is more, whatever podcast does it for me, may not do it for somebody else or even for me at another moment in time. What I am getting at is that podcast quality is fluid and when starting to compare, it becomes more fluidly so. I am so interested in history, I may enjoy a rather poor podcast in history more than an outstanding one about physics - or just the other way round, it may make me more critical of history podcasts and enjoy a rather mediocre on about physics. And for you it may be different in a whole range of other aspects.

However, when you read my impression, you can get a feel of what I like, you get an impression of what the podcast does and you will get an idea, enough idea I suppose, whether it is worthwhile for you to check the reviewed podcast out. And a rating of 4 out of 5, or 3.5 doesn't make any difference. Only, maybe, an extreme rating, but most of the time, you can't give them, otherwise the whole system is moot. So what remains are those that are trumped by the content of the review anyway. Hence, I concentrate on writing about podcasts, say about them what I have to say and leave it at that. That is all you need.

More about the blog:
About Anne is a Man,
What to write about a podcast?,
When do I write in my blog?,
When do I listen to podcasts?,
Time to start again.

Fear and Trembling - Kierkegaard

Several podcast have, over the last months, enhanced my interest in Kierkegaard's work. His existentialism, in which the individual experience is strongly valued, even if it goes against convention, common sense and; ethics as well, is not so easy to get a handle at, though.

The main source for this work and related stuff, to embed it properly, is Berkeley's lecture series Philosophy 7 (Existentialism in Literature and Film), but also this podcast is not so easy to handle. The lecturer, Hubert Dreyfus, is an adorable man, but he allows tangents to come up in class, strongly interacts with his students, whom we cannot hear and whose remarks he doesn't repeat. Worst of all, no matter how frequent he has delivered this course, he seems to be constantly in search of his quotes, and unable to find them at the right moment. So there is a stretch, in spite of the very rich content.

Other podcasts come to the rescue. I have noticed this many times before. University lecture series demand a certain entry level and proceed at high speed, but with some preparation one can keep up. For this series there is fine support material to be found with BBC's In Our Time (Kierkegaard stream) and also a recent issue from Philosophy Bites (Kierkegaard).

So what is it with Kierkegaard and his work Fear and Trembling? The main point is delivered with the story of Abraham who has to sacrifice Isaac. His conviction (or choice for that matter) to go out and do what God has asked of him, goes against all generalities of his symbolic universe. Isaac is his only son, so this is great loss. It goes against his family values, it goes against the values of his new religion and it goes against the promise of God, Isaac will be the father of a great people. In short, to have to sacrifice makes no sense at all and it is by all practical means the hardest thing to do. To believe it needs to be done and go and do it, is an act of pure faith. To have such faith requires immense deep conviction. To be able to make such a choice, demands the most intense existential drive. At the same time, this is totally personal, since it is bereft of all interest, logic or even justification.

To have such faith seems to Kierkegaard the greatest of things and I guess any one, would love to live his life with such strength. What, however, distinguishes this faith from sheer folly? How can you be sure that what you deeply and inexplicably feel is not madness. It could be plain psychosis in stead of true conviction, calling, or the voice of God for that matter. That is what makes it problematic. The podcasts won't solve it, but definitely help to grasp the complexity of this work.

More on Philosophy 7:
Hiroshima mon amour,
Existentialism - Philosophy 7

More In Our Time:
Tacitus,
John Donne (The Metaphysical Poets),
The Arab Conquests,
BBC's In Our Time (podcast review),
General review of In Our Time

More Philosophy Bites:
Machiavelli,
Rousseau,
Life on the Scales,
David Hume,
Several issues of Philosophy Bites.

What to write about a podcast?

How do I decide what to write about a podcast? Every podcast I listen to leaves a trace, stuff I remember from the podcast, reactions in the form of associations, comparisons, questions, thoughts, appraisal and critique. Most of the time, some of this is most strong and that is what lay the basis for what I write, but i do try to stick to a couple of criteria.

If I review a podcast for the first time and especially if I expect not to go and follow and review episodes frequently, I will try to describe some general impressions about the podcast. If I intend to focus on episodes, I will be more specific. In any case I want my readers to get some idea of what they can expect. And then, I want to mention at least something what may make them like the podcast.

This is important, I decided, also for podcasts that are not exactly my taste. The aim for this blog is to help you find podcasts you like and it hardly helps you to be told this or that podcast is no good. What is no good in my ears, could very well be good in yours and what I did not like today, may appeal to me some other time. Therefore, any opinion on a podcast can never be definitive, neither good or bad. However, if I mention what is good about the podcast, you can decide for yourself whether that might work for you or not. If I give you only what is bad, you have nothing to go on.

If I have nothing good to say about a podcast, and couldn't even think of any reason why other people than myself may like it, I'd rather not write about it at all. There are millions of podcasts, there are millions of millions of qualifications I can apply to them. Why choose of all those options, the negative ones - I wouldn't see any point. Choosing the positive ones, means it might apply to some reader and it may help somebody to find what he likes.

That doesn't mean I shun being critical. Together with good points, I see no problem to mention some of the weaker aspects; anything that can give you a more complete idea. And if I have written an overall negative review (which I have done occasionally) then it is only for this reason, that the podcast would seem, off hand, to be really good and I felt I should sort of warn you. For example, there is a really good Dutch newspaper, NRC. The NRC podcast, however, is so unbelievably amateurish, you would never anticipate - so this is where I have chosen to write a bad review.

More about the blog:
About Anne is a Man,
Why don't I give ratings to podcasts?,
When do I write in my blog?,
When do I listen to podcasts?,
Time to start again.

Short Story Beginnings - The Writing Show podcast review

The latest episode of the Writing Show pays attention to that universal question of how to start a story. The title suggests it is only about short stories and that is indeed the main subject, but as a couple of side notes the ideas are applied to novels as well. The pointers are the same, but for a short story the beginning is more critical, for want of a context and a longer tolerance span of the reader.

Short stories are seldom introduced, are not delivered with a cover and a 'blurb', such as novels, but rather appear in newspapers and magazines. The reader is much less prepared to get hooked and therefore, the challenge to give a good opening for a short story is bigger. In two sentences or so, the trigger for the story must be settled. The reader must be drawn into the perspective and into the conflict or whatever tension plays a part.

Host Paula B. interviews writers Melissa Palladino and Randall Brown and they refer to couple of lists in other sources, out of which they rapidly mention some tips, not all. Of all these, some are elaborated upon, most are not. So, this podcast is indicative, but can only serve to make a beginning to your search, if you are looking for new ways to being your stories, short or not. As a tip of the iceberg, it is very nicely done.

More Writing Show on this blog:
More Jean Tennant,
Getting Published with Janice Ballenger,
Getting Published with Mark Leslie,
Psychological Aspects of Writing,
Getting published with Jean Tennant.

Old High German

When you are dealing with history, language is never far away. First of all, your sources are texts, so you are dealing with linguistic intricacies anyway. On top of that, most history is cultural and culture is expressed in language. Therefore, as we have seen in previous interviews, the German Cultural History podcast (blog) touches all the time on linguistics.

Host Tom is, I think, a linguist, so his approach is guided even more by analysis of the German language and its earliest sources. He doesn't reveal he is, but it sure speaks from the subtext. All the more this is felt in the latest issue which is mostly about Old High German. Tom tells about the various scraps of sources of old high German there are. No ordered texts, but sentences, word lists and spells, charms and vows.

It marks his character as a linguist, he ventures into actually reading the spells, charms and vows. He makes an effort, so it sounds, to carefully pronounce these utterances and it sounds really convincing. I was also very surprised to find how comprehensible this was. Tom translates most, but largely, I did not need the translation. Maybe this version of German sounds more like Dutch than English, or even modern German.

It is great stuff and very original to get, but it sure would help if Tom were to improve his sound quality and bring a wee bit of order in his tangents. This way it is just so hard to stay attentive. And this last episode took a good 50 minutes, as what happens to so many podcasters who get excited about there subjects: the issues grow longer and longer.

Previously about GCH podcast:
Sound Shifts and Umlauts,
Why Iceland,
German Cultural History - Podcast Review.