The worst, most amateur podcasting style for an important topic. The 2 hosts spend an inordinate amount of time in inane banter and giggling at their own jokes, plus a juvenile way of talking down to the audience. Could not finish this episode.

I love this podcast but as someone who tries to find middle ground and listen to different opinions and experiences to encourage less volatile conversations between people who don’t agree, it is understandable why some people are upset about some of the bias, especially since this is labeled as a “Science” podcast.

All of this is cherry picked, also a copy of the original.

I have listened to a lot of music episodes at this point, and I love this podcast. It’s a fun, accessible, factual podcast in which they present the data on subjects. I’m a scientist professionally and this is literally my favorite science podcast. So much of academia is inaccessible to the general public and this podcast really transcends that inaccessibility. I also find that the translation of scientific research gets sensationalized or is just wrong in a lot of popular science writing, including missing context and important nuances. So far, this podcast has done an outstanding job with translating complex science to lay people! Thank you to the team at Science Vs and screw the bad reviews I’ve seen about this podcast that are wrong and projecting their heavily agenda driven and anti-science _opinions_.

Can be impartial unless they’re talking about pandemics, China, people of color(sic), or women… then extreme bias

Agenda driven drivel. Gross actually

12/21 Easy listening means this is still around? For the love of brain cells, dump this for a few/several weeks and try —All in the Mind—, anything —New Scientist—, even —Ologies— that’s had errors in details that’s made me want to bang my head against Wendy Zuckerberg’s mic & headphones (duel purpose headbanging!) For linguistics you can’t go wrong with John McWorter of —Lexicon Valley—. He’s a veritable delight. -——————————————–—————————–—- This “sciency-wannabe-like” podcast continues to be as cringe-worthy as ever; it reaches so so very far for its barely acceptable points and the fact that it’s an actual human that appears to be saying the words! So embarrassing! (disclaimer: I typed this up a bit ago when I was unwittingly exposed to this. I apologize if a miracle occurred unbeknownst to me and this is worthwhile but you’ll figure it out from newer reviews. I wouldn’t count on it though.)———————————————————————————–——— Obviously cherry picked to support the preselected view of the host, etc. For the randomly chosen ones I made it through* it was easy to switch it around to the other side- in fact, there’s often MORE evidence for the unchosen side. I was appalled by what she ignored in my own field and puzzled by the disproven papers she cited in her support. Wendy and team of decision makers need to crawl back into their cave and only be allowed out when they accept their responsibility in presenting evidence fairly and accurately. Non-scientists deserve that. Nobody deserves this dreadful, dreadful imitation of a science show. Note to other reviewers: 1. Sexy Aussie accent be damned. If that's a selling point it's not a good one. 2. The bias Isn't liberal. She comes down hard against veganism, for example. * Only 20 minutes? I remember them as endless and I listen on ~1.4-1.8 speed with smart space activated on Overcast.

This is definitely cherry picked. 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮

Missing depth that links scientific conclusions to the episode’s story. The host seems to just read the findings, instead of explaining causal relationships. A very non-science way of looking at topics.

Stop no good don’t copy😡🤔🤫😡 ha that’s all u do stupid

Sadly this podcast cannot shed itself of the populist politics surrounding its so called science. I was hoping for more objectivity, but I am disappointed by the lack there of.

Awesome Wendy sucker man is great at hosting science vs so well thanks Wendy

Copy cat 👆🏿LOSER ,

I love this podcast, but I feel like Wendy doesn’t sound too happy to be with ABC or she was told to tone things down. Bring back the energy and excitement that Gimlet Media produced please!

😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

this podcast is presented as a scientific podcast, however wendy comes to the show with an opinion already formed, and refuses to budge. she chooses all studies that support her view and ONLY her view, and only interviews those who will prove her point. she mocks the other side of the argument rather than trying to refute it or listen to the facts of someone else’s argument. not only this, but in the end the podcast is NOT WORTH IT. the content is found to be lacking. so many of the topics are mediocre at best and she covers her biased, half done work with sound effects and cutesy music. her voice drips with fake happiness that makes the podcast unbearable, when she isn’t trying to charm you init agreeing with her she is blasting unnecessary music and sound effects to catch your attention. would not recommend to anyone unless you are looking for contentless, biased, effortless work.

This podcast came off as a good educational podcast the first couple episodes I listened to, and then I realized how truly cherry picked the studies, and scientists they interview are, they literally go around science to keep to their agenda quite often. They will ignore 90% of studies in a topic they are covering, and chose the 10% that helps them push their agenda. Perfect example here, On the “science vs vegans” episode, they talk to a “nutritionist” that is referring to “studies” that claim that all vegans are vitamin D deficient, and deficient in B-12, but doesn’t mention that the studies that are the most reliable in that topic, prove, with over 50,000 people in the studies, that 60-70% of Americans are vitamin D deficient, and over 80% of all African Americans are vitamin D deficient, on top of that over 50% of Americans are deficient in B-12, and over 55 years of age over 60% of Americans are, and it continues to go up as the age does. Also the “nutritionist” says you “need” to get B-12 from meat, doesn’t mention that literally all factory farm animals are fed and injected with B-12 because they too are deficient because the soil microbes that create it are almost non existent on this planet now. Also doesn’t mention at all that “hey you can get B-12 from vegan supplements, which is what is fed to the animals, and you could just go straight to the source rather than using a 2 step process to get it”. Massive manipulation of information and choosing incorrectly done studies, and pushing their agenda. I’ve seen it in at least 3 different episodes now, especially with diet and the environment, they don’t give a rats a** about helping the environment, only care about telling people what they want to hear, and Wendy is “skeptical” (so she says) in a very cherry picked way. No logical consistency, no ethical consistency, no moral consistency, just a truly manipulative podcast, telling people what sounds good and what they want to hear so they don’t feel bad about their lifestyle choices.

It’s interesting to hear some of the research on these issues, but the host interprets it in a liberal, biased way.

This gives me something interesting and educational to listen to.

In terms of content, the podcast is okay. Wendy's over the top enunciation and desire to add a million volts of cutesy energy and excitement to every single sentence she speaks is so irritating and exhausting, I just cannot listen to this. If she could just take some Valium and try to speak in a conversational tone, I would enjoy the podcast. As is, it's like listening to an hour of used car radio adverts with those phony, contorted voices.

Some have complained about the agenda of this podcast and says that it is telling people what to think and mocking alternate evidence. Actually, I think it’s trying to present balanced and objective information. If there is an agenda I don’t necessarily see it. What is it? Perhaps it changes with each podcast? If you don’t agree that’s your prerogative and that’s why you have a brain. Nobody tells you what to think, but this podcast presents useful information and is well worth a serious listen.

This podcast definitely has an agenda to push. It quotes scientific information and then tells you how you SHOULD interpret it (and mockingly references any other interpretations of said data that doesn’t support her opinion). This isn’t a science lesson - what is shared or talked about respectfully is handpicked to support what she wants to prove. The sound effects in the background to set apart things ‘not proven’ are a great idea in theory, but don’t play a silly voice anytime you don’t agree with what is being said.

Extremely entertaining and informative

Each episode is very informative and has been researched and the people they interview are usually at the top of their field I liked it a lot

Great podcast! Its super fun.

I love this show the format and the information is great. I've listened to about 7-8 podcasts and so far have enjoyed all of them. I'm going to doubt check there studies and the process by which they get there information. #peerreview. I do wish they would do a podcast about themselves and their process in order to find out more about their process. Overall it's a great show and I do enjoy there commentary.

Very good unbiased podcast, it ignores preconceived notions and challenges the way you've tought about subjects. Uses only facts to come to conclusions that might surprise you.

The first season was great even though a lot of the material was debatable. It's obvious Wendy has sold out since moving to a new producer. The show is rife with falsities and the content covered is not as interesting. I've noticed a lot of radio jockey antics as well with annoying sound bites and gimmicks.

Ok, so I love this podcast - and I love science! However, although I ideologically I agree with most of its 'conclusions', as a 'scientist' I have to object to its obvious bias on certain issues. For example, it concludes that there is no substantial evidence to prove the claims of attachment parenting advocates, so it declares the theory debunked. I don't personally believe in this style of parenting either and I agree that its proliferation in popular culture puts undue strain on parents. However the fact that there is currently no evidence to prove a theory does not disprove the theory. That's just how science works. Things are true when they're proven to be, but until then you kinda have to leave it up for grabs either way. Anyway, that's just one little thing that bugs me about this podcast. They go to such lengths for 'good' science, but it seems their marketers' need to have a pithy conclusion gets the better of them in the end.

The podcaster's attention to detail is lacking, and often it seems in the service of the shows conceit of Science Vs whatever they are trying to debunk. But because the key to shedding light on something in a new way is to use convincing details and without rigor, the formula falls flat.

This podcast is okay, but it's very surface-level. :/

I just recently came across this podcast while looking for something in the science realm. I really like the cross-section of topics that are covered. One week it's hypnotism, and the next week it's the Zika virus. I have to admit I really like listening to Wendy's voice and enjoy the puns she interjects into her production. Give it a try, I'm sure there's a topic with at least some interest to everyone.

See title

The host has a clear bias, and it's frustrating that it's portrayed as "science," which is inherently objective. Get a different host, maybe it'll work

Too much fluff not enough substance. Lacking in critical thinking

Very entertaining. Can't wait till next season.

Wendy and her team are entertaining and fun. Great work!

Easy to follow. Wendy is quirky and smart. She is very objective in her interviews and let's the listener hear all sides of the story. It's great for anyone who's sick of hearing others' opinions about things they don't know anything about. Let's just get the science of it!

A vast shortcoming - specifically on the Paleo diet episode. She literally asks two people what they think about the Paleo diet and the entire argument is based on the that. This episode fails to really dig into the practices of actual modern Paleocentric eaters. It seems like she's pretty stuck on thinking Paleo means people eat exactly as our Paleolithic ancestors did rather than looking at how that actually translates in day to day life (more greens, lean meat, less processed foods) Two thumbs down. However I enjoyed Darryl Edwards

OMG. I am a podcast junkie and THIS is an utterly groundbreaking podcast episode. I hadnt been interested in Science Vs until now. Now I'm totally hooked. And blown away. This episode absolutely MUST, and I mean MUST, win all kinds of podcasting awards. It should be broadcast so that every single woman and man in the world can hear it, in English and in translation. THANK YOU, GIMLET MEDIA and Wendy Zuckerburg. YOU GUYS ROCK.

A zippy, humorous and witty attack on things we always wonder about. Anybody who questions the "bias" in some of the reviews needs to lighten up And realize that everything has some bias and this isn't meant to be a peer review paper. Those are boring, this is not. Plus Wendy's accent is so over the top (and I live with an Aussie) it makes everything sound fascinating!

I just started listening to this podcast, and overall think it's great. But. The episode focused on porn focused almost exclusively on men consuming porn, and the influence of porn on men. To make things worse, nowhere in the episode was this imbalance even acknowledged! Super disappointing. I'd love to see a follow-up episode where this is addressed. Presenting an episode on porn that reinforces the stereotype that porn is a men's issue, for men, impacting men, and leaving women invisible is sexist. Please do better in the future.

Lay pragmatism not intended to be a full peer review exposition. Very enjoyable listen and just enough context for reality check on hot topics.

While it is well produced and would be entertaining the show seems one sided sometimes. The bias is clear in a few episodes. When the science is inconclusive Zukerman just sort of picks a side and says it wins. It is very clear in the female brain episode, and noticeable in the guns episode among other places.

Statistics not really science.

maybe i shouldn't be surprised that political opinion is presented as scientific fact more often than it should be. but still, i was hopeful. the propaganda of opinion presented as science is delightful if want a good laugh though. but who knows, maybe the producers intended it to be a meta inverse comedy style pseudo science show...

Wish they were longer & had Podcast chapters (GarageBand 6.0.5) but nevertheless, love this podcast. Excited for season 2.

Fun science driven format and good host.

I like it so far.

I know, sounds ridiculous to have too much taking in a podcast. But it just sounds like I'm hearing too much script-reading from the host, not enough backing evidence from the experts. It's like "Wikipedia, the Podcast."