Super fun, great host, love the tone!

Science Vs is a truly entertaining listen about popular topics the general public may be a bit muddy on. I would remind the reviewers claiming bias or "bad science" to read the tone of this podcast. This is not a recital of a dry peer reviewed abstract. This is a fun journey into a variety of pop culture topics. The host presents a friendly, insightful, accessible experience and offers a slew of perspectives and possibilities on given subjects. Can't wait for season 2!

I like this show in general. The abortion episode should never have been made. Way too serious and heavy a topic for this host. She seemed lighthearted and almost jovial about it. Not okay.

This is a hesitant 5 stars because I do have issues with the extent of the fact checking, the immature approach to present mature science, and the regularly presented "there really isn't enough information!" episodes. BUT! That said, this is one of the only podcasts that I actually listen to every episode of right when it comes out. Wendy is fun to listen to (though has annoying dad jokes) and the show is pretty well researched. I teach high school physics, and I use the fracking episode in my class. I like referring students here and feel like overall I can trust it.

My biggest recommendation would be to focus more on the published science and spend less time interviewing one specific scientist. Because those scientists are usually biased. Those interviews are fun and good but don't necessarily get us to the peer reviewed research.

The fact that people either love it or hate it tells me that science vs. is doing a great job. I enjoy listening even when I don't agree with the information. Great job.

This is a very biased podcast. Expert/scientists are hand picked to report what the producers believe. The host doesn't question any of the experts. It's unfortunate because the podcast description is to report clear scientific evidence (or not) to main stream media trends but ultimately this podcast is part of the problem.

This is a super fun bit of science.

I love this show, and I love the host, Wendy! You can hear the smile in her voice as she hosts each show, and she has a goof-ball sense of humor that comes through with puns, sound effects, alliterations, and other fun. The science is reasonably well covered, with a focus on where the majority of the science points, with considration given to the other side. It is NOT a complete evaluation of both sides of the science, as it would require specialization in a given science to understand the nuances that point one way or the other. When something is not decided, she says that clearly.

Some episodes I wish would go deeper, but I have to remember it is science for the layperson, not for the scientist.

If you're looking for a fun high-level review of the science on a variety of topics, I don't think you can do any better!

I love this show and can't get enough! Give one a shot and you'll listen to the whole library!

Entertaining and witty, while not sacrificing scientific rigor!

Listened to the first episode and it honestly backed up a lot of what I already knew regarding the statistics used by both the Pro-gun & Anti-gun arguments and that is that both sides blow things out of proportion, but there was one sticking point.

You see, every study, survey & number was looked into. Except near the end. When D. Hemingway cites that just having a gun in the home makes you 3 times more likely to have an accident in the home than a gun less household. There was no mention where this info came from. It was casually thrown out into the conversation and then nothing was said regarding its validity. Doesn't seem to completely capture a show claiming to be transparent and "all about the science."

Evidence proves that the amount of guns does not correlate to crime. Doesn't increase it, doesn't increase it. Then why does the host still show a propensity to ask why no one wants to give up their guns to make things safer. Well you just proved they don't need to.

Easy listening enjoyable and very informative also very interesting 👍❤️😁

I have listened to about 10 episodes. Find them interesting though you can normally figure out which way the conclusion will go in the first couple of mins from the tone of the host. The host can also be annoying sometimes.

Great show and really entertaining host! I don't think the scientific community does a good job of presenting our work to the public. I think this show is a funny, approachable outlet for scientists to speak more directly to the general public. We need more outlets like this.

The most entertaining science podcast out there. Brillently produced.

That's a lot of new positive reviews in a very short timeframe. Strange so many comments like "science is science" and direct comments about negative reviews. HMmm....

Science is pretty clear when it's clearly one side of the science.

Not everyone agrees? But don't bother bringing anyone in to explain another POV, or even acknowledge that their IS one.

Wouldn't it be easier just to go to the DNC website and skip the middleman?

Example... Not a single mention how historical temps are constantly adjusted down. Temps are rising. Of course they are, scientist keep "adjusting" past temps down. Google it.

I would say some of the jokes are a little too cringe worthy

Wendy Zuckerman is the s%%t!!!! Clever goofiness to die for. Never have I giggled so hard while learning. Give it a listen w/an open mind, you won't regret it

The topics are super fun, but this girl's voice is beyond annoying. Not every sentence is funny, yet she sounds like she's about to tell the best joke ever the entire episode. Calm down, please. 🙄

Really great series. Took some time to warm up to the host but she is great and comes off as effortlessly knowledgeable and curious about everything and ends up a great guide to the issues. Fearless too in tackling things like gun control and abortion. Most recent episode about aspartame was fun and got me thinking about my own diet choices.

Science VS. is an amazing podcast! The facts are on point, and the topics are really cool.

Host Wendy is hilarious, nerdy, and is almost right about to laugh. She's great at breaking down difficult to understand concepts and is surprisingly neutral on all political topics. Love!

Dear reader, please read other reviews with caution. Podcasts like this do very little to change people's minds about controversial topics. However it is very good at confirming the(mostly) left's opinions with what they claim are facts, and pissing off the(mostly) right. If that is true then only the people who disagree with this show will say it is biased, and vice verse. Most of the reviews say that the show is biased and a disfiguration of science, facts, and logic, while presenting next to no evidence. The only review I read that said the science was poorly done did not claim that the show was biased, but instead said that they did not present enough research. However they did include their sources in the description. It is very hard for one to let go of what on has been told when presented with evidence. It is near impossible to convince someone that their belief system is wrong, and opinions almost always beat logic. If you can't tell by now I am liberal and do not claim to be unbiased, I am quite the contrary. Please don't believe what I say because I said so, but because you see what I say in the real world. P.S. Please excuse my spelling and punctuation.

Remarkable for its attempt to determine what evidence exists about an issue, evaluate the strength of that evidence and then suggest conclusions with no greater confidence than the evidence merits.

The show can be quite fearless.

Very biased. You cannot say its safe just because there isn't evidence that it is bad. That just means there just isn't proof yet. There isn't enough tests to prove bad either. That is why this is a controversial topic.

This is a fun and engaging overview of current science on complex and tendentious topics. The show has neither the time nor the need to fully air every viewpoint as a few low reviews seem to expect but it does an excellent job of assessing the general consensus of relevant findings and is clear when more research needs to be done. Love it!

As someone in the research field, it's refreshing to hear that a podcast is based on current research and interviews to spread knowledge on controversial subjects. I look forward to reach new episode.

Love it! Learn something new in every episode.

Other reviews say it well: this is NOT objective, not scientific and clearly presents a biased interpretation masquerading as fact. What a wasted opportunity of a potentially solid concept.

Considering the rate at which these podcasts are being produced, I think they do a considerable amount of research and I've learned a fair amount listening to the podcasts. I'm looking forward to listening to more of them!

Science VS was recommended to me by a friend and I can't get enough! Wendy does a great job of explaining the science for everyone to enjoy, but no so somple that you tune out. Look forward to Science VS every week!

This podcast is great! The science and facts are presented about some of the best hot-button topics these days. If you're looking to learn something, then this is the podcast for you. But don't let your learning stop here! The episodes are under an hour so they can't possibly cover EVERYTHING but they do a great job of summing up the information and giving you a great jumping off point for learning more. Plus the host is fantastic! Do yourself a favor and check out some of these great examinations of topics that everyone is talking about already, but don't get mad if it turns out that the facts don't match up with your beliefs. Conclusion: This podcast is the best!

Really like this podcast, and Wendy's presentation of the material. She's witty, asks great questions, and gives the listener credit for their intelligence and curiosity. Mostly, KUDOS for tackling the really tough subjects with straight-on curiosity, investigating all sides. Great Job!

You may be apprehensive after reading some of these 1 star reviews but they really aren't warranted. Wendy does a fantastic job of keeping her personal opinions from affecting her conclusions, she's even gotten me to change my mind on some issues that I hadn't thoroughly researched myself. It's a great podcast that always manages to entertain.

Does a good job summarizing the scientific consensus

As a researcher, I am highly interested in a podcast that would explore actual scientific research and give unbiased analyses. However, this podcast is not it. Each topic reviews a handful of research studies and interviews a couple of experts (sometimes researchers/scientists) and that is it! You cannot base a solid, scientific opinion on a few research publications. There is no meta analysis here, no actual data given, no synthesised data reported. It's all opinion based on a few cherry picked research studies. I hope the general public does not take this podcast as actual science reporting. It is more of a very limited review of a few studies that were chosen based on bias.

Great podcast, admits when there's not enough research. Not afraid to cover very polarizing topics and despite all the crap reviews; non-bias coverage. Listeners who hear this podcast and cry that it's one-sided are only hearing what they want to, or don't want to, hear. Give it a shot! make your own judgment with an open mind, it's science, not church, have fun.

Contrary to what the one-star reviews contend, I think what's most refreshing about the podcast is that often the research shows that many topics are complicated and don't have black-and-white answers. There's a surprising amount of, "We don't know for sure, but here are some things we do know..." Moreover, in terms of the treatment of the research, given the time constraints, I feel that Zukerman does a pretty good job giving the listener an overview of the facts. You won't be an expert on an issue by the end of an episode, but expertise in anything is hard to come by in 30-50 minutes. The show is a lovely jumping off point for someone who wants to look into issues more in-depth on an individual level. And as far as the jokes are concerned, I feel like they bring a light-hearted tone to the whole endeavor; I don't read sarcasm or condescension into them. It makes fun and super palatable listening out of some pretty gross and controversial topics. Also, Zukerman's accent is pretty much the best.

Funny and informative!

If we apply the scientific method to mores we hold sacred, which this podcast does, at a minimum, we'd be one step closer to understanding and compassion rather than what religion (or demagogue) has offered us: superstition, permanence masked as tradition, distrust in 'other' and fear. The abortion episode was a great example of this formula Science Vs uses: issueX minus politics divided by science = best representation of issueX. If you are logical person, and conform to the basic truth that people constantly change, perhaps you can be an active participant in your changes, instead of fighting what's going to happen anyway--as every second passes, you will never be the same. Science Vs can help with that process. Plus, Wendy's accent is sexy as hell. You can hear her smiling.

I was interested in the concept but the unceasing snark of the host and the bias presented as science turned me off. More objectivity and a more professional presentation would make this a worthwhile listen but for now it's a no for me.

I look forward to the update of this podcast every week. The host, Wendy Zukerman, is upbeat, entertaining, and asks tough questions. I also like the different topics they present each week.

Enjoyable and informative.

I am a scientist who enjoys those podcast. I find these easy there topic is tackled is refreshing and a truly good faith effort is made to articulate the issues. I've recommended it to friends who have also enjoyed it.

One of my favorites!

I enjoy listening. Keep up the good work.

Very fair. Never biased. Always a lot to learn. Everything is fact checked and the sources are excellent. Brave to honestly cover controversial topics.

Science VS has a great premise yet completely fails to meet the bar. Blatantly lacking objectivity while claiming otherwise, it's not difficult to predict the lean of the "factual data" based on the topic. Would be better if the self satisfied host spent more time researching than trying to make cute puns.

This really is an excellent series. With seemingly endless dorky good humor and enthusiasm, Zuckerman takes on a controversial topic where science can illuminate or be dispositive, breaks it down into a series of relevant questions, and walks you through the arguments and studies that address each with enthusiasm and an almost flirtatious effort to tease the evidence out of the polarized morass of public debate. She then calls each subsidiary question as she sees the evidence to line up, including cases where each side of some partisan or social divide on some topic has some things right and some things wrong, and wraps it all up at the end. Along the way there are little bright bells of insight and brief choral paeans as she invokes Science. It's a regular romp of fun illumination. (PS: make sure you also check out its predecessor on the Australian public broadcaster, "Science Vs, Season One" — a separate podcast).

This is a regular in my podcast lineup! I appreciate that the findings of each episode often surprise me and make me think differently about the understanding I previously had on the topic. I appreciate that this podcast brings science to me - a curious layperson - in a way I can readily access and understand. Any Wendy's humor keeps me smiling the whole way through (even when she is disproving things I wish to be true!!)

I could listen to Wendy all day. The shows are short enough to be consumed in a medium length commute. The show is entertaining and provides a nice overview of the topics.

Her intelligent and often hilarious analysis of myth and fact is a joy to listen to.

The podcast chooses to use the scientific data that fits their POV, instead of the full spectrum of data available. As a result it fails to do what it's premise claims instead it should be "Our POV supported by some science vs"

Diverse topics, balanced approach and approachable+amusing style. Worth a listen for both people interested in science as well as non-scientists.

I find myself recommending this show to more and more people. The episodes stick with me. Love it and you will too!

Bleh. Logic full of holes, straw men. Missing depth. Predictable conclusions.

You can tell from the outset of the show the host's opinion on the topic. She does not take an unbiased approach. Too often she resorts to mockery to make a point. She also makes odd comparisons when trying to discredit an argument she disagrees with. Very disappointing show.

I'm a big fan of Gimlet podcasts. This one is another winner. Very timely. We need a balanced podcast like this to deal with controversial subjects in a rational way. At the same time, the host makes the topic interesting and provides an enjoyable listening experience. I really like the first two podcasts and looking forward to more. I hope the podcast deals with the topic of GMOs.

As a scientist, I was excited about the premise of this podcast- a fun, entertaining approach to hot topics from a supposedly objective viewpoint. However, I quickly realized that the host and producers of this podcast are not objective in their research nor on their presentation of the data. I know it's extremely difficult to be 100% objective in science, but this really is a sad attempt. What bothers me the most about the lack of objectivity in this podcast is the hypocrisy in the claims of this podcast in being THE fact-based alternative to the heavily biased information traditionally shared in popular media. This podcast pokes fun at the general population's subjective biases, yet this podcast itself is heavily skewed toward one side of each argument right from the start of each episode. And then to top it all off, the host is incredibly snarky in her tone and comes off as being superior to some of the interviewees because of her and the show's supposed objective approach. This show needs to step off of its high horse and stop trying to fool people into thinking that what their presenting isn't just as biased as any other popular news outlet, or at least do a better job at pretending to be objective.

Fantastic ! Super well rounded look at relevant and current issues. The podcast I've been waiting for!

Biased. She's using data for her perspective. The other side does the same thing. I was hoping it would be objective. It's not! What do you think?

I enjoy listening to both opinion and reporting podcasts. This podcast feels like an opinion podcast with some science thrown in. It is unfortunate particularly since the other Gimlet podcasts are so good. I am unsubscribing from this podcast and continue to enjoy the other Gimlet podcasts. With the other good podcasts, Gimlet was due for a dud.

I've burned through the first season and the first 3 episodes of season 2. The program feels like it is consistently trying to push a political narrative. Studies cited in favor of whatever idea they are trying to push is called into question, then the switch to whatever study fits their idea quickly throw numbers around but neglect to say anything about the controversy of that study.

It tries to come of as an unbiased source but it really just tries to disprove whatever they think is a rumor. While well and good they don't ask why that position was taken, they just find the closest thing that says that then say why it's controversial, not actually debunking mind you, then interview 2 "experts" that support their theory.

I guess it's ok if you want a one sided "this is how it needs is and anything else is wrong cause 3 professors agree with us" to backup your current line of thought but if you disagree you'll regret that you didn't have your sides say on the matter.

I'm guessing those of you who don't like this podcast just don't like the science behind the conclusions you're hearing. As a scientist, it's refreshing to hear peer-reviewed literature cited MANY times during a podcast. Don't like it? Maybe you just don't really like the truth.

Fun and fresh podcast that gives the straight facts, from peer reviewed research while still engaging the listener. Not to mention both sides to every argument. Great form in modern science communication!

So happy Science Vs. is back, and over the moon that it's kept all of its mojo in the transition from ABC to Gimlet.

I really like this podcast. It tries to take a science-based view on generally controversial issues in which people's opinions tend to be more emotionally rather than objectively driven. Attachment parenting and fracking are good ones to start with. Can't wait to hear the gun control episode. And there are just so many obvious topics... vaccines, GMO's, voter fraud. Climate change? It will be interesting to see if this show can present the particularly heated debates in a way that seems neutral to those who come to it with the viewpoint that ends up being discredited by the science. Because too often it seems that people who hold those views just try to discredit the integrity of the science. Great start so far! Keep it up!

The premise of this show seemed right up my alley, and I have greatly enjoyed other Gimlet shows, especially Reply All. This, however, was a total fail. The topics are too broad and the science is way too shallow. For both of the available episodes, I was left feeling like I had scanned some Facebook headlines about the topic and that's about it.

Based on the description of the podcast, I was expecting a serious discussion. However, it was the complete opposite, sarcasm has very little space if one intends to hold an intelligent discussion. This is a big problem with media sources these days. They try to shortcut the information, so that individuals who are not willing to invest a decent amount of time investigating things on their own understanding, can get answers. What ends up happening is the listener is no more intelligent and can't engage in a deep discussion on the subject matter. Poorly done.

Their representation of science is marred by their biases, seen by their mockery of positions with which they differ and poorly represent.

The fracking episode was over the top and filled with psuedoscience. I'm fearful that people will listen to this and take it as definitivie. Hopefully no one is listening and/or taking it seriously. Very irresponsible reporting and little science. No editorial review/standards at Gimlet? Strange style for serious topics. Engaging host but she would be better for an entertainment show about puppies or celebrities.

As a Pennsylvania resident, I'm not real sure that 39 minutes of fracking-probably-isn't-a-hazard-but-don't-drink-too-much-of-the-fracking-water is an appropriate treatment of something a whole bunch of people, not just folk singers, are concerned about- some people aren't concerned, they're frightened. Are my concerns about the possible negative impacts of fracking bad science? Maybe, but the state of New York has given pause over it; they aren't fracking over there...

Wanted to like this, but amused superiority about things some people care very deeply about strikes me as kind of crummy.

Not really science

I like the host, she's peppy and the Australian accent and sense of humor are pleasant to listen to. However I'm frustrated by the superficial level of evidence. You can't pretend you are representing science when you get two sources and read one article on each topic and then proclaim your opinion to be fact. The show has promise, but the research needs to be way way more in depth.

Not very scientific. Just another media group tying to be hip and modern by reporting on hot issues with roots in science. The people reporting on it have no expertise, and claim the people with expertise are incorrect because they are biased. I am referring to the hydraulic fracturing episode because that is the one during which I decided to stop listening to this podcast altogether. The narrator berates the natural gas company for lying about polluting water supply during fracturing, but the evidence she offered to refute this is a spill that happened during a different part of the process and not during the fracturing itself. When the guy from Seneca points this out, she says the definition of fracturing as established by the media is everything from drilling to completion to fracturing. This is inherently incorrect and has no basis in science. The media can't define what fracturing is or isn't when it has already been defined by the industry. If you want to go after spills that happen during drilling, then you shouldn't limit yourself to just attacking hydraulic fracturing. Why? Because the types of spills she refers to in the podcast-the type of spills that occur during drilling-can occur on a well regardless of whether or not you fracture the well. You can't just attack one portion of the process if the evidence you offer to support your argument is due to a different unrelated part of the process.

Some of the complaints about a supercilious tone are warrented, but that's just an aesthetics issue. Hand your favorite podcast over to a friend, and how often do have to preepmptively warn, "The tone can be a little x, but it's good."? I mean, Invisibilia? This American Life? You might forget, I sure don't, that they have a specific ATTITUDE to which you have probably become desensitized now that you hear them only as friendly visitors to your ears.

Some of the other complaints that the show isn't balanced are, as far as I can tell based on two episodes, unfounded. Most likely those reviewers are irked that the show didn't come down on their side of an issue. Thus far it seems very, very even handed.

But the overall goal of this show (an evidence based look at some emotionally charged issues) is the perfect tonic to our increasingly anti-scientific culture. If a slightly cheeky, a little bit over edited, little bit overproduced pateena is what it takes to make this marketable, I say go for it.

I highly recommend this show. I am now a loyal listener.

I also reocmmend Skeptics Guide the the Universe, Very Bad Wizards, Partially Examined Life, and Rationally Speaking.

I loved the first two episodes. I enjoy all of Gimlet's podcasts, but this has already become my favorite. The science reporting here is much deeper and well reported than podcasts like Invisibilia or RadioLab. There are few podcasts that communicate complicated ideas in such an accessible way, without sacrificing accuracy or nuance. Keep up the great work!

For a show supposedly about science, this is absurdly biased in its tone and presentation. The host basically picks a topic and then heads down a warpath. Listening to it really bothered me in a way Ive never been bothered by a podcast before (even so much so that Ive gone out of my way to leave this review). Really disappointing addition to an otherwise enjoyable Gimlet lineup

My favorite new podcast! Another home run from Gimlet Media! Good balance of reason and humor.

Great new podcast, both entertaining and informative. I'm a big fan of Wendy's personality and her nerdy sense of humor, which I greatly appreciate! Each show ends by summarizing the "lessons learned", and actually ANSWERS the questions posed at the beginning. This is more pop-sci than true science, though. If you're a fan of Planet Money, Hidden Brain, Invisibilia, etc., give this one a try!

I love this podcast! Wendy goes through the science and reviews the research on the topics to help us navigate the false info on the web and tv. Love her funny, witty Aussie sense of humor. I would like to see a podcast bibliography at the end of each episode...

All the "science" that is cited is just one side of the discussion. Most of which, is from research done in the tiny sampling pool of Australia. It's more appropriate to call it, My Australian opinion vs.

Thanks for making sense of such complicated and politically and emotionally charged topics. The truth is usually between the extremes and hard to put in perspective. Looking forward to upcoming topics.

As a student of science, I have been searching high and low for a well-produced show about science. I was originally hooked on Gimlet Media through their Reply All podcast, leading me to discover StartUp (I've listened to every episode and I'm about to listen to the first season again). When I heard about Science Vs. I was ecstatic, and it has not dissapointed. This is a podcast with high production value about a subject I feel passionate about. Thank you so much, Gimlet Media.

(Also the host, Wendy Zukerman, is from Australia. So that's awesome)

This podcast has as much to do with science as the "scientists" who used to claim that smoking was safe due to the lack of clear evidence to the contrary.

Don't tell your kids this is science, don't be fool yourself into thinking this is science.

This is quite frankly sounds like industry sponsored pseudo-science to inject false premise into the public psyche.

Wish I could give zero stars. The bias shown in the attachment parenting episode floored me. That episode was so poorly researched that it made it impossible to trust anything presented in future episodes. The mocking tone of the host and complete lack of questioning of the experts she very obviously sided with was beyond annoying. I feel sad for the mother they interviewed--she must be so hurt by their portrayal of her. The worst part of their supposed "scientific analysis" of attachment parenting is their complete confusion of terms, which made every single argument invalid. The "attachment" of attachment parenting is not claiming to be the "secure attachment" of social science. So basing the whole episode on holding attachment parenting up to the scientific principle of secure attachment is completely ridiculous. This podcast is poorly researched, laughably biased, and badly argued. I love podcasts and trust well supported scientific arguments, but this podcast is beyond useless. It's misinformation.

Gimlet & Wendy Zuckerman are a perfect match. If you like your mind to be stimulated by facts and multiple views on an issue then this podcast will not disappoint. Wendy is fantastic, witty, and intelligent. The podcast is smooth, fluid audio that is fun and easy to listen to. Remember fellow listeners, this is meant to challenge preconceived notions in society and culture. No, it may not be as in-depth as you may want but nobody is promising you the deep and absolute truth. It's meant to inspire you to think outside of your own opinion making you either produce facts to back yourself up or listen to what is presented and go for further study. Don't stop the learning here! Take what you hear and explore it further if it's truly interests you. Great job Gimlet! Wendy, welcome to the States, I hope you enjoy us as much as we enjoy you!

Science Vs is the best science podcast available that I've found. I used to really love RadioLab for how they covered science topics but they have really gotten away from those kinds of stories. Science Vs simply explains what is know about a subject based on peer reviewed science and what kinds of conclusions are reasonable to draw from that knowledge. It takes the stance that the issues it covers are not political, but either supported by the best evidence we have or not which is exactly how I wish more of the media would discuss issues as well. Also the host Wendy is incredibly likable. This show is incredibly good and I'm really looking forward to more episodes.

I never listened to the first season of this, but the second season has me hooked. The host is great, and I love how they're willing to jump right into the most contentious issues and cut through the noise.

This show is excellent! Episode 1 on Hydraulic Fracturing was amazing. Finally an unbiased, educated look at the thing so many people don't understand. I have spent 4 years of my career directly involved in frac'ing, 2 years as a field engineer out on jobs. I have to say, while its not perfect, the host did an amazing job of unbiasedly investigating this wildly controversial oil and gas service/technology. There are still several key points missing from her analysis, but I'm so happy this show exists! Anytime I have a discussion with someone about hydraulic fracturing, people think my view on it is completely skewed by my pay check and any points I make are mute. Truth is, I have a great understanding of what it is.

Thank you thank you thank you for doing a story like this! If you're going to protest or believe in something, why don't you do a little research and learn the facts!

The other thing I love about this show is the hosts attitude! It's skeptically positive! Very positive! And that is so needed, because when people argue controversial things, they get way way to angry and their judgment is clouded. Keeping it positive makes our defenses go down and we listen.

Good job and keep up the good work! I look forward to each and every new episode!

Thanks!

Puns are just funnier in an Australian accent. The Science is pretty good too. Truly addictive new show!

I love the idea, and the accent. I am disappointed however.

Science embodies open minded inquiry. What we are actually given here is a well structured argument that feels biased from the start- the bias is built right into the title for those that missed it. It's a battle between science and the topic. I get the sense you already know what your conclusion will be about every episodes topic before you begin prepping for the episode. This show doesn't seem to be about seeking the truth with an open mind.

I hope my initial impression is wrong, if it is I'll increase my rating accordingly!

What an amazing well produced show. Incredibly put together by science journalist Wendy Zukerman. It's not only informative and well studied but an important podcast for our time. In a world where 'fact' can spread unvetted and adopted so adamantly. Where feelings replace fact this show offers a haven of study, critical thinking and SCIENCE! Nicely done!!

Wendy makes science an auditory dream. Her seemingly simple explanation of complex topics is fun to listen to and will immediately change your views of the world. And that voice! You will want her to be your navigation system's voice! Highly recommend, especially if you like story meets science pods like Radiolab.

I am deeply ambivalent about this podcast. The topics are great, but the hosting and writing are just awful. The content should be what drives the show. It is the star. Host/writers just stay out of the way as much as possible and the show will be substantially better. The snarky and irreverant little quips are the podcast equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. When they are are putting together the epsiodes, who is thinking, "You know what would really punch this story up? If we added stupid and juvenile little quips and then followed that up with, 'kiddinggggg!!!!'" Seriously, who is thinking that? Clearly someone is. It so obnoxious that I really don't know if the great content can overcome just how grating everything else about the show is. Lest anyone think this is because the host is a woman, the same argument can most certainly be made about "Reply All." Interesting content with brutally obnoxious hosts/writing. I understand that this whole style of podcasting stems from the Ira Glass tree, but it is just brutal. You are doing a podcast called "Science VS." Stop trying to be hip/informal/irreverant. It makes the whole podcast sound like it is put together by a bunch of idiot teenagers.

This is the podcast that I have always dreamed of! This podcast holds science against our beliefs and feelings. The episode about attachment parenting is something that I have honestly been yearning to learn more about. I hear all these wonderful things about attachment parenting and I just wanted to figure out if it was a good idea or not. I can't wait to see what the next episodes will be about!

Wendy Zuckerman is very witty and I find myself frequently intrigues often giggling and simply happy here listening to her. I have noticed that she has tried to Americanize her accent in a few areas and, girlfriend, cut it out! We like your accent and you said Colorado correctly the first time! 😜 Wendy, you are the perfect addition to the Gimlet team. I love what you are doing.

Gimlet reminds me of the consistent quality of Pixar. Science vs does a great job at telling stories with facts and illuminating stories within data. I enjoy the hosts playful smarty pants approach to debunking or bunking topics.

Another club banger from gimlet. The host is wonderfully talented and the reporting is extremely well rounded. Its nice to get a neutral, scientific podcast about current issues that is entertaining as it is educational.

It's refreshing to hear an educated and unbiased opinion on a subject. Science vs is well written and well recorded.

Many podcasts suffer, in my opinion, from poor audio quality. I have listened to many podcasts that sounded like they were recorded, in part or totally, over the phone. Extremely unprofessional sounding. Thankfully this one is not like that. It's a pleasure to listen to.

The subject matter so far has been interesting and very well researched.

I am looking forward to further episodes.

None of these topics can be given the appropriate amount of investigation in the time allotted... The constant citation of Australian data sources may be convenient for the researcher but leaves any reasonable "scientist" wanting much more information to support a point of view... so the conclusions become just that ... a point of view... an opinion ... hardly science vs

I saw you picked this up so I went to listen to season 1... It's terrible. Why do you want to put your name on this opinionated garbage trying to be science? I've listened to every episode of every other Gimlet Media podcast and I was a huge fan.. But I'm out now.