State of science index banner

Science Champions

View all podcasts
  • season 2, episode 9: science of nanochemistry: renewable energy, self-cleaning glass and missions to mars

    Episode 9: Science of Nanochemistry: Renewable Energy, Self-Cleaning Glass and Missions to Mars

    To think big in science, sometimes you have to think small. Nanochemistry is a scientific field that studies matter on a microscopic scale to create materials with world-changing potential. Dr. Suze Kundu explores the possibilities on this episode.

    Listen to our Champions of Science on Apple Podcasts Listen to our Champions of Science on Google Play Listen to our Champions of Science on Spotify Listen to our Champions of Science on Stitcher

Featured guest:

  • Dr. Suze Kundu, Materials Chemist and Science Presenter

    Dr. Suze Kundu, Materials Chemist and Science Presenter

    Dr. Suze Kundu has a PhD in Materials Nanochemistry from University College London. She appeared on the Discovery Channel shows You Have Been Warned and Outrageous Acts of Science, and is a contributor to both Standard Issue and Forbes magazines.

    Twitter | LinkedIn

We’ve got to embrace failure as a positive, providing we can learn from it and use it as a stepping stone towards success. @FunSizeSuze #ScienceChampions #CelebrateScience
Click to Tweet

Science does not have to be done in a lab. You can be a scientist and make positive changes in a whole host of really quite fun careers. So go and find one that suits you. @FunSizeSuze #ScienceChampions #CelebrateScience
Click to Tweet

Read the Full Episode Transcript

  • Science Champions - The Science of Nanochemistry: Renewable Energy, Self-Cleaning Glass and Missions to Mars

    Jayshree Seth:
    Over 80% of the people we surveyed said that scientists should be sharing their results in easy to understand language. Almost as many agreed that scientists should be working to make science more relatable in everyday life. On this episode of Science Champions, our guest is going to do both.

    Welcome to Science Champions, I’m Jayshree Seth, Chief Science Advocate at 3M.

    Often times people think of science as theoretical, obscure, and hard to understand. It’s people in lab coats combining chemicals, or scholars thinking deep thoughts in university libraries. In other words, as something completely separate from their day-to-day existence.

    It’s up to scientists and science communicators to help make a clearer connection between the lab and the living room. We need to show how science matters for everyone, every day.

    My guest this week is a perfect example of how to make that connection. She’s a brilliant scientist in her own right, with a PhD in Nanochemistry from University College London. But she’s also a science communicator, sharing her love of science everywhere: online, at live lectures, on the Discovery Channel, and more.

    Dr. Suze Kundu thanks for being here. Now, nanochemistry, that’s a fascinating field to specialize in. Can you explain exactly what it is, what kind of work you do?

    Suze Kundu:
    Sure. Nanochemistry is working with materials which are at least in one dimension on the nanoscale. So a nanometer is a billionth of a meter. We're talking really tiny science here. So we're not quite talking on the scale of an atom. It's not quite so small, but we're certainly talking about the sort of scale of large molecules. And the reason that this area of science is interesting is that things behave differently on this nanoscale to the way that they would on a bulk scale. And so we can kind of observe these properties and we can enhance them, and utilize them through real world applications.

    Now the challenge with nanotechnology is to try and keep hold of these amazing properties that we discover as we scale up, because that would be lost as they go through the nano-range to kind of the macro-range. But we can solve a range of problems by applying a range of materials that display these kind of weird nano-properties. It can be anything from batteries that are more efficient or have better charging cycles, to self-cleaning glass on windows so that we don't have to see window cleaners dangling off, you know, the Shard in the middle of London all the way up in the sky. So that's kind of Nano chemistry and nano-materials.

    What I do more specifically has been focused on clean energy. So creating materials and optimizing these materials to capture sunlight energy and push them to water molecules, to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. So we collect this hydrogen and use it as a nice, clean, and cheap fuel. So we're not adding any more horrible carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when we burn this material. Because when you burn hydrogen, it effectively recombines with oxygen in the air, and you get water again. So you start with water and you end with water. And it's this lovely, sustainable cycle of water molecules. It's basically a vehicle for solar energy, so we call it solar fuel.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Oh, absolutely. There’s a lot of potential there for cleaner energy that doesn’t rely on heavy metal batteries. What else are you excited about in your field?

    Suze Kundu:
    There's lots of ways that you can actually use this particular area of material science. So the way that the materials that I'm working with, very thin films of titanium dioxide, they've actually been doped with a bunch of nano-materials and nano-particles of gold and silver, which kind of changes their electronic properties. So regular titanium dioxide could be activated using ultraviolet light. And there's only about 2% of light that reaches us from the sun that is ultraviolet. So by adding these impurities, you can tweak the electronic properties. So that the wavelength of light that titanium dioxide can be activated by changes, and so you start to tend towards a slightly lower energy of light. Therefore, utilizing a bit more of the solar spectrum, the amount of energy that is reaching from the sun. So I'm using it to create these solar fuels, to create this hydrogen from water, that the same technology can be applied, this photocatalysis. It's speeding up the reaction in the presence of light. It can be used from anything from self-cleaning glass that I've just mentioned, to anti-microbial coatings that you can deposit a thin layer of this material onto all equipment in a hospital. And under certain wavelengths of light, you can actually sterilize all of the equipment, and all of the kits, so potentially reduce the incidents of superbugs, like MRSA for example, in hospitals.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Wow, that’s really impressive.

    Suze Kundu:
    It is super awesome. Actually, I think I have to say the coolest potential use, I think, of this kind of technology is still around the water splitting application, that it could be used to actually create rocket fuel, if we manage to get ourselves to Mars. So obviously, it's gonna cost a lot of money to take a lot of stuff to Mars with us. And we want to be able to, hopefully at some point, get back. And one way that people are hoping that we might be able to do it is with the water that we take with us, we might be able to photocatalyze it in the same kind of way to generate hydrogen, and also the oxygen. So we'll collect the oxygen in this situation, and you've basically got rocket fuel there then. So when you recombine them, they'll kind of energetically burn and create all of this energy that will hopefully get us back to Earth.

    Jayshree Seth:
    I love how versatile chemistry can be, especially on the nanoscale. You’re talking about everything from cleaner windows to Mars missions here.

    Suze Kundu:
    Yeah, I mean, it's incredible. Yeah, but the fascinating thing is that this area of science and technology is actually, it's well, it's...what's the word? Inspired by nature. It's actually a tiny part of the photocatalytic cycles. So it's part of photosystem too and photosynthesis. So plants have been doing something really similar for millions of years, and we're actually just trying to catch up.

    Jayshree Seth:
    It’s remarkable how much of material science is trying to replicate things found in nature, yes. Like how we developed reusable adhesives by studying a gecko’s foot, how it’s made of tiny suction cups.. it’s fascinating. But switching gears a bit: You’re also the Head of Public Engagement for Digital Science. What does that job entail?

    Suze Kundu:
    Yeah, there's a lot of different things that we do at Digital Science. On the face of it, we are a technology company that creates a range of tools that disrupts science for the better. So we make...well, not just science. I should say all research. And so we want to disrupt research, to make research as productive as it can possibly be. Effectively, allowing scientists to get on with the science that they want to be doing, allowing publishers to publish more efficiently, allowing funders to work out where they can be funding new areas, or up and coming areas, and to maximize the kind of output. And you know, contribute this to the kind of research base that we have, that we can then develop on.

    So there's lots of things that we believe in, and a lot of it is this disruptive technology to make research as efficient as it can be. But we also believe in things like open science, and we have a lot of data that we can interrogate as well. So part of my job is looking at all of this delicious data, falling down rabbit holes, and asking it the right questions to be able to get a snapshot of the research landscape. For example, things like representation in research, or how funding is being allocated, or whether open science initiatives are benefitting people, whether they are leading to greater collaboration, more strategic funding, all kinds of things like that. And we do that by asking this data amazing questions, working with our incredible data scientists, and mine all this data, analyze it, and then start to create recommendations so that we can start to nudge the culture of research. And it's not just science research. It's arts and humanities as well, to make them more productive, more inclusive, more open places to work so that we can make research just the best it can be.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Oh yes, inclusion is so important, particularly in the scientific community. We need as many different points of view, as many brilliant minds, as we can get! Now, how did you get started in chemistry? Was it something you had fun with as a kid?

    I think that would depend on the lens through which you are viewing it. Fun for me, nightmare for my parents, I can imagine. I remember being very, very little. I'm quite tiny as it is, so I'm a kind of nanochemist literally as well as professionally.

    But I remember being tall enough to climb up to the side of the bath, to then climb up to be able to reach my mom's lotions and potions in her cupboard. And I would bring them all down and mix them up in the sink to see what color they turned. And spoiler alert, everything turns a bit peach. But I remember doing this experiment where, don't try this at home, but I would mix some disinfectant with bleach or something. And there'd be this flash of color. And I remember getting to GCS in chemistry, and finally finding out why that happens, and the halides that were involved in that reaction. I think it also releases a huge amount of chlorine, so really don't try this at home. It's probably why I never grew beyond 4'10" or whatever.

    But this is kind of how it all started. And I suppose that was the chemist side of me.

    I've moved from chemistry to, actually not narrowing down so much, but widening my range of interest and research areas into including physics and engineering as well. And I guess the engineering manifested itself in the desperate desire to find out how things worked. So I remember I had my dad's turntable needles, so there'll be people listening to this that don't even know what turntable is. We used to put these big plastic circles on things, and the needle would read the grooves of music and convert that into sound. And these needles just fascinated me because I couldn't understand how they worked. So I would just take them apart. It turns out they're really expensive. And even younger than that, I remember wanting to find out how Barbie worked. Just, you know, have a look inside, because she looks like me, and I'm not going to open myself up, so let's open Barbie up. And we'd kind of end up with a head in one room, and an arm in the other room.

    Jayshree Seth:
    That’s funny! It’s probably for the best that you didn’t go into anatomy and physiology — people tend to be less hollow and less easily repaired than a Barbie.

    But you know, we do talk a lot on the podcast about how children kind of naturally have a scientist’s curiosity. They’ll experiment, and fail, and try again, just the way a good scientist should. Our goal as educators needs to be to help guide that curiosity, rather than boring it out of them. Did your education help to foster your enthusiasm for science?

    Suze Kundu:
    I started off by, I love maths, and I was very good at maths at the time. And I chose maths and further maths as two of my A levels. And then I chose biology. I know, shocking following the Barbie story. And I chose geography because I have, and still to this day, have a huge fascination about seismology, and volcanology. So I love finding out about earthquakes and volcanoes. And I love physical geography.

    But then what I ended up doing, I think, about three months into it, I was so fed up with the fact that half my time was being spent doing maths. I was having number dreams and I just kind of thought, oh, there's got to be, as Belle says in Beauty and the Beast, there must be more than this mathematical life, or something to that sort of vein. And I took up chemistry, because I really missed real science, which is what chemistry was in my head. It was the mixing of, it was potions class basically. I was well supported by my parents and my teacher at the time. He also had to catch me up on three months' worth of work in his spare time as well.

    And I'm really glad I did because I ended up completely falling in love with chemistry, and I that as my degree. So four, with a placement year into it, I loved chemistry still, but I was really tired of exams, and assessments. And I'd slightly lost sight of why I loved it, I think. And in the panic of everyone around me applying for graduate scheme jobs, I did the same thing. So I applied for a grad scheme, and I was training as an actuary, which is like a boring accountant. And I say this, my dad was an accountant. My dad's a legend, and he's not boring. But even he was like really? You wanna be an actuary? Why?

    And so I did that for a year. But halfway through it, I was really again missing the sheer wonder of science.

    And I got chatting to a former lecturer of mine who ended up being my PhD supervisor. And he said that the thing about research is that it's about taking a concept and understanding it, and applying it through a range of new situations. And he believed that I really had that skill, that it wasn't just about memorizing things for an exam, that I had the skills to really be a practical research scientist. And I was bit scared of jumping into a three or four year PhD having been away from it for a few months. But I applied for a Masters while he was getting grant funding sorted for the project that he had in mind for me.

    And so I did my Masters. And it was then that I really fell in love with nanotechnology. I did my Masters project on gas sensors. I worked with carbon nanotubes, and buckyballs, and I was comparing the random lengths of carbon nanotubes, and their effect on gas sensors, to the finite size and shape of buckyballs, and conductivity that they could offer in this application. And I just completely fell in love with this invisible world. I couldn't see it with my own eyes, but I could see the effects of it. And because a lot of my PhD research was also then focused on nano-crystalline materials, it kind of carried on that love, and I really sort of focused in on that.

    And alongside a post-doc, I did a PGC, which is a teaching qualification. And then I got my first proper academic role at Imperial College in London. And then I ended husband says I collect degrees like Pokémon, which is probably fair. I ended up studying for a Masters in education in the same area, in university learning and teaching, from Imperial. And I was focusing in on the retention of engineering students. So it doesn't seem like anything to do with teaching, or learning, or nanochemistry. But it was something that I was quite passionate about, because we do a lot of scaffolding and role modeling of careers, and different faces within engineering. And we get a diverse enough range of people. You know, it's improving over time, coming in to study engineering at undergraduate level. But we're not retaining them within the profession. So what's going on there?

    But really, I think, what I realized in the nine months that I've been in my new role, is that you really don't have to be in a lab, or be an academic to do science. You can do so much impactful stuff, possibly more impactful than if I'd been in a lab, by working with a range of incredible people to actually make stuff happen. And the only way you can really make it happen is with evidence. And that's what we can provide here, and kind of create cases for why things need to change, and how it will benefit so many people if and when they do.

    Jayshree Seth:
    I really admire your passion! Thanks for sharing your journey. But was there anything you learned in your chemistry studies that surprised you? Anything that stands out?

    Suze Kundu:
    There are a couple of things about chemistry that make me laugh and that I just bear with, I suppose. One of which is that chemists always lie to you. So when you go from GCSE, to A level, to a degree level, to then investigating it in the sort of research scale, things get simplified down. And at each stage, just when you think you've understood what electrons do, and how they interact with each other, and around the nucleus of an atom, you have to then break that all down again and relearn. And I guess what I've learned is that chemistry teachers lie, and I understand why they do it. But I kind of wish that people were more open about saying this is a representation of the science that you need to know at this stage. This is not true, and if you want to find out more, you can do so. Here. But for now, this is a simplification that we're using.

    And the other thing that I think is really important that I learned as a chemist in particular, and given how much lab work we do, and how much of the chemistry that we do, is that in order to succeed in science, you need to fail. Failure is such a huge aspect of the research process. And yet as professional people and as a professional culture, we are very bad at embracing the positives about failure. You cannot succeed unless you have iteratively failed. You cannot improve something unless you have gone through a range of iterations where it hasn't been as good.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Yes! That’s so true. It’s one of the underlying principals of science — failing is a fundamental part of the process.

    Suze Kundu:
    And yet to this day, we see failure really negatively. People don't publish negative data, which for me, is baffling. Because if you have, say, seven research groups all around the world trying something, when a research group six months earlier tried it once. It didn't work, but they didn't publish it because it wasn't a positive result. It wasn't adding anything new, as a new step forward to the research sphere.

    We actually have a campaign running this year, which is based around failure. So it's a Digital Science campaign, and we're trying to encourage people to share their kind of research realities with a hashtag called failtales. But it's something that I was really passionate about us doing.

    So when there was a possibility of us running this campaign, I jumped on it. Because we really need to be more open and accepting about this, not just as a kind of responsible researcher, but also in terms of, I think, supporting each other through research. Research isn't always gonna work. And we are trained to believe that experiments will always work. Because they do in school because we follow a recipe that we know is going to work. And actually real research is not like that at all. So I think we've got to embrace failure as a positive, providing we can learn from it, and providing we can use it as a stepping stone towards success, I really think chemists, and scientists in general, and researchers in general, should embrace failure more.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Absolutely. I would love to see more open-ended experimenting in science classes, where kids can explore and find out what doesn’t work. It’s true that science education is usually more following a recipe than true experimentation. There are certainly real opportunities there. But keeping up our positive theme: What’s something you find really exciting about your field right now?

    Suze Kundu:
    I have to say, you're gonna hate me for saying this, because for a long time, this has been the scientists' answer to absolutely everything. I am going to use the G word, and I'm gonna say graphene. I love graphene, but I am well aware that scientists literally say that graphene is the answer to absolutely any problem. We actually, my husband and I did a pub quiz at Chilton Science Festival a few years ago. And we had one round where every question's answer was actually graphene. So graphene, for anyone that hasn't come across it, is a two dimensional form of carbon. So it's a single atom layer of carbon atoms, and each carbon is joined to three other carbons, so they form these triangles that join up to make these hexagons in one continuous sheet. And it's incredibly light. It's incredibly strong. It has great thermal conductivity. It has great electrical conductivity. And this is graphene in its literal form. But actually, its properties are incredible, but it can be used as an analogy for other materials.

    So it's not just carbon. It can be a range of different materials that have this mono-layer form.

    And it's not just in its mono-layer form, but it's up to a few layers thick as well, because that's when graphene isn't just cool, and has all these amazing properties. But it starts to be actually useful. So we can use it, of course, in things like reinforcing our tennis rackets. But it can also be used for incredible things, like making incredibly efficient batteries. It can be used in a range of space applications to add strength with low density to a range of different materials. It can even be used, I read something recently, that the graphene flagship are doing, where they're using layers of graphene to create a more effective heat exchanger, so they can get rid of heat away from component parts. For example, of a satellite that might be really sensitive to heat changes, that might stop them from working. So obviously when we send a satellite up into space, you know, the last thing you can do is send an engineer after it to fix it. So trying to mitigate as many of these issues as possible, by keeping it efficient, but also low density, so you're not adding any huge amount of weight, and therefore cost, into these things. And it's kind of what engineering is all about, really, making things as efficient as possible. But graphene can be used for all of these things, and so much more as well.

    Jayshree Seth:
    That’s a great example! Definitely one of the cooler materials we work with. Your enthusiasm makes me even more excited about it — that must be your science communicator side coming out. Speaking of, what is it about the public relations side of your work that inspires you?

    Suze Kundu:
    So as a science communicator, I guess the thing that I love about it is that science really can sell itself. So if I can just be a tiny vehicle, or a little platform to get it out there, then I'm more than happy to play that role. Science is inherently awesome, and the research that's going on blows my mind.

    And the great thing about being a science communicator is that I don't just have to showcase my own research. I can showcase a range of research. I can create links between them. I can use a theme, for example, Star Wars or you know, the Marvel cinematic universe, and I can use them as a platform for something that people are already heavily engaged with, and kind of use it as a stealth science tool.

    There's also the aspect, I suppose, of representation. So I am a tiny woman of color, and I didn't see many people like me either on TV, or in the media in general, in science. The stereotype of science is very different to everything that I look like, and every facet of my personality, I suppose. I remember being in meeting rooms and having just a bunch of dudes around a table. And there's me and my like little dress, and my unicorn pen. And I'm just as qualified to be there. But you know, it still didn't feel like necessarily a place for me. And it's changing. So I guess being one of the slightly different, more representative faces of science and science communication, is great.

    There's also the aspect where you can use your platform to showcase a range of faces as well. So by being in this sphere, I guess I can help amplify the voices of the people that are perhaps underrepresented for whatever reason. So I guess there's like a level of showcasing new role models. And a lot of the stuff that I do, and the best bit, I suppose, about a lot of the communication that I do is showcasing the faces behind the research, and the amazing, and normal people that are doing this groundbreaking stuff. And you can just have an incredible chat with them because they're just like us, you know? It really kind of is the old adage that really everyone can be a scientist. Everyone is to an extent. But anyone can be professionally as well.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Oh, yes. As an Indian woman myself, I agree representation and breaking these stereotypes is so important. Do you have any advice, based on your experience, for scientists looking to improve their communication skills?

    Suze Kundu:
    I guess the best way to improve anything is to try it and make it better iteratively. It's like the failure thing that we were talking about earlier. I never intended on being a science communicator. What I wanted to be was an academic. And I remember presenting my first paper at the ACS conference in what must have been 2011 or something in Anaheim, in California. And I was presenting right at the end of the week. And I was so nervous about the prospect of speaking in front of people that I kind of, I measured the stage to work out whether I should have like a splash zone in case I passed out or something from the nerves.

    And I came back from there thinking I can't actually let this get to me. I need to do something about it. So I came back to the UK and I threw myself into a stand-up comedy competition, which was about research. So you had to share your science in an engaging and amusing way. And stand-up comedy is still the most terrifying thing, I think, I've ever done. But I figured if I can do that, and I haven't died doing it, then maybe I can keep doing it, and maybe it'll get better.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Just the same, I don’t think I will be headlining a comedy club any time soon. But I can see how building those skills can make you a better presenter.

    Suze Kundu:
    But I'd certainly kind of throw yourself into it. If you are communicating, I will quote our head of press at Digital Science, Alex Jackson, who will always say, "Focus on the human stories." Because if you can humanize stuff...and also make it useful in the context of people. So how does your research help people? What does the large hadron collider have to do with our lives? Well actually, when you start to talk about the implications and applications of what we could do with a lot of the discoveries that we find there, and tell people that actually you could save money on your energy bills. You can actually help save the planet by creating more efficient energy resource. Then people start to go, "Okay, I actually didn't know that." So connecting with the human stories in research, I think, is a really good way to communicate what you're doing as well. Because that will then mean that people are engaged with what you're doing about because they're already involved.

    Jayshree Seth:
    That makes a lot of sense. But what do you do when you encounter an unhealthy skepticism — how do you engage with people who don’t trust science, or are resistant to learning?

    Suze Kundu:
    It's a really tricky question, and it's a really relevant one. At the moment, I think there are two big issues that science particularly has. And that's a lack of confidence in people in their ability and understanding around science. And there's also the trust issue as well. So I think people are often afraid to be wrong. And so creating kind of safe spaces where people can ask questions about science is really good. If you're able to generate dialogue about science, then that is wonderful because that's real engagement.

    I'd also say the idea of trust is a tricky one. We're kind of living in an age where people don't seem to understand the value of experts. And I find that really odd. I mean, if I broke my arm, I wouldn't go, "I'm not gonna go to the doctor, because I don't trust an expert." I would absolutely go to a doctor, because they know a lot about a very small area, and they can make good things happen in that area. And I kind of think it's the same with everything.

    So I guess if we can build confidence in people to ask questions and create that dialogue, maybe we can start to build more critical thinking, and more skepticism in them to try and not take things at face value. If we can then build up trust with those experts, then hopefully people can work together with the experts and the public, and understand that, you know, policy decisions need to be made for the good of all people. And that all scientists are doing is presenting evidence. It's unbiased, and it's just there to be taken. And you've got to then almost build confidence in the public so that they push for the best decisions to be made.

    But building trust and confidence, I think, would be the best ways to kind of overcome the obstacle, and kind of helping people understand science. Because they own science. They pay for the research that goes on. They should have a hand in it. It shouldn't be any different to anything else that they pay their taxes for, you know?

    Jayshree Seth:
    Oh, absolutely. So imagine you could tell everyone just one thing about science. What would it be?

    Suze Kundu:
    So my big thing that I would love to tell everyone, I suppose is yeah, science does not have to be done in a lab. You can be a scientist and make really positive changes in the profession that you love, in a whole host of really quite fun careers. So go and find one that suits you.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Or possibly more than one! I love that you have a variety of career paths you have followed. And, of course, I started in 3M making new types of diapers, and now I’m hosting podcasts. What advice would you give people who feel a little lost in their job search?

    Suze Kundu:
    I guess it sounds a bit wishy-washy, but my main thing would be to follow your heart. The things that you love doing might change over time. You might be exposed to different facets of careers. Or you may develop different skills. And I'm really glad that in this day and age we don't have one job for life. We have these portfolio careers. And in the right place, in the right environment, you should feel encouraged to speak out about the things that interest you, and the things that you want to develop. Because there will undoubtedly be ways that you can combine your interests and your skills, and really create a huge impact in the world in whatever you choose to do. Don't be afraid to explore that, and never feel trapped in the thing that you're doing because there will be an incredible career out there for you, whatever you want to do.

    Jayshree Seth:
    What a wonderful way to wrap things up. Suze, thanks so much for being here today.

    Suze Kundu:
    Yeah, of course. No problem.

    Jayshree Seth:
    Science isn’t just something that happens in a university or a laboratory. It’s a way of seeking to understand the world, and you can do it anywhere. Even more importantly, science belongs to everyone. Scientific inquiry and discovery shapes all of our lives. We all have the right… and the responsibility… to stay informed and engaged.

    Thanks for listening to Science Champions. Learn more about the current state of science at And subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

  • Apple and the Apple Podcasts logo are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google LLC. Spotify and the Spotify logo are trademarks of Spotify USA Inc. Stitcher and the Stitcher logo are trademarks of Stitcher, Inc.