[00:00]Maya: Welcome to Owl Have You Know, a podcast from Rice Business. This episode is part of our Flight Path Series, where guests share their career journeys and stories of the Rice connections that got them where they are. 

A devoted scientist, innovator, and leader of Rice University's Synthetic Biology Institute, our guest on Owl Have You Know is a 2024 Executive MBA graduate, devoted to driving the synthetic biology industry into the future.

Shalini Yadav's commitment and dedication to transforming healthcare took on a bolder meaning when she chose to add MBA to her list of impressive accomplishments. She talks to us about her upbringing, fascinating work in fighting disease, and her belief that every step in her journey, including those wild risks, has led her to exactly where she needs to be.

Welcome, Shalini Yadav. Thank you for taking the time to share with us your remarkable flight path and dedication to science and research over the last 22 years. You have a bachelor's degree in biology, a master's in biotechnology, a Ph.D. in cellular and molecular biology, and now an Executive MBA. So, do you have space on your wall for all of these accomplishments, Shalini?

[01:20]Shalini: First, Maya, thank you for having me on the show. Well, this is my last degree, for sure.

[01:26]Maya: The famous last words.

[01:29]Shalini: Yeah, I mean, it just happened. I mean I enjoy the process of learning and the kind of person I am, if I have a structured way of doing things, I like doing it that way. And in terms of wall, I think I can accommodate in my office.

[01:47]Maya: You just need a bigger office with bigger walls.

[01:49]Shalini: Yeah. But Texas is the right place to have that kind of office.

[01:54]Maya: That's right. You have served as an associate director of research planning and development at MD Anderson Cancer Center, leading the multidisciplinary teams in translational cancer research. That was your former position. And you are now in a role as the executive director of Rice University’s Synthetic Biology Institute, leading innovation research initiatives, fostering collaboration across disciplines, which is what you have dedicated multiple decades in doing. Congratulations on your new role.

[02:25]Shalini: Thank you.

[02:26]Maya: And I'd love to dive in and ask you specifically about the institute and the groundbreaking research happening at Rice. But first, I'm curious about what made you interested in pursuing science and what inspired you to pursue a career in biotechnology?

[02:43]Shalini: Well, I think, right from the beginning, as a child and when I was growing up, my interest was always… I was fascinated by how our body fights infections or any kind of foreign invasion. And that fascinated me, that world of microbes, bacteria, viruses, and how are we able to fight them or how are they able to outsmart us? You know, like, we do get infected. And that was like, I always wanted to be in the field of science. And I came from a, not a very big town, a small town in India, and it's called Allahabad. Its name has been changed; now, it's called Prayagraj. So, it's a very holy city. So, basically, even coming from there just to a big city, the capital of India, New Delhi, was a big step for me and my conservative family to let me go and study and do my master's in biotechnology.

The motivation was the same. I got into the program. It was a competitive program. You have to get into it through an exam. And after that, there was no looking back because so many opportunities opened up after that. I was able to come to the United States because of my education there. I landed up in Stony Brook University. And it was an amazing experience. My graduate school studies were probably one of the best parts when I came to a foreign country first time and ever traveled, actually.

[04:05]Maya: Really? So, wait a second. So, let's back up. So, your first time going to an international… you know, your international travel was coming to Stony Brook, New York?

[04:14]Shalini: Yes, it was crazy. I still remember. And as I said, I came from a very conservative and protected kind of environment. So, for me, to take that step and get my dad's support to do that was a big thing. But it was a crazy ride to Stony Brook. I still remember, you know, like, I almost passed out because I had so many vaccines before coming, and I was not well. But the driver was, really, I think, a nice guy. He dropped me at the international relations office. Then, I realized that I don't have a graduate housing and they were going to put me in an undergrad dorm or something.

[04:50]Maya: And you had nowhere to live.

[04:51]Shalini: Yes, in a foreign country. It was crazy. I was like, “Oh, my God, what will I do now?” But, you know, I did not go to the dorm because some of my friends told me, “Oh, no, no, no, don't go to the dorm. You'll get a shock.” So, but then, I got a housing. They fixed it very soon. So, I was able to manage, but it was an adventure.

[05:10]Maya: And that's where you got your Ph.D., was at Stony Brook?

[05:14]Shalini: Yes, in Stony Brook University, with a great, great mentor.

[05:17]Maya: Did you come from a family of people that were biologists and scientists? Or was this something, were you, sort of, like an anomaly in your family?

[05:28]Shalini: One of my uncles was a scientist. Basically, a scientist means a psychologist. But my dad was well-educated. They were all in government jobs in India, most of my family. So, that was the background. I was the only one who was interested in science and, like, my brothers, they're all engineers.

[05:44]Maya: You, sort of, briefly mentioned that you were curious about microbes and infection. And was there something in your childhood or in your life that made you curious? Was it like a book or something that you saw? Or, what was that catalyst for you?

[06:00]Shalini: Well, infectious diseases affect, not in United States, but if you live in a country like India, I have seen, like, in the village where my roots are, people would not really know why they are getting, like, dysentery or typhoid. And, you know, there were problems there, which I was seeing as a child growing up. And I was like, “Why there are no solutions,” or, “How does this happen? How do we fight infections?” There were no specific incidents that I can remember that made me curious. Maybe, in the school, the teachers who taught me science made me interested in this field, is all I can think of. But that was always the question that I had, when somebody would get sick, I would be like, “Oh, why did this happen? Why we are not able to get this person better? And what's going on in the body, why we're not able to fight that infection?”

[06:50]Maya: Well, how fortuitous was that? Because now, we have you in this field and really, sort of, changing the field. I was reading about some incredible things that you did. Part of your postdoctoral work at the Rockefeller University led to the discovery of a host cell restriction factor for HIV. And I am not a scientist, but it's the MX2. So, you got your Ph.D. at Stony Brook, and then what?

[07:17]Shalini: Then, I started looking for places where I can do this kind of work, to understand, what is natural defense mechanisms? And I was restricted to New York at that time due to my family. So, I was like, “Okay, I will look in and around New York.” And one of the labs that I was interested in was a retrovirology lab, and I loved the projects that I would be doing, so I decided to go for studying HIV.

And I also, at that time, I was also not sure whether I will be in the U.S. or go back. And HIV looked like an area which would help me. If I ever decided to go back, I wanted to be in a field where I'm studying some infectious diseases or viruses. So, that was a good option. And I took it up, and it was really a great time and fun things that I did at that time was awesome, because being in a good lab with a good PI makes a lot of difference. And I was, at that time, using robots to do things because my project needed that kind of work, was awesome because you have to learn how to use it, how to program it, and how to scale down your work actually to that small scale.

So, it was a lot of fun. And believe it or not, that's why I really like… this thing attracted me because a lot of things that I did in my Ph.D., as well as postdoc, this is the future that is emerging. That attracted me to this position, actually, because I have the background to understand why it's going, where it's going, and what can happen next.

[08:48]Maya: Tell me about this MX2 host cell. I'm very, very curious about that, because like I said, I don't have a background in science as much as my whole family wishes that I did, but I don't. So, tell me about this.

[09:00]Shalini: So, basically, MX2 is a protein, right? It's a protein. And it is found in human cells, mostly, cells which are in the body and they help in fighting infections. They are called macrophages. That's one of the main cell types which expresses this protein. And the way it works is that, what we discovered, we screened the entire repertoire of genes which can be involved in restriction factors and then discovered this factor. But basically, it's a protein which will prevent HIV from entering the nucleus. So, it stops the life cycle of the virus. So, you can imagine that, if you understand how it works, you can design ways to… new drugs to basically prevent infection with HIV.

[09:48]Maya: That's fascinating that you were able to discover this. And you went on then to Weill Cornell Medical College and started doing prostate cancer research. Tell me about the jump into that.

[10:02]Shalini: I had my kids. And New York, as you know, is quite an expensive city to live, and, at that time, I, with me and my husband and the kids and the wait line for getting decent daycare. I had to take some time off, just to manage that time, and my visa status didn't allow me to go part time. So, at that time, I stopped for six months. And then, when I wanted to start again, I could have gone back, but I also, serendipitously, like, I met this surgeon and I moved into translational research because I was always interested in new technologies or innovation.

And in this case, my thought process was that I was getting to do single cell genomics in a setting which I thought is also very relevant for HIV research if you wanted to use it in a country like India or other places. So, I thought this looks like a perfect setup where I get to build this setup in Weill Cornell, going to Cold Spring Harbor with a very big group of, who are experts in single nucleus sequencing. Dr. Mike Bigler, I thought, okay, let's do this and see how it goes.

And that changed my perspective completely because I was just a basic biologist interested in how this thing works, to, “Oh, my God, there's so many problems which patients are facing.” And we, as basic biologists, what can we do to bridge this gap between clinical and translational research and basic research? And can we find solutions? Because when you bring…what I have learned in my career so far, when you bring diverse expertise together, the solutions that come out have way more value and are more impactful than what you can achieve alone.

So, bridging this gap was not something that I was looking for, but I serendipitously got into a position where I just did what was needed. That gave me a very different perspective of what scientific research can achieve, in terms of, if you understand the problems, which actually people are facing, then your solutions can be tailored, or you can design proposals to address those problems.

And that's exactly what I did over there — took a problem in prostate cancer and tried to see if we can develop better diagnostic tools to diagnose prostate cancer or differentiate aggressive form of prostate cancer from an indolent form of prostate cancer.

[12:29]Maya: And you recognized the importance of teams and the structure of teams and how that's really integral to moving forward and to making these sorts of discoveries. It's that diverse perspective, sort of, like a silver bullet, so to speak.

[12:44]Shalini: Yes, exactly. Before that, I was collaborating right from my PhD, I would say, because the lab, I was working, all my projects were in collaboration with Dr. Vendilem, who's a well-known synthetic biologist. And we were working together at that time. But the basic tenet of seeing how a clinical setup versus basic biologists versus computational scientists or radiologists and pathologists, what can we do collectively together to solve a patient-specific-centric problem was something that was… that just happened to me, to understand that, that way it can be done.

And I also got a chance to build certain things. And I realized I enjoy doing that. So, that was something that I didn't know I can do and I will like it, but I loved it, you know, from scratch, if I had to build things and that was a lot of fun.

[13:39]Maya: Well, you were stretching yourself, which seems to be the thread throughout your entire life, is that you just keep on stretching yourself. “I don't know how to do it, but I'm going to figure it out. Like, I don't have anywhere to live, but I'm going to figure it out.” And that's really an important piece of character, literally, coming from India for the first time to a completely foreign place and just doing what you got to do.

[14:03]Shalini: If thrown into a situation, I'll just figure it out.

[14:06]Maya: Right. Sink or swim, and you're not going to sink.

[14:09]Shalini: Yes.

[14:11]Maya: So, what brought you to Houston? Was it MD Anderson that brought you to Houston?

[14:14]Shalini: Yes, believe it or not, getting a chance to work with Dr. Jim Allison is an opportunity. I'm grateful to him and the opportunity that I got, again, because you're moving to a field, which is immunology, like, your body's immune system and how you can develop therapies that can help you fight cancer, in this case. I was naturally inclined in that direction. So, then, I got an opportunity. Again, grateful to the PCF Young Investigator Award that I got, that I got this network of people that I met. And through that, I was able to connect with Dr. Allison. And it, again, serendipitously, it happened that he, looking at my expertise and things that I had done, he said, “Would you like to do this work, which is a lot of scientific management and administrative?” Again, I thought, okay, as long as…I found it interesting and exciting, because again, I was handling multiple stakeholders and trying to work with multiple pharmaceutical companies, different departments, different kinds of experts, working together with all of them to handle a scientific problem, which will help, actually, to learn something new, either in understanding the disease etiology or actually bringing first in human compounds to help cancer patients who do not have any other options.

So, that was very satisfying to do that. It just happened that it was too good. Learning from Dr. Allison's group and their team, it was an amazing experience because it broadened my perspective of many, many different things. So, it was a very good experience. And I think it helped me grow in terms of how I would manage different things.

[15:58]Maya: You mentioned Dr. Jim Allison. It was an award that you won. Was that how you made the connection or…

[16:06]Shalini: Again, like in my Executive MBA, I realized how important networking is. I was not networking a lot when I moved here because I was so focused on my work. When I was in Mount Sinai, I had written a proposal and I had done the Young…Prostate Cancer Foundation's Young Investigator Award for doing prostate cancer research that I was talking about, like, how to differentiate indolent versus aggressive prostate cancer.

And there, the other young investigators that I met, through them, I got connected here. So, those connections brought me here. 

[16:38]Maya: So, you were at MD Anderson for how many years before you decided, “You know what? I think I need to go get my MBA?”

[16:44]Shalini: I was in MD Anderson for six years, but it took me time to make this decision. I wouldn't lie. I wanted to do an MBA for a long time. I think I knew I will do an MBA, but I waited because my kids were smaller and I wanted them to be at a stage when I'm ready. And then, in my work, also, I wanted to feel that, is this the direction I want to go? Because there were always two paths—you can go into scientific administration management, seeing the big picture and implementing that strategically, or you could do research and go back. So, for me, I was at the crossroads. Like, after COVID, you know, COVID changed a lot of things. And for me, it made me decide which direction I wanted to take.

[17:28]Maya: That was a time that I think a lot of people were very introspective, people were on the fence. I think that COVID really solidified some folks’ decisions of what's important, what do I want to do? Why do I want to do it? And yes, I'm going to do this now.

[17:44]Shalini: Yeah, for me, that was the phase, because even though I'm very fortunate that I got a chance to work, even in the COVID phase, we were in lockdown, but just, the question that came from the leadership was, how will we study? How is COVID impacting cancer patients? Nothing existed again, right?

[18:01]Maya: Right.

[18:01]Shalini: Because how will you do that? How will you protect your employees who will work with these? First, can we collect these samples? How will we collect these blood samples? And no infrastructure existed. And what will we do with it later? And how will we convince the employees and, also, in terms of regulatory bodies, how will we convince them? And again, because I've worked with viruses before, even though we didn't know anything about COVID at that time, how will we inactivate it, think about it, and then, give papers or other studies to support what we are doing will work?

And it was a bad time, but it was a good time, in a sense, because I got involved in building all these infrastructures to do that. And it has opened up many new projects, right? Because once you have a collection of samples, new questions arise, and then new fields of studies have started in that area.

So, it was very satisfying to see that, but it was also a time to think about… I started thinking about policies and other things like, how can we influence something which will benefit the whole society? And how can you be the changemaker? And for me, to reach there, I felt I needed an MBA. And I went and talked to Jim and I said that I want to do this MBA. And he supported me. He said, “Sure, you should do this, if you think that's what you want to do and it'll make you happy.”

[19:22]Maya: Nobody tried to talk you out of it?

[19:25]Shalini: My brother did. My younger brother was like, “You're crazy. You already have a Ph.D., you don't need an MBA.” But he's in India, but we always had this relationship. We are pulling each other's legs. So, he's like, “Okay, now, you're the crazy scientist going on a crazy rant of doing this.” But I was really passionate. I'm very grateful that, you know, my kids, my family, my husband, everybody supported me. And my workplace also supported the efforts. And I made amazing, amazing community here in Rice with the EMBA group that I had. It was an amazing experience.

[20:00]Maya: Let's talk about that amazing experience because we're both EMBAs and you actually started the year that I graduated. So, I was done in 2022, and you started in 2022. Once you decided, because you said you always… this is something that you always knew you wanted to do. So, when you decided to apply, tell me about that process. How old were your children at this time? Because you said that a lot of it, a lot of it does have to do with the support of your professional network, your personal network, your family, your friends, because it is. It's a leap.

[20:31]Shalini: Yeah. My daughter was 10, and my son was, at that time, 13. They were very supportive. I remember in the beginning, I remember like my seniors would say, “Survive till Halloween, you'll be fine.” I remember going home and I’d say, “I'm going quit, I can't do this.” And those two were like, “You can do it. Definitely, you can do it, mama. And mama, you have to do this.” And, you know, so I was like, “Okay.”

So, I had a very big support system in my family to do that. That was their age, and they were ready to let me explore this. And good things came out of it. Like, my daughter became very independent, which I actually do not like now.

[21:18]Maya: Absolutely, independence is a good thing all around. If your kids are independent, I mean, that's what you want. You want them to be able to fly without you. So, tell me about your time at Rice and about the experience that you had. What was the most fulfilling for you?

[21:33]Shalini: Rice’s Executive MBA was really life-changing for me. I really think that my perspective about almost everything changed. The biggest impact has been two. The one is, I've understood the importance of having discovered myself as a leader, what are my value systems, which I have to hold to work, to do anything, anything in life. And that clarity came through interactions with my cohort, through interactions with my peers, and some of my professors. Like, the amount of time they gave me and some classes that I did really made me think and made me find that footing of where I am and how I will move forward.

So, that clarity was very important. And second is that I always have worked in collaborative environments and teams, but having the broad perspective from diverse fields and to be able to work with all the different areas, my horizon of the way I think, see things, and visualize things. I was always a visual person. I think I'm a futurist, in a way.

[22:47]Maya: I like that. Futurist, I like it. That's one of the great joys, is that you get different flavors of people. You have Full-Time MBAs, you have Professional MBAs, you've got Online MBAs, you've got Executive MBAs, and everybody has such a unique and diverse perspective of where they are.

And what's interesting is that, you know, you started your journey at Rice, and now, you've transitioned into a phenomenal opportunity and have broadened your career by being a part of Rice. So, tell me about how that transition has been from being in, you know, the medical field to now being in academia.

[23:29]Shalini: It was a very organic transition. I don’t… like, I was in a very academic setting of basic research, moved into translational. It was not that I was specifically looking to move into this direction. It's just that this particular position attracted me so much, because working in the medical center and seeing all the problems that people were trying to solve, research problems, scientific questions we are trying to ask, I also realized that a point comes when innovations will happen in an academic setting, you know. Like, you reach a point you can do up to a certain extent, not because you're not capable, it's more got to do with what is your focus or priority, right?

As a clinician, your priority has to take care of your patients, and then you have a research group or support system. But the focus is always different, right? But to understand the depth of the biology and the problems that you're trying to solve, you need to have a different kind of passion. And I felt that passion and I know that. So, I know that major innovations that we need in the next 10 years or 20 years in medicine or other fields, whether it's, like, our whole society I'm talking about, whether it's a bio-economy, bio-manufacturing space.

All these things are very strong in Houston and all of them are waiting for breakthroughs. In my mind, those breakthroughs come in an academic research setting. And Rice is the place to do it, especially in synthetic biology. So, that was my attraction towards the position. And my background, serendipitously, it happened that my Ph.D. work was also doing something synthetic with older tools. At that time, it was not a field, established name field, but work was very similar. And it's a small world. Right now, I'm working with people probably where I was collaborating with those synthetic biologists for my Ph.D. And now, the lab people are Dr. Caleb Bashor is an assistant professor here and we are working together.

[25:32]Maya: So, a full circle.

[25:34]Shalini: A full circle, yes. And it's just amazing to just know that, you know, it's such a small world, to come back full circle and see how the field has grown and having the vision where we can take it. So, together with Caroline, who is the scientific director for the institute, all three of us talk a lot about it and how we'll move forward and how this will grow. And my main drive was that innovation attracts me, and I'm a builder by my DNA profile, I think. So, this was a perfect fit that way. And I'm always, like, being in a space where you are really doing breakthroughs. I felt stagnancy where I was before, and that's why I started my MBA, actually. And now, with the tool sets that I have to apply in a completely different setup, is really exciting.

[26:22]Maya: And fulfilling.

[26:23]Shalini: Very, very fulfilling, yes. Yeah, true. That's the reason. I'm passionate about what I do, and I'm really enjoying it right now. To be in an area to see what can be done and what the potential impact can be, if we are able to pull this off correctly.

[26:41]Maya: So, let's talk about synthetic biology because it's being heralded as the next scientific revolution. Can you talk about synthetic biology and its applications and the things that you're doing at Rice?

[26:54]Shalini: Sure. It is a field which brings together biology and engineering. Basically, you are using engineering principles to redesign biology. In a simple term, I would say, you are working with DNA to design solutions for the biggest challenges that are facing the world in different ways, using DNA as the material to do different things.

The simplest example, which I wish I can show you, but think of DNA as the building blocks in a Lego. And then, you can design it, build it, rebuild it into anything that is good for society and you want to do it and you want to make it. Anything, a beautiful picture, a beautiful… anything that will impact the world in a positive way, whether it is agriculture, biomanufacturing, or, obviously, medicine.

[27:48]Maya: Can you share some of the most exciting research that's happening right now?

[27:53]Shalini: There are many. First, I'll give you an example, which is probably one of the first ones, which is not from Rice, but it is important to understand that, probably, one of the first in bioproduct was artemisinin, which is, like, an anti-malarial drug, which is derived from plants. It used to depend on crops, right? Like, if the weather is bad and you do not have the harvest, you won't have enough to supply the world, and it's a major problem. Malaria is a major problem. Scientists were able to take the entire pathway for making artemisinin and transfer it into yeast. Like, you brew, right? Like, yeast you make bread. They were able to do that and make artemisinin, which can basically solve that problem of dependence on crops.

So, that's one of the examples. There was a McKinsey report a couple of years ago, I think, where they talked about, like, around 400 products, which probably are products of synthetic biology, not synthetic biology, per se, but products which are at a stage that can be commercialized and the potential impact in terms of dollars would be $4 trillion, probably.

It has a huge potential for commercialization as well, the products at this stage. I'm only talking about the products. One example is a drug, Sitagliptin, for diabetes. It is a synthetic biology-based product. It is a very successful drug, probably, ninth most prescribed drug.

[29:16]Maya: Is it for type 1 or type 2?

[29:18]Shalini: Type 2.

[29:19]Maya: Which is a lot more prevalent than type 1, if I'm not mistaken.

[29:21]Shalini: Yes. But in as far as Rice is concerned, we are very uniquely positioned because we have both a very strong microbial setup. Whereas, we have the world's best scientists working in this field. And then we also have the eukaryotic system where you have T-cell therapies and others. And we have scientists in that area as well. It's a great group of brilliant, brilliant scientists.

And an example I can give you is, one of the work that is going to come out is, you know, antibiotic resistance is a huge problem. It is going to grow in the next 10 years, where, probably, the number of people that will die of antibiotic resistance globally would probably increase more than 10 million. And there are no novel therapies.

[30:09]Maya: Do people know this? I mean, other than you, because you're in the field, but do people understand this?

[30:15]Shalini: Well, you can go to World Health Organization and other websites and you will be able to see these stats. But I am personally passionate about these things. So, I like… in my spare time, I like reading about these things, if that's geeky, I don't know, but, you know, I…

[30:32]Maya: It's okay to be geeky. I'm pretty geeky myself.

[30:35]Shalini: Yeah. So, it matters. And there are not a lot of novel solutions or therapies. Professor James Chappell, Joff Silberg, and Vicky Yao, and we are bringing a computational biologist and bioengineering and biosciences people together. Two are biosciences. So, they have come together and are trying to build RNA-based… like, the COVID vaccine was an mRNA vaccine… RNA-based antibiotics, which will be personalized. Like, right now, you take an antibiotic, it clears out of all your bugs in the body—good, bad.

[31:06]Maya: Even the good ones, yes. That’s why you have to eat yogurt to make sure that your stomach has all of those, yes, yes.

[31:12]Shalini: So, now, they have come up with an idea where they're going to use this engineering principle and synthetic biology to make targeted antibiotics, RNA-based.

[31:21]Maya: Fascinating.

[31:22]Shalini: Yeah. So, it will just kill the bad bacteria and spare others, if it works. And it's an amazing collaboration, and I'm proud to say that Synthetic Biology Institute at least initiated. We are all about building new collaborations, and this is one of the collaborations where we have given seed funds to start expanding this work.

[31:43]Maya: So, in order for all of these incredible innovations to make it to the marketplace, you really need to have a base in business and to understand all of the different components — the financials and the accounting and the marketing of it and the culture of the environment that you're in. So, having an opportunity to have the brilliant scientific background that you have, and also, the business expertise and prowess, it's really a very important and integral combination of the two.

So, I think there's lots of people out there that are brilliant scientists that, sort of, shy away from pursuing an MBA or, you know, being later on in their career and going for an executive MBA. So, what would you say to those that are listening, that are scientists, that, maybe, hadn't contemplated this yet? What would you say to them about jumping in and doing something like what you did?

[32:43]Shalini: I would like to say that scientists, in general, are passionate about what they do. And your perspective changes after MBA. I never had this perspective. The way I understand things now are completely different than I would have done two years back.

[32:57]Maya: 100%.

[32:58]Shalini: Basically, understanding the business aspect of things, because ultimately, even if you're making technologies, the biggest use of that technology will come if it is reaching people and helping. And if you do not have that perspective and you have the passion to do something which will have impact for the community in a way, right? So, if community matters to you and if you're bothered by things around you, which you want to change, and you think with this you cannot, I think taking that leap where you will learn things, which I think, basically, as a scientist, or in our training as graduate students or even medical studies, we are taught to be very focused. So, having to come out of that shell and embrace this bigger picture and having the strength to think about what impact I can have, because if you understand both sides of it, what you can think of achieving, you won't get it if you are just on one side of things.

So, for me, I like getting trained. That's why I thought of doing an MBA at that time. But I think, the amount of impact that you can have around you, it will broaden your horizon. To make yourself a better person, people around you better, and create a world which will be a better place. And in order for you to get there, I feel that doing a program like that requires just the first step.

[34:28]Maya: Yes.

[34:29]Shalini: We are all very trained to be hard workers, so that's not a problem. It's just taking that leap and believing that there is a bigger purpose to it. And that bigger purpose comes from understanding how it will impact what is happening around the world. And in your community in Houston, that matters to me because I feel that, what I stand for, Rice is here, but we are surrounded by very strong ecosystems or communities, like, whether it's Texas Medical Center, whether it's biomanufacturing, whether it's TMC Innovation or even Space Center, I think all of these can be leveraged and we can build a community to become a global leader or global hub for this, that's what is possible. And you can see that if you've done an MBA. That's what I'm trying to say. Before that, you can see one part, but now you can see, oh, my God, this is the impact that it will have if we are aligned and working together.

Yeah, I wanted to stand corrected that I have the figure right now for antibiotic resistance. I think, by 2050, the number of deaths would be 10 million.

[35:38]Maya: Wow.

[35:39]Shalini: So, that's huge. So, see, imagine the depth of problem I'm talking about in this case. And I can give you another example. Caroline is… like, kids get excited. We had a high school outreach, community outreach. So, some high school students came to our institute and they did lab work to get exposed to synthetic biology. They'd never even heard of the term. So, for them, it was awesome. But, like, one of the students that I saw the presentation, he worked in Dr. Caroline Ajo-Franklin's lab, where he was able to grow bugs or bacteria in a flask and then was able to generate electricity or light a bulb, LED bulb. Like, my kids do the experiment, right? Potatoes or lemon, you put two wires. And here, he was so excited to see that, you know, he can use bacteria, grow them, harvest those electrons and generate it at a small scale. But imagine the scope if we have the infrastructure where it can go.

[36:34]Maya: Lots of work to do, but so much optimism.

[36:37]Shalini: Exactly. It’s an exciting time to be in this field and to connect with like-minded people here and then move across boundaries.

[36:46]Maya: Yes. So, what's next for you? I know you, this is a new step, a new opportunity, but looking out 10 years, what do you hope to achieve?

[36:58]Shalini: Right now, the only focus I have is that, how can we become the hub, the place to be for synthetic biology? And I think the amount of time it will take is the time that you are talking about. Five to 10 years, I think that's the amount of time it'll need, if it really goes, as I think it will, or I plan to, means to become a hub, not only, like, if somebody says, “Okay, I want to do something in the synthetic world.” “Hey, Rice is the place. You should go there,” you know, or, you know, “Houston is the place.” The number of opportunities, the number of industries and academia-industry partnerships that can happen in the future.

So, for me, right now, my focus for the next five to six years is that. And if that succeeds, I don't know. I just know that it'll be something. Right now, my focus is just, will I get there?

[37:50]Maya: Something tells me you will. Well, it'll be great to catch up in a few years and see the progress. It's really been a pleasure. I learned so much in the short time that we had together. And thank you, Shalini, for taking the time to catch us up with what's going on in your world. We look forward to many more exciting developments and breakthroughs coming from Rice.

Thanks for listening. This has been Owl Have You Know, a production of Rice Business. You can find more information about our guests, hosts, and announcements on our website, business.rice.edu. Please subscribe and leave a rating wherever you find your favorite podcasts. We'd love to hear what you think. The hosts of Owl Have You Know are myself, Maya Pomroy, and Scott Gale.

[00:00] Maya: Welcome to Owl Have You Know, a podcast from Rice Business. This episode is part of our Up Next series, where faculty researchers and alumni weigh in on the trends currently shaping the world of business. I'm Maya Pomroy. And I have the distinct pleasure of being joined by not one, but two phenomenal guests on the show today, Assistant Professor of Management at the Jones School of Business at Rice University, Dr. Minjae Kim, and Dr. Ezra Zuckerman Sivan, the Alvin J. Siteman Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at MIT Sloan School of Management, who is also the co-founder of MIT Sloan’s Ph.D. program in Economic Sociology.

Thank you both for being here with us today. So, you both have a depth and breadth of expertise in not only management, but sociology, specifically organizational behavior. And you have dedicated yourselves to significant research on the human condition, our psychological motivations, and those sociological implications.

So, today, we're going to discuss your latest collaboration, focusing on flexible morality and a key reason why American voters support divisive misinformation. It's titled, “When Truth Trumps Facts: Studies on Partisan Moral Flexibility in American Politics.” And this is a forthcoming study in the American Journal of Sociology.

So, before we begin, I just want to say that this is a non-partisan study, as flexible morality is evident on both sides of the aisle, I think we can all attest. So, our conversation is going to be about the motivations of the human condition and evaluating personal truth over fact, which can sometimes lead to those mic-drop moments at the Thanksgiving dinner table. So, let's start a bit with your background. So, let's start with you, Ezra. Can you tell me what brought you to really have a passion for this kind of work?

[02:05] Ezra: Sure. Thanks, Maya. It's a pleasure being here. So, I'm a sociologist and was not working on politics for a long time, but I'm the child of a political scientist. That's one piece of background. The second is I have the great privilege of working with fantastic students at MIT.

Minjae is a former student, so are the other two co-authors on this paper, Oliver Hahl, who was a little earlier vintage than Minjae, Oliver and I were on Minjae's dissertation committee, and then the fourth co-author, Ethan Poskanzer, who's at University of Colorado Boulder, who was also a student, and I forget even who was on his committee, but we all, kind of, like, worked together.

You know, one of the pieces of pre-history for this project is a series of papers that, first, Oliver and I, and then Minjae and Oliver, and Oliver and I worked on together. And we were very, very interested in really understanding what sometimes I like to say as, sort of, funky logics of valuation. So, why it is that we value things that we, kind of, shouldn't value?

And that sounds like, what's the “should” coming from? Sometimes, it's actually inconsistent within our own valuation schemes, right? And so, what we were interested in was why is it that people sometimes seem to attribute more authenticity and more warmth to people or institutions who are lower status. So, on the one hand, you're, kind of, raising some people up, and you're taking them down on some other dimensions.

And so, Oliver and I and then Minjae and Oliver and I were doing a lot of work on this. And it's, kind of, a little hard puzzle to figure out. And then right after the 2016 election, one of our other former students, Roman Galperin, actually reached out and said, "You, guys, were right. It's all about authenticity."

And if you can recall back to that time, there was a lot of talk about how one of the reasons that Trump won, and Hillary Clinton lost was that Trump was perceived as being more authentic somehow. And he said, "See, you, guys, are doing all this work on authenticity. And you are right. It's all about authenticity."

[04:06] Maya: Or is it maybe being less scripted?

[04:09] Ezra: So, that was the puzzle I was trying to figure out. How it can be that he would be regarded as more authentic? And the reasons that... you know, first, for us, is I was trying to figure out what's, really, the puzzle here? Why is it hard to understand?

And so, some of it had to do with the fact that one of the reasons that people are regarded as more inauthentic, in general, is that if you're more intrinsically loaded, motivated, or you're more pro-socially motivated, but not if you're, like, seeking fame or fortune, you're extrinsically motivated. That usually makes people seem inauthentic.

And we're going to get into, both sides of the political aisle have their issues, let's say, in the response to the politician and to the various kinds of statements, but let's just say there are people in the world who I think seem more intrinsically motivated than, and more pro-socially motivated than Donald Trump. That was one part of it. But the other part of it is that he has a bit of a challenge with telling the truth.

And actually, within the... And now, we're going to really get into truth versus fact, right? So, let's just say, sticking with the facts, being disappointed about saying things that are only factual, things that would stand up in a court of law, that kind of logic. That's not his game, you might say. And I'm using the word game for a reason because he's playing a different game.

And up to that point, Minjae... I mean, I got to turn to Minjae here for... One of the problems, I'm an advisor, I talk too much. So, Minjae should talk much more than me in this, in this episode. In the large social science literature leading up to that point, I would say there was almost, like, sincerity, you know, you could define as saying things that are only factual, for instance, was centrally regarded as a synonym for authenticity.

You know, that seemed like impossible, basically an impossibility that you could be regarded as insincere and also as authentic. And in fact, one of the first studies we did was a survey. And we showed that Trump voters actually themselves did not see Donald Trump as sincere, did not see him as warm, but did see him as authentic. That's what got us going in this line of research. And that ultimately leads to the study that we're doing today. We're not talking about our first study. We're talking about our second study.

[06:10] Maya: And that first study actually did win a prize. It was the Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue. That's what the title was. Proclaiming the Deeper Truth About Political Illegitimacy. And it won the 2019 Cooley-Mead Prize for best article. So, was that your first collaboration together?

[06:26] Minjae: So, it was actually the second collaboration with Ezra and Oliver Hahl, the former student of Ezra, and, you know, now also one of my committee members. So, kind of, the go off of what Ezra was talking about. I think one of the key things that we really wanted to focus on was that we started with a premise that not only do politicians spread misinformation on all sides of the spectrum, but also, people often, you know, recognize the possibility, very salient possibility, that politicians lie very often.

So, there is literature in the political science talking about how it is actually very hard for politicians to appear authentic. So, one of the key things that we try to get at in that paper with the authentic appeal of the lying demagogue was essentially to identify a specific type of misinformation or specific type of lies that, you know, we label as lying demagoguery that would help that politician appear more authentic versus not under certain kinds of conditions.

So, you know, we thought that, kind of, one of the key motivation was not necessarily that all lies, you know, make politicians appear authentic or, you know, that people thought that, you know, the misinformation was actually factually correct, but, you know, why and... when and why they might see the misinformation as factually incorrect but still, kind of, see the appeal in that. And obviously, that has some, or a lot of relevance to the more recent paper as well.

[07:50] Maya: So, Minjae, what got you interested in this kind of work? And I also want to go back a little bit and talk about how you ended up at Rice and your background.

[07:59] Minjae: So, I always have this insecurity about calling myself a sociologist because even though, you know, I do work in sociology, published in sociology journals, none of my degrees is in sociology. So, my undergrad is in political science, and my Ph.D. is in economic sociology, and more officially in management, working with Ezra and some of other fantastic community members, including Roberto Fernandez, Oliver Hahl, and Kate Kellogg, but at the same time, you know, I always had some interest in politics, too.

As an aspiring grad student, you would apply to different programs. And I applied to MIT Sloan as a graduate student because I saw Ezra Zuckerman and Roberto Fernandez, and I really like them. Also, as a, kind of, undergrad student, you don't really know why you like their work when you're an undergrad student. You're, kind of, like, you have this intuition about how you like their work, but you don't really know why.

[08:51] Maya: That's a very psychological and sociological element as well, isn't it?

[08:56] Minjae: It is, it is. So, I emailed Ezra, and I sent him, like, some of the work that I had done as an undergrad. And he actually emailed me back saying that, "I'm not so sure if it is a good fit yet, you know," because the work that I was doing was just completely different. It was, it was, like, not about, you know, what, what their work that Ezra and Roberto were doing.

And then I later figured out that my work was actually not in that realm that I claimed to have had interest. So, it helped me, that kind of conversation helped me see, like, different types of research and, kind of, connected different types of research with one another, which really, kind of, helped my, kind of, intellectual growth as well.

[09:37] Ezra: That's interesting. You know, it's a very, very interesting process, I think, you know. There's a whole backstory, I think, for every perspective, Ph. D., and Minjae has one, too, about how it is they find out about... probably because also, like, our program is not, like, a degree that is a name brand, kind of, degree.

And so, you, kind of, have to find your way into a little niche, but if any applicant, like you, come in with a certain idea about what research is, and what you like, what you don't like, what kind of standards you want to use, methods you want to use, and then it's a pretty transformative experience. You, kind of, have to be open to transformation. And we never know where things are going. Even, like, the faculty are moving targets, too.

I mean, when Minjae first applied, we certainly didn't know we were going to do this, right? That was something that... It was more part of our community. We were all trying to figure out what's going on. And it related to our research. And so, it was this puzzle that came to us that we all, kind of, rolled up our sleeves and, kind of, really wanted to try to understand.

[10:31] Maya: And so, this is around 2016.

[10:33] Ezra: This, kind of, tributary, or, I mean, river research, kind of, happened, like, two days after the election or something like that.

[10:37] Maya: Ironically, that was, that was the election.

[10:39] Ezra: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was the prompt.

[10:40] Maya: Yeah.

[10:40] Ezra: And for us, it was probably, like, we are supposed to understand what's going on with this thing about authenticity. And we were like, "Actually, no. We don't understand this at all." I think one of the things that's our principles, and you mentioned about the human condition, right, which is a big, lofty thing, but our reaction right away to that election and to the political dynamics since then and to a lot of dynamics that we see in other parts of the world where there's a lot of similarities to what's been going on in the States, is that we think that pretty much anyone can or would behave the way that voters are behaving.

And our emphasis is always on voters or citizens, not so much on the politicians. We want to understand why it is, sort of, like, the demand side of the political market, why it is that people respond the way they do. And our belief is that there's nothing really different fundamentally, let's say, about Democrats or Republicans. It's more that the situation that they're in.

And that's one of the things that we were very proud about in the first paper is that we got basically both Republican voters and Democrat voters to behave in the same way, depending on how, where they were in experimental conditions. That's always been very important for us.

[11:47] Maya: So, that was the base study that then you could, you know, add into with this study. Let's talk about this study specifically. Can you give me an overview of it? How did you begin?

[11:59] Minjae: So, we essentially start from why do people respond positively to misinformation? There are all different types of misinformation. So, you know, we wanted to focus on a specific type of misinformation that we also focused on in the previous work, which, you know, we often call lying demagoguery, but, kind of, the broader term might be the misinformation that people might actually recognize as based on not true facts.

[12:26] Maya: So, it's their truth, but it's not fact.

[12:29] Minjae: Exactly. So, by the way, we didn't know exactly... you know, we didn't have exact distinction when we started the paper. So, it was, kind of, a learning process as we went on. The technical term for this, and I don't know if it will make it to the podcast, is, “bullshit,” you know.

[12:44] Maya: I think that's great. It should be on the podcast. I think-

[12:47] Minjae: Yeah.

[12:47] Maya: ... everybody understands that word.

[12:49] Minjae: Yeah. So, actually, so, the philosopher, Harry Frankfurt, he came up with this concept that bullshit is... So, there are lies, and there is bullshit.

[12:57] Ezra: You can find him on YouTube, too. He passed away recently, sadly. But when the book came out, he was on Colbert. He was all over the place. It's great stuff.

[13:06] Minjae: And the book is essentially about how the lies, as we colloquially use, the lies are often to mislead people to believe in something that is not factually correct. So, lies often pretend to be, you know, factually correct statement, and which means that even the liars try to often hold the norm of what we call the fact grounding, that people think that it is... they think that it is important to be grounded in on facts.

[13:32] Maya: What I've noticed is, like, if you say something over and over and over again, then people start to believe it, regardless of what it is. Even, you know, my child will sit there and say the same thing over and over. I'm like, "That's not true," but if you say it over and over and over again, it starts to, sort of, overwhelmingly consume you.

[13:51] Minjae: I see. So, I think, I think that's definitely taking place in a lot of types of misinformation. And we actually get some of that, too, which we'll call, like, a factual flexibility. People actually believe the facts behind the misinformation.

But at the same time, we focus on, kind of, the type of misinformation that we, you know, label as bullshit, which, essentially, the people who are saying bullshit, they do not care. They not only don't care if it is grounded on facts, they don't care about the norm of fact grounding that, you know, one is supposed to tell a fact.

[14:22] Maya: Why do they not care?

[14:23] Minjae: I mean, so, that's another thing about, kind of, the... we also focus on the demand side. Like, the politicians who tell such bullshit, like, we don't really know their motivation. They might, you know, they might have more... you know, do them more habitually, or they might, you know, know, strategically speaking, they might know what kind of a reaction that it will evoke, and stuff like that, but that is more of a, kind of, the mystery to us, like, that we, kind of, black box that. Go ahead.

[14:46] Ezra: So, I'd say two things to that, Minjae. That was great. Right. I think if you use the metaphor of a market, right? Think about the political market. So, the politicians are selling something, right? Ultimately, what they're trying to sell you on is to vote for them, right? But they're trying to sell you on something. And ultimately, it's what the market will bear. So, if a particular kind of message is working in one way or another, that's what they'll go with.

They, kind of, surf the crowd. Basically, it's a, it's a, sort of, capitalist political market, right? By figuring out why voters or citizens respond to it the way they do, and you can, sort of, back out why it is the politicians would do what they, what they do, but the short answer is because it works. The second thing is, I just want to, kind of, like, reinforce something that Minjae, I think, was hinting at, which is so we, kind of, take issue with a lot of the way that misinformation is discussed in the media, but also by a lot of social scientists.

And it's a very subtle thing. It's not that we think that they're wrong, but we think we're, sort of, like... by being, kind of, partly right, you miss something really, really, really important. And the “partly right” is that people believe misinformation, you know. If you repeat something, people believe in it. That definitely happens.

Where our view is that people get... people, the media, and other social scientists for the most part, but there's some exceptions, tend to get a little bit too distracted by that fact, the fact that people actually do believe in, like, say, for instance, partisans. Partisan voters do tend to believe what their partisan standard bearers, their candidates are saying.

However, our view is that they don't just believe it, right? They find it compelling in a way that is not exactly, like, they believe it being, to be factual. They think there's a deeper truth that is behind it, or when they do, it doesn't, kind of, matter that much to them whether it's actually factual. And so, in a sense, they don't really believe it.

And our hunch is they can sort... You know what? They won't necessarily admit this. You have to, kind of, get it in a very subtle way, but they can tell the difference. They know the difference between things that are actually well-grounded factually and things that express a deeper truth that they're, kind of, let's say, excited about or maybe pissed off about.

[16:56] Maya: Yeah, that's part of it, I think, the emotional component that triggers people. And they won't budge, you know. The American population is very, very brilliant, smart. Well, in my experience, I've met folks where it doesn't matter. I mean, you could tell them that the sky is blue, and it is green, and it is going to be green forever.

And it's like, okay, I don't... I mean, I can't change your mind, even though they know that the sky is blue, but they'll just keep on telling me it's green. And you just, kind of, go round and round and round until you're just so tired. And you're like, "Okay. Fine. It's green."

[17:32] Minjae: So, yeah. So, one of the things, I think, so, one of the things that we tried to get at through these studies is, like, under what conditions do people say that the sky is green even though they know that it is blue? It's essentially, kind of, our key question. And the key thing that we tried to get at is that it's not because somebody is a Republican or Democrat, or if somebody is conservative or liberal. It's because they are under certain kinds of conditions, and they see this misinformation as taking place in those conditions.

So, that's, kind of, one thing. Another thing that I, kind of, want to add to what Ezra said was I thought it would be useful to, kind of, state the very questions that we asked the online subjects that we ask... you know, show this misinformation. So, we show, kind of, the Trump supporters the statements of misinformation that President Donald Trump has said since we have run these surveys during and after his presidency.

And actually, when we ask the question of whether they think that the statement was made based on objective evidence versus subjective impressions, objective evidence being seven and subjective impressions being one, in four out of the five studies, the people who say that they support Donald Trump and voted for Donald Trump, actually, they're more likely to say that those statements are based on subjective impressions than objective evidence, in four out of five studies.

So, you know, Maya, as you said, they know that, you know, the sky is actually blue, you know. And this is the same when we look at the Democrats as well. And we show the statements by Joe Biden and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So, people often recognize that it is not based on objective evidence, but as you were saying, Maya, they do distinguish it from truth and fact.

So, the question that we try to get at in terms of the truth is, “How true do you think this statement is?” And the people, when they evaluated the statement of misinformation from their own partisan politician, they evaluated the statement to be much more true than based on objective evidence.

[19:36] Maya: And that's also confirmation bias. That's a confirmation bias, is if you already, you know, are aligned.

[19:42] Ezra: It is confirmation bias, but again, it's a little subtle, right? So, as Minjae was saying, so, you're more likely to say it's based on objective evidence, but you're much more likely to say that it's true. That distinction is not a confirmation bias kind of thing, right? Confirmation bias would be, like, I have a set of preconceptions about how the world works, and then I look for confirmation, and then basically reinforce in my belief about facts about the world.

And as Minjae was saying before, we didn't, this part of the study, where there's really two, kind of, main results, and this is one of them, we didn't expect this. We thought people, like Americans generally, use the term fact and truth interchangeably. We found that we don't.

Both Democrats and Republicans don't use facts, or in this case, say objective evidence and truth interchangeably, but you actually have a different standard for what you consider to be true somehow. And it seems to be about, kind of, this deeper sense of truth that isn't necessarily rooted in fact.

And then what people do is, if it's about my side of the political divide, I use a truth standard, and I say... I am more likely to say that it's based on objective evidence than the other side is, even though, like Minjae was saying, not really that much, but I'm really more likely to say, "Oh, yeah. It doesn't really matter so much if it's based on objective evidence. What matters is that it's true," but then...

[21:00] Maya: It's a higher standard. It's a higher standard.

[21:02] Ezra: Well, it depends, you know. The thing is that I flip it. That's the key thing. So, when I'm evaluating the other side... So, if I'm a Trump supporter, I will use the standard of truth to evaluate a Trump statement, but I'll use the standard of objective evidence when evaluating a statement by, say, as Minjae was saying, AOC.

I hold them to a factual standard. And then we flip it, right? So, Democrats hold their own candidates to a truth standard, but they hold, they hold Trump, and we also have one for Ron DeSantis, to a fact standard, right? So, in a sense, the fact standard really is the higher standard.

[21:42] Maya: So, it's different standards, but it's, I mean, apples and oranges. So, you've got apples and oranges. And, you know, you just, sort of, pick and choose based on what your own personal-

[21:52] Ezra: Right.

[21:52] Maya: ... truth is regardless of the facts.

[21:55] Ezra: The facts. Yeah.

[21:56] Minjae: Right. So, again, just to, kind of, put it in a more concrete example. So, one of the, kind of, statements that we showed to Democrats by the President Joe Biden was about vaccination.

And he said the following statement about vaccination, which is, "The unvaccinated, not the vaccinated, the unvaccinated, that's the problem. Everybody talks about freedom and not to have a shot or have a test. Well, guess what? How about patriotism? How about making sure that you're vaccinated so you don't spread the disease to anyone else?" And that's not factually correct in that, you know, even if you're vaccinated, you know, there's a probability, you know, I don't know.

[22:31] Maya: You can still get sick.

[22:31] Minjae: Exactly. And you might still-

[22:33] Maya: Yeah. I mean, I was vaccinated, and I got sick.

[22:35] Minjae: ... you might still spread it to other people. So, we showed it to a lot of different kind of democratic subjects from the online subject pool. And we asked them, kind of, like, "Why do you evaluate the statement as the, as the way that you do?" And one of them says that, "I'm not saying that it is never important for a leader to be based on objective evidence. In many cases, it is essential. However, I believe that there are times when it is more important for a leader to send the right message even if it's not entirely accurate."

[23:05] Maya: So, moral flexibility.

[23:07] Minjae: So, moral flexibility. That... you know, it is important to be, "True," you know, that... you know, which is more consistent with their partisan value than it is based on being factually correct. So, there's a, there's a, kind of, interview by Anderson Cooper with representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a few years ago. I think it was, it was before COVID, you know.

It was after 2016, I think. She expresses this kind of sentiment when Anderson Cooper, kind of, asks, you know, that she is sometimes flexible with facts, sometimes does not state always factually accurate statements. She says something along the line, I don't think it is verbatim, but something along the line about how it is more important to be morally correct, you know.

Although it is important to be factually correct, but it is more important to be morally correct. And I think that communicates much of what we find. And just to be very, very clear, I'm sure that I am also subject to that.

[24:01] Maya: We all are. We all are.

[24:02] Minjae: We all are. We all are. It's not like, you know, people are, kind of, morally corrupt or people are, you know, more upstanding or something like that. We all are. And to some extent, we might even need to be in some situations, but, you know, in this particular case of political misinformation, it does not really help us to get over the political partisanship and, kind of, meet on the same ground based on facts.

[24:27] Maya: We touched on a little bit about... Could you explain the difference between factual flexibility and moral flexibility?

[24:33] Ezra: So, one of the things we do is we ask people in each of these studies. So, they get a statement. And Minjae gave one of those examples. The very first statement we used that was a Trump statement was a statement he made right before the midterm elections in 2018, which was about, you know, a caravan of Middle Easterners who were coming up towards the border. And that was, let's just say, very, very, very loosely based on a pseudo fact. Yeah.

And then more importantly, maybe it's also, like, there was no attempt to try to, like, justify it factually. Like, when Trump makes a statement like that, and when he was in the administration, like, the administration doesn't even try to bother to, like, try to... So, that's, kind of, like, a violation of the norms of... our usual norms of, say, a courtroom, of fact grounding.

[25:18] Maya: Did you find that this is... you know, the golden goose, so to speak, I'm trying to make it sound nicer than it is, of why there's so much divisiveness and alienation and... You know, is that what it is, is that it's not the same standard? It's not the same test. It's a, it's a higher degree of fact as opposed to belief. So, is that the reason that there's so much divisiveness and anger, really, and people can't talk to each other anymore.

You know, what I've noticed, and I'm sure everybody on the planet has, is that you just, sort of, stay away from that because you don't want to open up a box of wasps that's going to come and attack you. And so, without that discourse, aren't we losing, really, what this country is based on is this political discourse that we have this freedom, but because of this divisiveness and these different standards, that we're losing, sort of, who we are in the midst of all of it.

[26:25] Minjae: So, the short answer is that we don't have an exact answer to that question, but I browse academic Twitter a little bit. There's a philosopher, whose name I'm forgetting. He put it in a term that I thought was really insightful, which is that misinformation may be a symptom and not necessarily a cause of this, kind of, the political divide.

The fact that people are so divided, and there is already populist politics, which, kind of, gives a rise to this, kind of, misinformation, but at the same time, I'm sure that it might still feed back into being a cause of this deeper political divide based on which, you know, when people don't agree on facts and what is important, they might never be able to agree on what policy to implement, for example.

[27:09] Maya: So, what's the cause? Big question.

[27:12] Ezra: So, I agree with Minjae. I think it's probably more symptom than cause. We don't know. It maybe reinforces, though. Like you're saying, Maya, it can't be good if you can't actually have... be on the same page and talk about the things you really talk about, right, which is, I think, what you're speaking to, Maya, is somehow get to those deeper truths, right? So, there's a narrative that's very, I think, popular on the right in America about what's wrong with America.

And there's narratives on the left, you know, that are deep narratives about what's wrong with America. And those are very different narratives. And that's what people... when you express those deeper truths, those narratives, is what gets people on each side, kind of, excited without necessarily being so grounded in facts, but then can we actually have a conversation about what those narratives are and reconcile those? That seems to be really hard.

In our previous paper, what we did was we created, kind of, like, a simulated version of an American political moment in which we created a situation. Like, it's like it was a campus election in which there were two ways of creating what's known by political sociologists as a legitimacy crisis that made people feel like the system was illegitimate in some way. And one way was through making it seem like the establishment politicians were corrupt, right?

So, think about some of our current politics and when that's mentioned, right? And the second was about making it seem like the establishment was favoring some groups over others, upstart groups. So, when we created those conditions, that's when people got excited about and found a lying demagogue authentic.

And it's when they made statements that were essentially, kind of, like, a little bit of a dog whistle about those narratives. That's what these statements, sort of, do. I would say, you know, getting to the truth of those grievances, those grievances exist on both right and left, and trying to get a discourse about them-

[29:07] Maya: And fester.

[29:07] Ezra: ... they totally fester.

[29:07] Maya: They fester.

[29:08] Ezra: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And this, kind of, discourse reinforces it rather than actually addresses them. That's our challenge is getting to a discourse about those narratives.

[29:16] Maya: Well, and one thing that you said is that I think everybody has their ideas of what's wrong with America, right? Both sides. This is wrong, and this is wrong, but nobody seems to be focusing on, okay, this is wrong, and this is wrong. Let's talk about what's right, right? Let's talk about how we're more alike than we are different, you know. And I think that's what's missing.

And that's what I think a lot of people are really aching for today is that, you know, let's talk about how... you know, all the good that we have in this country. And I think that that's the focus is this is wrong, and this is wrong, and I don't believe this, and I don't believe that, rather than, "Hey, we're Americans."

[29:55] Ezra: So, here's something that might be both a source of hope, like you were saying, building what you were saying, Maya, though also, to me, troublesome, which is Minjae and I are both in schools of management. So, we have a little bit of perspective on the economy.

And so, I think the economy, the American economy, is a place where Americans of all types meet each other, and do business with each other, do all kinds of creative, exciting things together. And it is quite robust. Now, it has challenges. But if you look at the state of the American economy, especially compared to, to the rest of the world, the American economy is doing fantastically well. Now, that doesn't mean it doesn't have troubles.

And now, I'm going to get into trouble a little bit because, like, this is one of the things that is very different across the partisan divide, though, actually, I think both on right and left, people are complaining about the economy. You ask most economists, you ask most business school professors, people seem to be complaining about the economy more than they should.

So, we're back to a little bit of the, you know, gap between some kind of sense of truth and facts. And also, there are people who are really clearly suffering in this economy. But the American economy, and there was a great jobs report that came out just now, like, shows you that Americans, even despite our divide and our different narratives, at least about politics, can do great things together. And so, maybe that's a source of hope.

[31:10] Maya: Absolutely, it's a source of hope. And I'm wondering, based on history, because that was one of my questions as well when I read the study was, has this happened before? And is social media the reasoning behind this or not?

[31:25] Minjae: So, on the, on, kind of, the more contemporaneous example and perhaps example that, you know, not to trivialize this issue, but one of the things that I often talk about, that two people... when we talk about this example, is that we often tell the story to young kids or, you know, babies about how Santa Claus is there. The gift that you get on the Christmas morning is a, is a Santa Claus drops off the gifts under the tree overnight.

[31:53] Maya: And he comes down the chimney, which is really scary.

[31:56] Minjae: The chimney, you know. And, you know, there all, kind of, the related factually incorrect statements that are made to the kids. But people of, you know, many different backgrounds endorse that statement because they agree what the underlying truth, in this case, kind of, to keep the pristine, the magic of the holiday, magic of Christmas to the young kids.

[32:24] Maya: Until they find out that it's not true. That's the worst day ever.

[32:29] Minjae: So, I think the hope that Ezra is mentioning, and which I also share essentially, that when people... even if there is some kind of separation between the facts and truth that people recognize as, that if they can agree what, kind of, the goal that they should seek out for, then, you know, there might be... this divide might not necessarily be a hurdle.

That said, we don't know if it is easier to arrive in the same goal or if it is easier to arrive at the same facts. We don't really know which one is easier. So, the prescription would have to depend a little bit on that. But, you know, the economic goal might be, kind of, one of them, so it could be, but yeah, that's...

[33:10] Maya: Economics is always a shared goal, you know. Like, let's bring it back to business. And that's true. It's the quality of life. It's the quality of life that you have.

[33:19] Minjae: That's right.

[33:19] Maya: And Ezra said, you know, the U.S. population and the American economy is, at this moment, doing significantly better than most. And that is one source of where we can agree. And we can agree to disagree on some things, but, you know, everybody wants to be able to feed their children and have homes and be able to go to the grocery store and be able to live in a peaceful, safe environment, those basic needs.

[33:47] Ezra: And that's at a base level, but we also, I think, hope... and Minjae was saying, I think, we don't know exactly how to get there, but we do hope that... like Minjae was saying about himself, I say it's true for me, too. What this paper has done is made me reflect on when I basically shift standards and use a higher standard the other side than I use for myself, whatever, kind of, divide I'm in.

And we, kind of, hoping that people, if you read this paper, you think about it. You reflect on, like, "Maybe I can be a little more consistent in the standards that I'm holding and not hold my rivals, opponents, the other side of the Thanksgiving table," as you're saying, Maya, "to a higher standard that I hold myself to and my side to." We're not sure how to get there, but we're hoping that we can get there.

[34:34] Maya: One of my questions is, when has this happened in the past?

[34:36] Ezra: So, I'm not an expert in Texas politics, but there's several great chapters in one of the volumes by Robert Caro, his multi-volume series on LBJ. And if you read that volume, it's really eye opening. So, this is about the 1948 Senate election. And there's a series of chapters there. It's most notorious for a famous boat stealing, a thing that happened down in the Rio Grande.

But I think from contemporary politics, what's most interesting is that in that, you know, describes, actually this is all, I think, preceded LBJ, it was a part of Texas politics at the time, was two features that we associate today with contemporary politics were very well-known back then. One of them is fake news. And so, you know, he put out, kind of, a very professional-looking newspaper that was meant to look like a real newspaper.

And you can think about the environment back then, very, very rural, very large state. And so, getting the word out was not easy. It was, I think, called the Johnson Gazette or something, but it was like one tool that he used very, very well, but like I said, it was just part of Texas politics that he didn't invent. And the second, which I think is the most interesting, is he used something that was also the pre-existence of him, which was known as missionaries.

And these were men who were known in local communities. And Caro describes essentially very immigrant-dominated communities, I think German speaking or Czech speaking, and maybe some others, in which you would basically pay a guy who hung around the town square.

And that guy presented himself as just a guy who happened to know about this congressman, you know, out in Hill Country, you know, near Austin, that was a great guy. "And you didn't hear about him. You know, Lyndon, he's a young guy, but he's going places. And he's my boy, Lyndon." That, kind of, thing. And this is, kind of, the equivalent of what today we notice, like, Twitter bots, right?

People who present political ideas and present themselves as being, kind of, neutral, but in fact are agents, right, are tools. And that's probably as old as politics, in one way or another. And so, to me, when I read that, and I share that with my students, kind of, does clue you into, yeah, things change and things get worse, but actually, some of this stuff is things we've been... that have been part of our politics for a long, long time, and that. And by the way LBJ was a Democrat. Don't tell anybody.

[36:53] Maya: Sure. No, that's why I thought it was an interesting story because it isn't Republican or Democrat or Independent or anything. It's just human nature and...

[37:04] Ezra: Yeah. And the incentives of politics.

[37:05] Maya: Since the beginning of time.

[37:07] Minjae: Some of the, kind of, the intervention work that, on this topic, has been done by other researchers, not by us, but some of the other researchers, including people like Jan Boeckel and James Chu and Robb Willer, who come out of this, kind of, project called the Strengthening Democracy Challenge.

And they have done, you know, a lot of work, both, you know, in the lab setting and also in the, in the field experiment, meaning that they actually have the real people come in and do different types of intervention in order to make sure that they come closer in their... you know, how they perceive facts and how they perceive truth and how they see one another and stuff like that. So, there are, there are lots of projects that come out of this that are related to this and that should be relevant to our conversation as well.

[37:49] Maya: Sure. And recognizing and being open to understanding that this is happening. And once you recognize the problem, then you can start thinking about the solutions in anything in life, you know, but step one is recognition, right? And so, one of my last questions is... I guess, we don't know what the answer is on how to solve it other than this is a study.

It's an impartial study. This is what we see. This is happening. This is fact. This is fact. And you can interpret it however way you want to, weaving in your own truth, but these are the facts. We don't know what the future holds, but what are your hopes of what your study... how it will help our society?

[38:33] Ezra: I would say, a little bit what I said already, is that I hope it gets at least some self-reflection, that people are realizing that they're using different standards for themselves and for others. And actually, one of the things I hope is, like, this is just the beginning research for us. We hopefully have a lot of people build on our research. I see a lot of areas of application where people are using different standards in different ways.

You can see it, I would say, in a lot of the tumult since October 7th on our campuses. People are using very different standards on each side of the divide, again, holding the other side to much higher standards than you're holding yourself to in the statements that you're making. And so, my hope is that, somehow, we get to be a little more reflective about these things and apply those lessons and maybe take the temperature down in our politics because of that.

[39:19] Maya: Yes. Temperature down sounds like a good plan. And that would definitely... that's something that I'm hoping for ourselves and for future generations as well. So, Minjae, what's next for you? I know that you have done a lot of other really interesting and unique studies.

[39:35] Minjae: So, on some of what's next on my plate is related to, kind of, your question as well. Like, under what kind of conditions do people actually come together, and when and why they might, you know, take this temperature down? I'm, you know, optimistic about... perhaps not completely optimistic, but somewhat hopeful about this, partly because, you know, insofar, as there's this distance between facts and truth and, you know, people of different partisan sides, they can't meet in the middle round because they disagree on what the, what the truth should be, then there should be some, kind of, you know, political entrepreneurs, so to speak, some of those who try to bridge those gaps for their own good, for their own strategic good.

And they might profit off of it. And so, it might be more individually motivated, but that might be good for the collective and for the whole society as well. So, me and my another co-author, we're trying to get at, essentially, kind of, conditions under which that might be happening. And this is very much still research in progress, but that's some of what's on my plate.

[40:34] Maya: Well, that's very exciting. And we certainly look forward to that. This has been a fascinating discussion. And I've learned a lot. And I hope that our listeners do as well. The study Flexible Morals: A Key Reason American Voters Support Divisive Misinformation will be in the American Journal of Sociology. And we look forward to more of your research and more of your work. And we want to thank both of you for being on the program.

[41:01] Ezra: Been a pleasure, Maya. Go, Owls!

[41:03] Minjae: Thank you very much.

[41:06] Maya: Thanks for listening. This has been Owl Have You Know, a production of Rice Business. You can find more information about our guests, hosts, and announcements on our website, business.rice.edu. Please subscribe and leave a rating wherever you find your favorite podcasts. We'd love to hear what you think. The hosts of Owl Have You Know are myself, Maya Pomroy, and Scott Gale.