A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations. Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered. Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher? Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved. F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on? BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation. Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas? BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty. F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity? BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals (up to around 2–2.5 meters), while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently. A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans. F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play? BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is her [the anaconda’s] favorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?” For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste. One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey. We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh (to block smaller animals), and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals. F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them? BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data. However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework. To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society. The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead? BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere. F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research? BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups. The Q&A can also be read here.

David Brickley is something of a social marketing pioneer. In 2011, he founded STN Digital, a leading social-first digital marketing company in sports and entertainment. STN now has more than 50 employees and creates hundreds of pieces of content daily for partners like ESPN, Warner Bros., NBC Sports, Under Armour, the Philadelphia Phillies, and NBA star Jayson Tatum, among dozens of others. The company helped Elton John launch his TikTok. In 2023, digital sports viewership surpassed traditional television viewers for the first time. Forty-three percent of young adult sports fans follow their favorite league on social media, 54% follow their favorite athlete, and 32% of all sports fans use social media while watching games. Brickley and STN have been at the forefront of this social-first revolution. Brickley never wanted to start a social marketing agency. But when Kobe Bryant opens a door—even by accident—you walk through. Building a business A lifelong Lakers fan who grew up east of Los Angeles, Brickley took a job in 2011 as a producer at Fox Sports Radio with the dream of hosting his own sports talk radio show. “I thought I should have my own afternoon show,” he said. “My program director thought differently.” Shut down by the higher-ups, Brickey became an entrepreneur by necessity. He used Fox Sports AV equipment and studio space after hours to launch his own YouTube channel. At the time, original sports content on the platform was scarce. His content regularly made it on YouTube’s front page, which grew his profile enough for him to start working directly with professional athletes, eventually landing Bryant as a client in 2013. In an exclusive interview, Brickley spoke with Fast Company about his evolution into a digital maven, sharing his insights on how social audience habits have changed, how he sees them evolving in the future, and how any company can build a social content strategy that works. The interview has been edited and condensed. How did you land Kobe Bryant as a client when you were just getting started as a small shop? It started with good karma. I did a ton of favors for the publicist of Matt Barnes, who was a Lakers player at the time, and as a favor, I interviewed his twins after they got on the honor roll at their elementary school. In exchange, I got a 10-minute one-on-one with Matt. Then one day I was at a boxing class and I ran into his publicist. She mentioned she was working with Kobe, so I asked if I could send over some ideas. Because of all those favors I’d done, she let me pitch Kobe the concept of the “Kobe Minute”—a 60-second weekly video about his on-court and off-court successes. They loved it because we could highlight his charitable work without it feeling self-promotional. How did creating content for Kobe and his team open your eyes to the idea of creating a social marketing agency? The Kobe opportunity was the epiphany moment. I had just reached out to my childhood hero about working together, and he said yes. So I realized if I could land Kobe, I could reach other athletes and teams too. We built an Excel sheet with all 32 NFL teams, found every email, and reached out. Seven hopped on calls, three wanted proposals, and the Minnesota Vikings were willing to try us out as a partner. It was pure bootstrapped cold outreach. Being able to create your own destiny without relying on someone else for opportunity was intoxicating. You started STN Digital basically from scratch. What struggles were your clients having when creating original content—specifically for social—and how did you position yourself as the solution? Back in 2013, every sports entity had social channels—the Facebooks and Twitters. But they weren’t posting original content. They had these audiences but didn’t know how to engage them. Social was just a PR dump of press releases and super boring, non-fan-centric content. So my message was, “We understand fans, we understand what the sports fan wants, and we can curate content specifically on social that speaks to them.” You gotta understand that at that time, a fan-first approach of speaking authentically about topics fans cared about didn’t exist. Now, as we transition to 2025, every CEO, president, CMO in the world is starting to think about a social-first approach, which is awesome to see. How does the agency work? In what ways do partners deploy your services and expertise on a given social marketing campaign or initiative? Our clients use us in one of two ways. Usually, they’ll either hire us as a world-class social media department and we run everything A to Z—copywriting, content, analytics, everything—or they’ll bolt us on as a world-class content house. In that case, they have an incredible team already, but they add us on top because their team doesn’t have three and a half hours to dream up a bunch of dope ideas in a whiteboard session or simply need more engaging content for all their initiatives. ESPN has a 75-person social team with incredible engines internally, but we’re able to be that supercharger to take them from 99% potential to hopefully 125% potential. What’s an example of a creative campaign you’ve executed that you’re really proud of? Our work with the Indiana Fever during the Caitlin Clark draft just won a Webby. My team spent 70 to 80 hours creating this video of a Toy Story-esque action figure of Caitlin Clark dribbling around her bedroom, shooting hoops. It got around 10 million views on TikTok alone and 500,000 engagements. What’s interesting is we’re seeing lo-fi content outperform hi-fi content by 40% more views and 30% more engagements on average. But this high-production piece was thumb-stopping creative that nobody else was posting—something that made people think, I gotta watch the rest of this. It’s something the Fever and we are super proud to have collaborated on. What are some of the biggest misconceptions you see about social marketing content, and what strategies that may seem counterintuitive actually work? I look at social media as upper-funnel fan engagement—building community, credibility, and trust. But a lot of the time, brands see it as a lower-funnel platform where they’re trying to talk about brand, logo, messaging, and calls to action. You have to be social on social. You have to provide value—whether it’s education, laughter, or elicit some type of emotion. People aren’t required to follow you, so why do they? You have to build that relationship. Brands that do social wrong are mostly just, “Look at me, look at me!” and constantly making calls to action. That’s not how you build true community, no different than a friendship or relationship. For every eight things you give your community, you have then earned the right to ask for two things in return. And the value you give in that 80% needs to be memorable. What are some of the other lessons you’ve learned about social engagement or audience behavior over the years? The power of real-time social, especially in sports, continues to be undervalued. During the Olympics with NBC Sports, we worked back-to-back 12-hour shifts daily and helped them get 6.5 billion impressions in 17 days. Those impressions would cost $50 million if you bought them on the open market. The key is being ready for every moment. If Simone Biles won bronze, silver, or gold, we had content ready for all scenarios with different angles and storylines. Same with Caitlin Clark’s draft. We spent 30 days planning content for before, during, and after she was picked to capitalize on arguably the biggest moment in the Fever’s franchise history. How do you approach data and measurement when creating content strategies and campaigns? We follow the data of what works, but we also pay attention to how different platforms’ algorithms behave. Instagram will serve you something in your feed that happened five days ago, so there are considerations about what goes on Stories versus in-feed. We’re constantly obsessed with data—not just what’s working or not working, but what different post types perform best, whether it’s a reel, carousel, or single post. We’re analyzing timing, post type, static versus video versus carousel, and noticing how algorithms are being optimized differently across Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube. We use platforms like Sprout Social and Rival IQ to get super deep with third-party and first-party data. We analyze our top 10 and bottom 10 posts constantly—weekly or monthly—to understand why certain posts underperformed. We look at who was featured, what time it was posted, whether it was a carousel versus a reel. We might notice reels are taking a dive and wonder if the algorithm has changed. Not all engagement metrics are equal, either. Watching something for 3 seconds and scrolling past is much different than watching it for the full 60 seconds. And I believe that one of the most undervalued engagement metrics is shares. If you take time to DM content to a friend saying, “This is so us,” that’s 10 times more important engagement than just a “like” because you’re actually taking time to send it to someone you love. We look seriously at shareability and ask, “Is this something you want to DM your family or best friend?” What about platforms? Which are the most important, and where do you see the most success and engagement? We still see Instagram and TikTok at the top in terms of engagement and virality. From a sports perspective, Twitter is still that real-time water cooler—nobody else holds a candle to it. There have been attempts with platforms like Bluesky, but we saw with the Luka Dončić trade how NBA Twitter just exploded in ways other platforms can’t replicate. Social behavior continues to swing back and forth. Once something becomes too saturated, there’s an opportunity for new platforms or content types to emerge as fresh ways to connect with audiences. The key is being adaptable and understanding where your specific audience lives and engages most authentically. Marketing efforts can often become fragmented across different departments. How should companies think about aligning their social strategy with broader marketing goals? Social and sales teams—even CMOs and marketing teams—often operate separately from social, which is a problem. CMOs should always oversee the social department because it has to ladder up to a greater vision of value prop and audience understanding. Social and community building and fan engagement at the top of the funnel is all to eventually work people down the funnel to become customers and drive revenue generation. If I were a prospective client who came to you and said, “My social strategy sucks. What can I do?” what’s the first piece of advice you would give me? Where would you start? I would ask, “What audience specifically are you trying to grow?” Then we can reverse-engineer a strategy based on what that audience finds valuable, entertaining, and engaging. Are you trying to grow mass audience because you’re a large brand, or are you saturated in one demo but want to diversify? Then, once we identify the target avatar, we can develop a strategy based on what we know works with other brands talking to that same audience. Without figuring out who your customer is at the very top of the conversation, you’re just posting content and hoping it works with no real endgame. So let’s figure out who you’re talking to, what they want most, and how we can meet them where they are and deliver it to them.

LONDON - NOVEMBER 03: Production staff. (Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images)Getty Images To call psychological safety a strategic imperative across industries is no exaggeration. It is a proven driver of high-functioning teams, yet it remains one of the most misunderstood concepts. In complex, high-reliability sectors like healthcare and technology, where outcomes hinge on rapid decision-making, cross-disciplinary coordination and adaptive learning, creating an environment where ideas and people feel safe to speak, challenge and contribute is vital to cultivating a resilient and high-performing culture. Peer-reviewed studies consistently link psychological safety to greater innovation, more effective leadership, enhanced collaboration and measurable improvements in team performance. But widespread misconceptions often dilute its impact, framing it as comfort over honesty or consensus over constructive tension. This article examines the influence, common misconceptions and high-stakes applications of psychological safety, particularly within the evolving landscapes of healthcare, technology and modern organizational leadership. Understanding Psychological Safety Psychological safety refers to an individual’s perception of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in a particular context, such as the workplace. It is the belief that one can speak up, offer ideas, ask questions or admit mistakes without fear of punishment or shame. This concept, introduced by Amy Edmondson in 1999, has since been recognized as a cornerstone of effective team dynamics across multiple industry sectors. Psychological Safety And Widespread Misunderstandings A prevalent misinterpretation is equating psychological safety with comfort or the absence of conflict. However, proper psychological safety fosters an environment where challenging the status quo and engaging in constructive dissent are not only accepted but encouraged. It’s not about creating a conflict-free zone, but about ensuring that team members and employees feel secure enough to express diverse viewpoints and take calculated risks. Psychological Safety As A Public Health Issue As a health journalist, I’ve spent years tracing the ripple effects of emotional environments on the workplace. What I’ve learned is this: Psychological safety is a significant multiplier of well-being. When people feel unsafe expressing themselves, asking for help or communicating discomfort, the stress follows them into the other areas of their lives; it settles in the nervous system and accumulates gradually over time. The body and mind respond to social threats in the same way they respond to physical threats. It spikes cortisol, disrupts sleep, suppresses immune function and erodes the capacity for recovery, emotional resilience and self-regulation. Research from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2022) suggests that low levels of psychological safety in the workplace are significantly associated with increased rates of burnout, anxiety and emotional exhaustion, particularly among healthcare workers and employees in high-demand industries. Conversely, when psychological safety is present, teams perform and function more effectively. Individuals report increased levels of self-efficacy, greater emotional resilience and improved job satisfaction. Over time, this translates into better health and well-being outcomes, including lower inflammation, a more stable mood, enhanced relationships and a greater ability to self-regulate under pressure. If we want to future-proof our workforces and protect collective mental health, psychological safety is key in a world that increasingly runs on speed, precision, and pressure. The most humane and high-performing environments will be the ones that make it safe to be human. Healthcare & Technology, Two Climactic Industries A study published in Frontiers in Psychology emphasized that healthcare professionals who feel psychologically safe are more likely to voice concerns, ask questions and deliver feedback, leading to improved patient safety and overall care quality. Further, fostering psychological safety can mitigate burnout and enhance job satisfaction among healthcare workers. In the fast-paced tech industry, psychological safety is equally vital. Research indicates that teams with high psychological safety are more innovative, as members feel empowered to share ideas and admit mistakes without fear of retribution. An analysis in PLOS ONE found that psychological safety has a positive influence on employee innovative performance through enhanced communication behaviors. Why Psychological Safety Starts With Leadership While psychological safety flourishes within teams, its foundation is built by leadership. Business leaders are more than strategic architects; they are cultural stewards. Their behaviors set the tone for what is spoken, what is silenced and how people relate to risk. In psychologically safe environments, for instance, leaders model intellectual humility and leadership competency by inviting dissent, acknowledging uncertainty and rewarding sincerity, even when their ideas can be challenged. A 2023 study in the European Management Journal suggested that leaders who display transformational and servant leadership qualities, such as empathy, empowerment and active listening, inspired their followers to lead themselves. Conversely, fear-based leadership and micro-management can be correlated with team withdrawal, silence and reduced innovation. For executives navigating high-pressure sectors such as healthcare and technology, the implications are profound. When team members feel secure enough to challenge inadequate systems, report ethical concerns or propose unconventional ideas, organizations become more agile, transparent and resilient. And the benefits aren’t abstract. Companies that prioritize psychological safety report lower turnover, faster problem-solving and stronger employee engagement. For example, Google’s landmark Project Aristotle study on effective teams implied that psychological safety was the most critical factor driving team performance, surpassing expertise, intelligence or even tenure. In brief, psychological safety encompasses not only how people feel and behave, but also how they interact with others. It's about how leaders lead and inspire others to do the same within their organization while welcoming their teams' voices, input and feedback. Strategies For A Psychological Safety Toolkit Leadership Commitment: Leaders must model vulnerability and openness, encouraging team members to speak up and share their thoughts. Inclusive Practices: Implementing structured communication methods, such as regular check-ins and feedback sessions, can promote inclusivity. Training and Development: Providing training on effective communication and conflict resolution can equip teams with the tools to maintain psychological safety. Feedback Mechanisms: Establishing anonymous feedback channels can help identify and address issues promptly. Psychological Safety, A Competitive Advantage Psychological safety is a biological, emotional and cultural imperative. In industries like healthcare and technology, where lives are saved and systems are built in real-time, the ability to speak up without fear is a key difference between innovation and inertia, between resilience and risk. And the data is clear: teams that feel safe to share unpolished ideas, ask questions and admit mistakes outperform those that don’t. They adapt faster. They solve more complex problems. They build stronger cultures of trust where performance doesn't come at the expense of human fulfillment. Ultimately, leaders who cultivate psychological safety are raising the bar for relational excellence. They understand that creativity is fragile, feedback is transformational and psychological safety is the fertile soil in which both flourish. Whether you’re a hospital executive, a tech founder, or a team lead navigating daily pressures, the boldest act of leadership today may be about listening more deeply, inviting more voices and making it safe to fail forward. Because the future of work and well-being depends not only on what we build, but also on how bravely we allow others to co-create it with us.

As institutional interest in digital assets grows, the conversation must shift beyond market potential to a more critical issue: the security of these assets.