🎅 Should Santa be Running a Research Lab? Find out Now

Adam Smith:

Hello and welcome to the Dementia Researcher Podcast. The show you're about to hear was recorded as a livestream in the Dementia Researcher community. It was a charity event to raise money for Dementia UK and Admiral nurses. We enjoyed making it so much that I've decided to share it with you, our podcast audience. If you enjoy it as much as we enjoyed making it, please consider donating using the link in the show notes. Thank you.

Hello and welcome everybody to today's Dementia Researcher Christmas Special Debate. I'm Adam Smith and thank you for joining us for what is probably the most festive and possibly unrealistic debate of the year. Today, we're setting aside grant deadlines, ethics forms, and reviewer comments to ask genuinely important question disguised as a silly one. This house believes that Santa would make an excellent principal investigator. On the surface, this sounds absurd, but when you think about it, Santa runs a global operation, manages a highly specialist workforce, hits a fixed deadline every single year, and somehow delivers outputs at skill under intense time pressure.

Supporters will argue that this is exactly the kind of leadership academia needs. Critics may wonder about transparency, sustainability, work-life balance, and whether a once-a-year delivery model would really survive reviewer number two. This is a light-hearted debate, but like all good festive arguments, it tells us something about how we really think leadership works in research. And speaking this afternoon, we have arguing for the motion, Rebecca Williams, PhD researcher exploring FTD and apathy. Hello, Rebecca.

Rebecca Williams:

Hello.

Adam Smith:

And our grinch is Connor Richardson, Dr. Connor Richardson, who is speaking against the motion. He's a research fellow working in data science, epidemiology, and machine learning applied to dementia research. Hi, Connor. I'm sorry for calling you the Grinch. You're not the Grinch at all.

Dr Connor Richardson:

I mean, it's fairly accurate. I'm fine with that.

Adam Smith:

Thank you very much for both joining us in the spirit of the season and joining me as co-host for this debate. We have regular podcast host and former Dementia Researcher blogger, the incredible Dr. Anna Volkmer. Hi, Anna.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Hi, Adam.

Adam Smith:

Thank you all for getting in the spirit of this. So, if you've not joined any of our livestream bits so far, let me just explain the format. Each speaker is given 10 minutes to give an opening statement, and then we move into our moderated discussion led by our brilliant co-host, Anna Volkmer. And then we're going to have audience questions and a chance to chat this out a little bit. And before we start, we have a pre-debate poll to ask you what your views are on this topic at the start, and then we're going to pull you all again at the very end after the show to see if your opinions have changed. So, a hundred percent of our audience, not many voters though, agree that Santa would make a good PI.

So, Connor, all to play for as we go into the debate. But before we get to you, Rebecca, you're going to speak first for the House.

Rebecca Williams:

Yes. Well, I've based my argument on four key tenets that I think make an excellent programme leader, and they are organisation, collaboration, communication, and imagination. Now, organisation, I think this needs little introduction. Santa pulls off one of the most logistically complex projects in probably the history of the world. Now, according to an article that I found called The Science Behind Santa Claus, Santa delivers an estimated 595,980,000 toys on Christmas Eve alone. Now, let's compare that to one of the biggest companies currently delivering in the world.

Even the global conglomerate Amazon, according to a 2024 article, only delivers an estimated 24 million parcels worldwide per day of December, meaning across the whole month leading up to Christmas, Amazon just about matches Santa's 600 million delivered in a single night. Also, Amazon has approximately 1.6 million employees globally with Santa's elves, even by a generous estimate, only ranging in the tens to maybe hundreds of thousands. We rarely see Santa's workshops in all the documentaries I've watched scaling to nearly the level of millions of elves. And the logistics to get this done in one night is frankly insane.

And we know from the film After Christmas, sorry, the documentary Arthur Christmas, that all this is done in one night with precisely no margin of error. Not a single child can be missed. And this is in comparison to Amazon's less than stellar track record where they estimated that one in 10 people have a lost or stolen parcel in the last year. And let me ask you, wouldn't you want the man in charge of that global operation running your lab? Hell, wouldn't you want him running your department? All of that delivered at pace with not a single child left behind. A margin of error of precisely zero is incredibly impressive. Now, moving on to tenant number two, collaboration.

Santa has international collaborations with legendary figures across the globe, as seen in both the Santa Claus documentary and in Rise of the Guardians, in which Santa is in close conversation with the Easter Bunny, Jack Frost, Mother Nature, Father Time, the Sandman, and many more, who are all it seems part of some kind of community or collaborative attempt, maybe a cohort consortium to bring joy to the children of the world. This is further aided by Santa's international heritage. And as of 2008, he was granted Canadian citizenship whilst also modern day US claims he lives in Alaska. The general consensus seems to be that he has his base somewhere in the North Pole.

Finland, while on the other hand, claims is in left land, and he was perhaps born as St. Nicholas in what is modern day Turkey. And he even collaborates outside of the legendary figures with government agencies. That's right. Santa has an interest in policy. For example, the North American Aerospace Defence Command tracks Santa each year through NORAD track Santa. You can access this on Christmas Eve. I did it every year as a child to see where Santa was up to in travelling the world. It was great fun. And the Federal Aviation Administration on a similar front apparently grants Santa Claus special flight and launch permissions each year to make sure he can enter US airspace and also space.

Now, three, this is an important one to me, very near and dear to my heart. Communication. Santa has frankly outstanding public engagement. Representatives in shopping centres, Christmas fairs and parades around the world ensure he stays in touch with what the children want. That is textbook, participant and mission involvement and engagement on a mass scale. Okay. Santa would not only build a lab, but Santa would also build a better research community around it. Have you seen the cues for Santa? Imagine cues of participants waiting to join your latest study and you can't make it to them in person? Don't worry.

As there's also a longstanding tradition of sending letters to Santa, arguably starting in a small town called Smeerenburg some years ago, and most every one of them is read and the content's noted. In fact, in the documentary After Christmas, we even see that Santa's own son is responding to these letters. Santa is multimodal with his communication to make sure that no one is left out. And he's even experienced with the press. He has a history of bringing in money through various documentaries about his life and his ethical work practises. But communication isn't just external, we know this. And communication is key to a good research environment, to good research culture.

And we've seen that Santa works closely with the elves and the reindeer. We see lovely examples of this in the Santa Claus documentary with Santa collaborating closely with elves to problem solve new toys, not only being a great collaborator, but also an excellent mentor as concretely demonstrated by the loyalty shown to him by his employees. And when they want to branch out into different careers, he's equally as supportive as this. As we see in the Clay Nation Rudolph movie, Hermey wants to be a dentist, and he is told that he can go be a dentist. And as we all know, the best way to get an indication of whether a lab is excellent is to ask a former member of that lab.

There are very few of them because of how amazing the lab is, but Hermey is one and Hermey stands by Santa. We similarly see this with Buddy the Elf from the movie Elf. This demonstrates clear fairness and respect needed to be a good programme leader. And on the subject of fostering a positive research culture, need, I remind you that when Santa learned of bullying in the workplace, he stepped in and led by example, giving his employees the opportunity to shine. Rudolph, with your nose so bright, won't you fly in isolate tonight? That is leading by example. That is teaching your employees to embrace their differences and taking a harsh stance on harassment in the workplace.

And on the one reported occasion we have of a human being working at the poll, buddy in the movie Elf, not only were the elves universally supportive despite him being unable to meet their quotas, they said, and I quote, "We all have different talents, buddy, and then actively find him a job in which he can excel." People might add far more less accommodating when he leaves the poll, everyone in New York's terror. And finally, the fourth tenant of an excellent programme leader, imagination. You want the most creative ideas for your future research proposals with the most ingenious use of novel methodologies that most of the world isn't even using yet? Look no further.

He's been adapting to the latest demands of children the world over four centuries. Think of all the upskilling those elves had to do in complex computing and electronics over the last hundred years. And he also inspires creativity and imagination in others with a research article, a real research article of Breen et al in 2004, reporting that a belief in Santa fosters imaginative thinking, purposeful play, and concrete development.

And so, I shall leave you there with the argument that I think Santa Claus would make an excellent PI, working on these four tenants of organisation, collaboration, communication, and imagination to build a lab that is not only at the forefront of research, but also that builds a good research community and an excellent research culture. Thank you very much. That's all.

Adam Smith:

Wow. Thank you very much for your very passionate arguments there, speaking for making Santa a good PI. Connor.

Dr Connor Richardson:

At this time of year, I'm sure like me, you're feeling exhaustive, hopeful, or just a little bit dazed. Which is fitting because today we are asked a question that sounds charming, feels seasonal and is unfortunately on closer inspection, completely unhinged. Would Santa Claus make a good principal investigator? Now, before anyone accuses me of being unfair, humourless, all perish the thought and joy, let me say this clearly. I have nothing against Santa Claus. He is efficient. He is famous. He has excellent branding and quite frankly, Andres Sense alone, I hope I see him at AAIC next year. However, a principal investigator is not a mascot. They are not a myth.

They are not a morale boosting presence once a year. A principal investigator is a job, a punishing, bureaucratic, ethically constrained paperwork heavy job, and Santa Claus are catastrophically unsuited to this. But let us be fair. Let us begin with the case for Santa, because it is, at first glance, very seductive. So, why do people fall for this? We are told that Santa has a proven track record of delivering enormous projects on fixed annual deadline. That's true. However, it's once a year. With no interim reporting, no progress meetings, and no requirements to explain any methodology. We are told he manages a vast international workforce with no HR complaints on record.

Also, could be very true, though I would gently suggest that the absence of complaints may simply reflect the absence of HR. We are told his logistics are unparalleled, global distribution, extreme time pressure, and flawless execution. Indeed, this is a triumph of supply chains. Jeff Bezos would be envious. We are told he believes in open data. Everyone knows who's naughty or nice. Open, yes. Ethical, I'll return to that later. We are told that his funding models are impeccable. He has unlimited resources and apparently zero grant rejections, a dream of perhaps a literal fantasy. We are told he has an extraordinary public engagement.

He has instant name recognition, centuries of leadership experience, and an intensely loyal mentoring culture. All of this sounds impressive, and all of it collapses the moment Santa enters research reality, because being a PI is not about scale. It's about scrutiny. So, let's go through these strengths and see why each of them is actually a liability. Deadlines are not leadership. Santa delivers but once a year. Dementia research does not operate on this festive cycle. It requires continuous oversight throughout the year. Daily decision making, rapid responses to failure, and long stretches where nothing works, and everyone is quietly panicking.

A seasonal productivity spike followed by 11 months of silence is not a resilient workforce. It's abandonment. Secondly, managing a workforce isn't mentorship. Santa's workforce might be vast, loyal, but most importantly, it's silent, which is delightful in folklore and disastrous in academia. Where are the first author elves? Where are the independent health investigators? Where is the succession plan? A PI's role is to train people to leave. Santa's system trains them to stay forever. That is not mentorship. That is career stagnation with jingle bells. Thirdly, logistics is not governance.

Yes, Santa moves objects efficiently, but dementia research does not fail because parcels arrive late. It fails because ethics approvals lapse. Consent is mishandled. Data governance is sloppy and adverse events are poorly managed. Santa's operational model, lifelong surveillance based on hearsay, gossip, and quite frankly, manipulative parents would not survive the first ethics committee. It would not only be rejected, but it would also be archived as a warning. So, let's talk about ethics because when it comes to the North Pole, someone has to. Santa observes participants from birth to adulthood. With, as dementia researchers, I must say, a negligible interest in the older population.

He does this without consent, without transparency, and without opt-out. This is not open data, this is surveillance. And for what? A binary data set of naughty or nice? That's right. There's no multi-level analysis in Santa's lab. And what Santa calls the naughty list are called confounding variables, or quite frankly, just being a free thinking, independent person. He relies on animal labour with no published welfare protocol and a completely unknown carbon footprint. Dementia research must be ethically exemplary. Santa is festive and festivity does not pass audits. And let's talk about credit. We might not like it, but in science, authorship matters. Careers are built or destroyed by it.

Santa's operation has run for centuries, and yet elves never appear as authors. There's no independent labs emerge, and no career trajectories are visible. A PI must share credit generously and transparently. Santa shares gifts, not authorship. And innovation. Santa's greatest strength is not innovation, its tradition, and that is fatal. Modern research demands innovation, methodological risk, willingness to abandon tradition when it fails. Santa does not abandon tradition. Santa is tradition, and tradition does not cure neurodegeneration. And research culture. We're told Santa works one night a year with no complaints. That's not resilience. This is just theatre.

A PI sets the cultural tone of a lab. A culture built on extreme seasonal overwork followed by prolonged absence would destroy any student, collapse projects, and end careers. Santa's model is unsustainable and dangerously romanticised. And in the end, what is a PI really? What does a PI actually do? A PI writes, endlessly writes. Grants, ethic forms, budgets, SOPs, recruitment documents, reference letters, manuscript provisions, and those really polite responses to reviewer too. A PI is present, visible, and accountable. Santa is mythical, remote, and seasonal. Lovely qualities to have, just not the right ones for a PI.

So, finally, yes, Santa's famous. Yes, Santa's efficient. Yes, Santa has excellent PR and an enviable code. But dementia research does not need magic. It needs good governance, outstanding ethics, consistency, and leadership that survives scrutiny. Santa Claus for all his charms cannot provide these things. And so, I say to everyone here. Santa would make a terrible PI, especially in dementia research. So, let's keep him in the North Pole. Thank you.

Adam Smith:

Thank you very much. I'd love to have both of your personalities came through there as well. The very enthusiastic Rebecca speaking for Santa Claus and of course a very sober Connor being the realist. That was honestly genius. Anna, we usually have a rebuttal phrase here, but I feel like you both made your arguments. Rebecca, would you like to respond to Connor's arguments?

Rebecca Williams:

Yeah, I have a couple of rebuttals. One being around the research culture, this idea that we never hear of unhappy elves, and this is actually just patently not true. In an article from 2016 written by Thompson's solicitors, we saw reports that Santa's elves had gone on strike and after return to work after concessions had been made, included instituting and updating the living wage, showing again that Santa is not stuck in the past, he's adaptable.

And also, there was a further strike in 2023 in which the elves were also given additional cocoa breaks as well as necessitating, I can't say that word, that there'd be no mandatory overtime except on Christmas Eve itself, which also suggests that they are working throughout the year. And when it comes to that spike, do we really want to look at just what a lab produces, just the outputs of a lab? That seems like the wrong way to look at the success of a PI to me. The rest of the year is not silence, but rest and diligent work. So, yeah, I think we also see, let's say, from all these documentaries, the elves that are just having a great time.

When it comes to the naughty and nice list, I would argue it's not based on myths, but as seen in Santa Claus and clouds, information on the behaviour of children is determined not through some omniscient CCTV, but rather through sound making trips out into the real world to see how they're acting in public. In public, public spaces likes parks, or in the case of Klaus, he seems to make use of an extensive network of postmen, well-trained postmen who can observe children's behaviours by posting letters. And in terms of the binarization of the naughty nice, that's not binarization, that's GDPR compliance.

It's called data minimization, and it's crucial to ensure that for research practises are maintained. We also see transparency, hence the number of songs written on the subject of the Naughty and Nice List. Everyone knows it exists, and it's confidential. Only Santa sees the list, even though he has to check twice. It's a lot of work. And we see in Mickey's twice upon a Christmas that the list is actually locked away in a separate room from the rest of Santa's workshop. In terms of the animals and eco-friendliness of the lab, these are working reindeer.

Just like sheet dogs and guard geese, they are well taken care of in their own stables and previous incidents of bullying, as I previously mentioned, have been dealt with swiftly. And we see in movies when they leave the North Pole and eat a bunch of junk food that they actually get really upset really quickly. So, I think that they're in one of the best places for them. And again, we see that actually Santa is very cognizant of his carbon footprint. In Arthur Christmas, we see that his sleigh is covered by potash of [inaudible 00:00:00] and amiloride citrate, AKA Magic dust, which is harvested from the [inaudible 00:22:59] b Aurora Borealis.

In alternative accounts, we see it's powered by the reindeer, by Christmas spirit, and even the new S1 slay, which is basically a spaceship, seems to be powered by biofuel made from carrots and mints pies. So, I would argue that Santa is not just a face. He has pragmatic concerns. He has dealt with ethics; he has dealt with governance. He has, as far as I can tell, good relations with the entire world as he's able to pass through their airspace at all times. So, those would be my main rebuttals to Connor's otherwise fantastic argument.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

May I raise the topic of grants and monetary underpinning? I wonder how you would consider the philanthropic donations made by parents to Santa's grant funding. Would anybody like to start that discussion?

Rebecca Williams:

I mean, I'm all for collaboration. I think that Santa has done an amazing job providing presence for the children of the world throughout history. Now, I'm not going to lie where exactly all the money comes from. I assume it's a self-sustained system, but through a mix of having to sign an NDA, I'm afraid I can't disclose much more about the Inner Workings Centre’s workshop, but yeah, it seems to be entirely self-sustained. So, while donations from parents are always appreciated, greatly appreciated, as with any grant funding, I think it's also nice that there does seem to be a self-sustaining system at the poll that can at minimum produce many presence for the children of the world.

Adam Smith:

We should let Connor do a rebuttal as well, of course. I forgot.

Rebecca Williams:

Yeah. Yes, true. Sorry. Yeah.

Dr Connor Richardson:

So, I'll touch on the parents because it touches on some of our rebuttals, is that I feel like we're again, relying on not a lot of transparency. We're asking a lot of questions. Where is the information upfront? And what I seem to say is very much like the elves' situation, Santa forced into given information through a legal framework. And when we all do find out information about the supposed first ever strike of the elves, just the first one we know about, I would argue, the conclusion that seems to be they get COGO and they get the minimum wage. And after thousands of elves, centuries of work, that to me sounds like a race to the bottom. What about middle management elves? Is there a middle management?

We don't know. And very much like the parents, all Santa seems to give is platitudes. In fact, parents' names don't end up on the tickets, no responsibility. But once a child stops believing, stops believing in Santa, they're left to fend for themselves, which doesn't sound fair to me. And if I may come back on a few of Rebecca's points, I would argue that not all collaborations are great ones. We've all been in; we've all found ourselves in quite dicey collaborations that we've wanted to get ourselves out of. And I would argue that Santa, although collects a lot of data, which I don't remember giving them consent for, who gave me permission to collaborate with these people?

Concerning ones like Rebecca mentioned, governments, government agencies, the US Air Force. Is your child's information being used by the US Air Force? What has it been used for? Who knows? I'm not sure I feel comfortable about my information being used by them. And again, we rely on a lot of these, or the only information we have about Santa, which yes, Rebecca brings up are marvellous things to watch and are very great. They do tend to show Santa in a very nice light. Where is Santa showing up on independent broadcasters? Where is the Emily Maitlis's interview of Santa? Where's Lily Taurau's podcast on Santa? I would even settle for Ross Kemp on Lapland to get some real information.

And yes, imagination is great. And yes, he may steal a lot of imagination on children, but you know what? There's a lot more psychological papers on? Trauma. The trauma of getting cool in your stocking. And for what? For what behaviours? What behaviours 20 years ago did children get called for, which you would now call ADHD? These could be lifelong traumas. We learn as we get older, but does Santa's list learn? Not fast enough.

Adam Smith:

Wow. Thank you very much. Rebecca, how do you respond to Connor's very correct highlighting that Santa is a little bit ageist, that as running a lab, he would focus really just on young people and not the older people. And of course, we're particularly interested in those with dementia. It does seem that he does have a bit of a fender when he comes to that. How would you respond to that?

Rebecca Williams:

Would you look to every developmental psychology lab and accuse them of ageism because they're choosing to study those under 16? This isn't ageism. This is a research specialty. We can't be specialists and generalists. Okay? So, maybe Santa's lab would focus on developmental psychology. To me, that's fine. It might not be that he's a great dementia research PA. Maybe that's not the area that he would like to go into, but I don't think that we should just throw the baby out of the bathroom to water and claim that he's ageist because he's not choosing to study the population over the age of 65. That is just a choice.

Adam Smith:

Well, picking up on the house sectors because the house motion is that Santa would make a good PI, not necessarily a good dementia researcher. So, we'll point out. Anna, I'll leave it to you.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Connor, go on. You put your hand up.

Dr Connor Richardson:

I would argue that a good PI knows where they're missing research. So, rather than Santa's collaborations with PR, maybe we do have lifelong epidemiology, lifespan research. Santa does none of this. Yes, he is a specialist, but good specialists know when to bring on other specialists to create multidisciplinary teams. And where is Santa's multidisciplinary teams? He's had long enough to do it.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Really, all very good points. And I guess I'd like to start the discussion with a question mark about equipoise. We've talked about ethics and my feeling is if Santa Claus ran a randomised controlled trial, he could do so. He has naughty and he has nice, but I wonder if you could speak to how he maintains equipoise, how does he reduce bias in his randomization? Either of you like to start.

Rebecca Williams:

I mean, like I say, I think that we've yet to see examples of Santa's research practises in practise. But taking from the work that he's already done, we see that he is remarkably, it seems impartial when it comes to the naughty and nice list, as evidenced by the fact that his own son in the Santa Claus 2 is placed on the naughty list. So, whilst I can't speak to specific research protocols such as randomization, I am certainly confident that they would be able to run a lab which is impartial and which is able to engage in these kind of practises without bias. Connor?

Dr Connor Richardson:

Well, I think there are some very interesting questions, and I think Santa has a lot of questions to answer on this. I think yes, Santa does have an amazing global brand, but let's be honest, where is he strongest in Western cultures? He isn't big in the global South. And again, we come to age ranges. The naughty and nice list is fine, but Santa seems to be the final orbiter on this. Do we have any expertise from other experts? Does anybody get to weigh in? I think these are all things that deserve committees and a broader range of expertise, which Santa seems unwilling to bend to.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Good point. Can I just ask, have either of you ever met somebody who's on the naughty list and got coal in their stocking, or perhaps from St. Nicholas, I know in some of the European countries, you might place something similar to a baseball bat and a slipper. For St. Nicholas, if you're naughty, has anyone actually met anybody? Do you have any actual single case studies, qualitative experiences or perspectives on this kind of issue?

Rebecca Williams:

No. And again, obviously I can't speak to knowing everybody in the world, but I think it is incredibly rare the experience of receiving of being even on the naughty list. And I think from the examples we've seen from the documentaries I've previously mentioned, the children seem to be exceedingly naughty to be placed on the naughty list. So, I think they're much more in theory than it is in practise. I think what we see in practise is the nice list being used much, much more. And the naughty list is very sparingly used. If at all, I certainly have no examples of children being on the naughty list.

And this is from personal experience for two years, I was in fact a member of Santa's workforce as Candy Sprinkles, The Christmas Elf. And I can attest that Santa was not only lovely to work with, but he also played a killer ukulele, and I didn't see him hand out a single piece of call.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Connor, do you have any evidence, any case studies, case series that speak to this?

Dr Connor Richardson:

Well, I hear from older generations that children who definitely got call in their stockings. Although I did grow up in the Northeast, so there was a lot of call about. But I would say that this is just evidence that Santa's criteria change with the whims of the times. And imagine turn up to any of your grant panels and being asked and having to show who's on the naughty list, and there's actually no one. This is Santa's problem. It's not forthcoming with information. We don't get to see the reasoning. We don't get to see the criteria where it's Satya having to rely on case studies and past knowledge.

This should be upfront and any PI would definitely have to be upfront about giving this kind of criteria before beginning any kind of project.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Rebecca, did you want to say...

Rebecca Williams:

Can I say we're suddenly now accusing Santa of changing with a whim. When we were simply accusing him of being stuck in tradition mere moments ago, I mean, which is it? Would you rather have a panel with the same criterion over the hundreds of years or a panel that updates to reflect the times? I mean, you can have tradition or you can have innovation, but I would argue you can't have both simultaneously. And I will absolutely concede that there have historically been some transparency issues with Santa's regime. But I'm not being funny, have you looked at academia? The open science framework, reproducibility has really only started coming in the last 10 to 20 years.

So, as much as we can accuse Santa that he's had plenty of time to do it, we've had plenty of time to do it as researchers, and it's only recently that we've started engaging in much better scientific practises. And I do think we'll start seeing that trickle through to the North Pole over the couple years.

Dr Connor Richardson:

Well, unfortunately, I think Rebecca has just answered the big question here is that as soon as Santa is faced with hard questions, we enter a race to the bottom, whether it's the elves fight for the minimum wage or now we're arguing that the standards for Santa with all of his resources should be the worst of our scientific practises. We should be aiming for better. Santa should be better than us.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

So, that's interesting. So, in terms of patient and public involvement, if Santa is better than us, should he be doing research to us or should he be doing research with us? Connor.

Dr Connor Richardson:

Actually, it should 100% be doing research with us. And part of that is all of us having a say in the decision-making process and co-designed projects. I don't feel like I have any involvement in Santa's projects.

Rebecca Williams:

Let me ask you this, Connor. Did you ever ask Santa for something for Christmas?

Dr Connor Richardson:

I did.

Rebecca Williams:

Did you get that thing for Christmas?

Dr Connor Richardson:

Sometimes, not always.

Rebecca Williams:

Co-design. This is exactly what we're talking about. You say you've never had any design impact on Santa's practises, but children across the world yearly have impact on the design process in terms of what toys get made, what toys get delivered through letters, through PPIEs, such as Santas at malls. So, I would argue that there is already a lovely cyclical route to Santa both being doing research with and for the children of the world. He is ultimately employed and working for the children of the world as much as he is an authority figure.

And I think that is a sign of an excellent PI, someone who can acknowledge that they are both in a figure of authority and that they should take that seriously, but also constantly being reminded that they are also ultimately working for and on behalf of the populations that they set up.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Can I ask you then, so we spoke earlier about, you mentioned the postman workforce who do observations on behalf of Santa, could we consider that unobtrusive if people don't know that the postmen are making these observations? We know from dementia research, for example, if we're using video cameras, that can be very invasive. Whereas if we have devices that aren't intrusive, it can be less. So, perhaps postmen are less invasive in terms of observation, or would we consider this to be unethical observations where people are being perhaps observed without their knowledge? Which side do you fall on in that respect?

Rebecca Williams:

Well, I think this is why all of these documentaries are so important. And I think that is Santa's primary route of getting information about his scientific practises out into the world. This is why we have movies like Klaus so that children can see, ooh, maybe the postmen are in on it, or explicitly so. In fact, the postmen are in on it. I know that's a hot take, but I'll say it here. I think it's backed by data. And I think that I completely agree that there is an element to which, oh, we don't like the idea of being observed, especially in our own homes.

But that's where I say, in fact, all of the evidence we have seems to suggest that these empirical observations of children's behaviour happen in public spaces by postmen, by Santa's representatives, by Santa himself, just in them running past him and this thing. So, I agree that it can be seen as inclusive, especially if it was done in the home, in a private setting. But I think the fact that these observations are done in public and with the knowledge of the children of the world, hence all the songs about it, they've been around for ages, we're aware of the situation, I think that does mitigate a lot of those risks.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Connor, do you have a response?

Dr Connor Richardson:

Where's the consent? Where is the consent? These are arguments that just would not pass a basic PhD viva.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

I mean, is it possible that people don't have capacity and consent below the age and maybe they're being asked in their best interests. Was that what you were going to say, Rebecca?

Rebecca Williams:

So, as someone who has been photographed without her knowledge or consent in public and then plastered on the front page of a newspaper, I can tell you that you don't actually need people's consent when they're in a public space.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

True. And you're not profiting off it. I hear that. Yes.

Rebecca Williams:

And we're not profiting off it.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Yeah, yeah.

Rebecca Williams:

And so traumatised.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

What about implementation? So, going back, circling back to parents, as a parent myself, I have both, I can see both sides of the coin in terms of implementing Santa's research model. So, I am able to use the naughty and nice methodology at home, but equally I'm mindful it doesn't work consistently as a parent. Do you think that Santa, is that a problem that implementation is difficult for parents using that kind of model that Santa's created? Anyone like to speak to that?

Rebecca Williams:

Yeah, I mean, I think it's always tricky. The minute that you let your methodology go out to the world, an example of transparency, by the way, it's an issue that you can't necessarily have it reliably implemented in every lab that it goes out to. And I think this is a classic give and take of research, transparency, collaboration, that when we do make our methodologies open and we do allow others to use our methodologies, we can't then necessarily be held solely responsible for how well they are administered. And I think it's nice that this has been such a widely used methodology. It shows real promise for Santa's open Santa framework, the OSF, in future years.

But yeah, again, I think it's not necessarily the responsibility of the person who initially designed the method, though they should absolutely be updating it and be working hard to ensure that relevant literature is sent around the users, not necessarily that initial person's job to maintain standards across such a vast range. As much as it would be nice to hold maybe parents on to conferences, maybe that's something we could see in future years to standardise the approach.

Dr Connor Richardson:

I think some of this leans into the worst biases that we see in Santa's methodology. I mean, we've talked about case studies and what happens in public spaces. We see that there's huge inequalities in Santa's outputs. We clearly see huge socioeconomic differences and Santa's crude binary methodology puts the worst pressures on particularly parents who don't earn as much money, parents who work in key jobs who can't always just be around over that one time of year due to his inflexible practises. So, my mom, in fact, as a nurse, I've spent many Christmases with no mom in my house for the majority of the day, and that to me just speaks to poor core design.

Santa does not consider the majority of the people, and he does not represent a fair spread of the people who were affected most by his research, or is it research?

Dr Anna Volkmer:

I'm going to take some questions from the audience, actually. There's a really valuable comment being made around... We've talked a lot about people, but what about sustainability in the environment and the animals, animal welfare? One of our guests is concerned about animal welfare. Why has Santa not yet replaced or decreased the number of reindeer in his reindeer team?

Rebecca Williams:

So, I think this depends on which documentary you refer to as. In some cases, he very much has. So, in Arthur Christmas, we see the S1 slayer in fact has no reindeer at all, but by the end, we see that actually it has many and that this is a good thing that the reindeer are allowed to work again. Again, I think these are working reindeer, much like, as I mentioned, sheep dogs and guard geese. I think they're at the best at their bet when they are taken care of, when they're provided at home and when they are provided with work. And as long as they are not overworked, I think that can be a really positive symbiotic relationship between Santa and the reindeer.

And I think it's also helpful to remember that there all are, again, environmentally sustainable alternative to the reindeers like Christmas spirit, like magic dust mine from the Aurora Borealis, which can help to reduce the work and load needed by the reindeers if that is necessary to make sure that they are not overstrained. And those do seem to be Christmas brew does seem to be a renewable source of energy. I'm surprised we're not seeing that rolled out, I think, more broadly across the world, but Christmas spirit and magic duct seem to be pretty good for the environment, maybe rivalling nuclear, but that's speculation.

Dr Connor Richardson:

I mean, either one, I'm just going to make a point of order to the speaker of this debate that we are playing fast and loose with the term documentary. And I have major, major concerns for these reindeer because yet again, my arguments keep coming back to this. We always end up on consent and transparency. There seems to be no annual audits of how these animals are doing. There seem to be no independent bodies who check on them. Santa just assumes that we're all fine going along with it, and I've got major questions. For one, Rudolph seems really ill. There's something wrong with that reindeer's nose and nobody's talking about it. And quite frankly, he needs help.

And as far as his carbon footprint goes, there's flying, which we assume works on some magical process. Again, we can't seem to verify this scientifically. I know there's a problem with a scientific replication crisis, but we should at least be able to try. And you can't on the one hand say he can have this amazing global distribution network and these toys that are made in their millions. Where's the energy being provided from this? I'm just saying it seems awfully convenient that in the North Pole, he's around a lot of urban oil fields. I'm just asking the questions.

Rebecca Williams:

Can I make the point that also in terms of jurisdiction, I don't think this is centre avoiding jurisdiction. As you mentioned, he lives in the North Pole, which is not really under the jurisdiction of any one nation. So, I think this is much more an issue of who would you like to provide the jurisdiction, rather than him avoiding it?

Dr Anna Volkmer:

I'm going to move us onto another question. So, you mentioned the North Pole and I guess that they'll be on several different time zones potentially, depending on where Santa is, where he's working, although Rudolph may be part of his workforce. But I wonder if someone that was having lab meetings, if Santa were holding lab meetings, one of the audience members had asked, would they happen once a year? Would they happen at midnight? What would the timing be of these regular or irregular lab meetings?

Rebecca Williams:

Yeah, as I say, I think it's fair to assume from the data that Santa does work and his workforce does work throughout the year, though it does seem to take a break as shown in the 1991 short film Father Christmas, but they do seem to work throughout the year. So, I think it's safe to say that they choose lab meetings in a similar way to other international lands, maybe varying times meetings to work with different strategies and work with different collaborators. And they say because Santa is so used to working in so many different time zones, I'd argue he's actually better placed to organise those international meetings than most other PIs. He has the experience.

Dr Connor Richardson:

I mean, we heard a lot of the word seems and assumes there. Has anyone actually tried to get hold of Santa recently? The last time I had conversations with Santa, it was through a letter, which I put up much in me, and I still haven't received a reply. And we say that we need to move with the times, and apparently Santa is moving with the times. He's paying his stuff, minimum wage.

Rebecca Williams:

Living wage.

Dr Connor Richardson:

We have teams. Where's the evidence of Santa being involved? That's what we should be here talking about as scientists, evidence, not assumptions.

Rebecca Williams:

I mean, I think that's fair. And like I say, this is why I'm so for the idea is that I have personally met Santa on many occasions. I suppose I don't experience the same thing of feeling like he's some far away mystical figure. To me, Santa is very much someone that I have seen in my school, in my local community, being a figurehead and engaging actively. So, I suppose perhaps the lettering system, maybe that is old hat, maybe we need to get updated to email or zoom. Maybe that would be an interesting way of reaching out further. But I'm not saying that Santa has all the answers here, just to be clear. I'm not saying he would be the perfect PI because that's not the question.

No one can be a perfect PI, but I do think he has all the skills that would make him an excellent PI. And one of them is his community outreach.

Dr Connor Richardson:

But let me ask you this. When you met Santa, was it in December? Was it in Any other month?

Rebecca Williams:

No, I think no, it's a fair point. I think we could maybe branch out slightly more to the rest of the year. Like I say, and I think this is all part of the PPIE. We need to hear more from people and what they want from Santa. But as far as I understand, some people, they associate him at the moment because he's associated very much with the holidays. People don't necessarily like seeing him the rest of the year. And so, maybe what we need is a slight change in how Christmases and Santa are thought of. Maybe if he makes that change over the researcher, we can see him represented more consistently throughout the calendar.

Adam Smith:

That is fair. We do get very upset if they start seeing Santa in October and November.

Rebecca Williams:

Well, just listening to the people.

Dr Connor Richardson:

Is Santa your PI or want to see him outside of December?

Dr Anna Volkmer:

I have seen him in Christmas in July in the Southern Hemisphere. I think we're a bit biassed. We are representing really only the UK, but I lived in five years, and we did see him at Christmas in July, which was a novel event, I guess. I'm mindful of time, and we are talking about communication. Perhaps one more question. Would Santa make you sit on his lap during appraisals? I mean, Rebecca, you mentioned you were employed by Santa for two years.

Rebecca Williams:

I can confirm all communication was done off lap. I think context is king here and I think, as we've said, consent is incredibly important. And so, we see the children, they might enjoy that. That's a good bit of tradition that maybe is kept through and that children enjoy making their wishes for Santa whilst in his lap. But as a child who was, I will admit, slightly dubious of Santa Claus, I certainly didn't sit on his lap, and I was still able to get my wishes across. And as a grown woman dressed up as Candy Sprinkles, The Christmas El, again, all of the communication was done decidedly off that.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Do you believe?

Rebecca Williams:

Of course. I think there's undeniable evidence.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

So, do you believe that believing in Santa is a prerequisite for joining his lab? Would it have to be?

Rebecca Williams:

I think it would be very difficult to join the lab of some of a PI whose work you don't believe in.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

I hear you.

Rebecca Williams:

Connor, do you believe?

Dr Connor Richardson:

Well, I do believe, but I also believe that Santa's attitude changes to become quite cold once you stop believing. And I don't think that's a healthy research environment to be working in. Your PI should be independent at all times, and it shouldn't be a cult of personality in a lab.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

So, we have a question from Ria, who is a member of our audience who has experience as working with a PI who is a Mr. Worldwide or wizard. They're doing great with meetings and scheduling them around his schedule, which is wonderful evidence to have from one of our audience members. Thank you ever so much.

Adam Smith:

I know that PI and a wizard is a pretty good description, actually.

Dr Anna Volkmer:

Beautiful, isn't it?

Adam Smith:

Wow. Well, I'm impressed by Connor's ability to argue a really good argument against such a popular figure and Rebecca's encyclopaedic knowledge of Christmas film documentaries. And to be able to just quote them so easily, clearly, you've done your background research. I'm interested to know if you did this specifically for the debate or whether this is just you have a big love of Christmas movies in general. So, we've had audio questions, we've had our opening statements, we can now go to our final closing statements.

And then after that, we'll have our closing poll to see if a hundred percent of our audience started out today by saying that they think he would make a good PI, but Connor's made some excellent arguments this afternoon. Let's see if the audience folks changed. But before we get to that, let's have our closing statements. Rebecca, you are first.

Rebecca Williams:

As I said in my opening statement, and I think it holds true, that Santa's logistical press, his ability to collaborate with people across the world, his ability to communicate well both to external audiences, including copious amounts of engagement from his target study cohort, leading to co-design of what his processes look like year-on-year, and also internal communication to foster a positive research culture, which takes a strong stance against bullying, which updates its practises based on the times and the needs of its workers, and which from all representations is just a really jolly place to be mixed with his amazing imagination, I think are all signs that Santa would make an excellent programme leader.

As much as we've heard some arguments that his practises may not be as transparent as they need to be, I think that Santa, as I said, it's not perfect. And we have seen lots of development in transparency and reproducibility over the last 10, 20 years in research. And I hope that if Santa were to come into this space, he would quickly take on some of those practises. But I would also say that we already know quite a lot about Santa and his practises from various movies, from talking to the big guy himself at events.

And so, as much as we might criticise him on transparency, there has also been some really great attempts to make his practise transparent, such as the naughty and nice list, which is mentioned in many songs. We know that he's environmentally sustainable and making efforts to adapt to the times. He has, like I say, collaborations across the globe, and I think that he would just make a fantastic programme leader. I personally would want a programme leader that I believe in, that I can communicate with and that I know would put me on a good track to, as I said, a jolly good time.

Adam Smith:

Thank you very much, Rebecca. And Connor, your closing statement.

Dr Connor Richardson:

Well then, there is an impressive catalogue of reasons why Santa Claus might at first glance appear to be an excellent PI. He delivers big projects on time. He manages a global workforce. He never seems to run out of funding, and he has unmatched public engagement. All true, but none of those things answer the only question that matters. A principal investigator is not a symbol, not a tradition, and not a seasonal morale boost. A PI is a person who shows up every single day and leads from the front. When the excitement of science is faded and the paperwork begins. They write the grants, they answer the emails, they submit the ethics amendments, they mentor the students whose careers depend on them.

They take responsibility when things go wrong. Santa does not do this. He arrives once a year, he judges silently, he leaves a gift, and then he disappears. Dementia research especially cannot run on goodwill and mythology. It requires presence, accountability, and leadership that survives scrutiny. So, yes, let Santa keep Christmas. Let him keep the slay, the bells, and even the applause if he wants them. But for the sake of science and the sake of people whose lives depend on it, keep him out of the PI role. And finally, in the spirit of Dr. Zeus, you can't run a lab with a list and a slay or pass ethics checks in a trust me way.

You can't train up science this year after year if your PI vanishes till Christmas is here. So, keep the beard, keep the cheer, keep the myth if you must, but science needs leadership, not magic and dust and you.

Adam Smith:

Wow. Ending on a wee poem, verse. Thank you very much, Connor. Well, we've heard two very passionate arguments for and again, Santa as a PI. I'm going to share my view and Anna, you're welcome to share your view at the end. Let's just remind everybody that we've got our closing vote now. It started off with everybody thinking that Santa would make a good PI. The link is in the chat for those that are watching live. If you are watching this back or listening to this back from recorded, we're going to keep this poll going. We're going to add a poll in there.

So, we're going to poll our live audience today, but we're going to give you a chance as well to share your view because we'd love to get a wider opinion, a wider data set on this to see if you agree with Connor and Rebecca. And I'll tell you what, if you've got until New Year's Day to vote in that poll and I'll give a prize to whoever's won this evening's debate. What we haven't really talked about so far is that this fun debate, as much it is great for Christmas, and it's a fun thing to do, there is a series side, which is today's debate.

We're trying to raise money for Dementia UK and their admiral nurses who provide really fantastic, much needed support to people living with dementia and families and carers, particularly during Christmas when we know that times are tough. So, I really would encourage you to donate, if you can, with tickets today for this event were five pounds. So, that's our recommended donation amount. If you are listening to this in the format of a podcast over Christmas or on YouTube, we're going to put a donation link in the comments. Sorry you couldn't be with us live today, but we hope you will still consider giving some money because it is a much-needed course and a great... The work they do is really fantastic.

So, let's go back to our closing poll. So, remind you of the motion again, this House believes Santa would make an excellent PI. It started off with 100% of our audience thinking that Santa would make an excellent PI. Connor has clearly done a stellar job because our closing poll results show that 40% agree that Santa would make a great PI, 40% disagree I think Santa wouldn't make a good PI, and 20% of audience are completely undecided.

You've baffled them all, which I think actually is a great way to end this because I think you both made such brilliant arguments for and against that I would've felt slightly sad at the end of today to have to say that one of you had won and one of you had lost because you both did so well and embraced the topic with the spirit it deserved. Thank you so much. Anna, do you have any closing reflections before I get to my last statement?

Dr Anna Volkmer:

No, I'm just glad I went with a bit of heading perhaps, perhaps, perhaps that I think the outcome is just right.

Adam Smith:

It's very, very relevant. Well, here we are again. We began by asking whether Santa should be running a research lab and somehow ended up with a very familiar picture of academia, impossible deadlines, unclear data practises, a highly committed workforce, and a vague sense that magic is doing more of the work than in the system. Some of us saw a logistical genius, a leader who delivers every year without fail and never misses a deadline, and others saw red flags, a once-a-year output cycle, questionable transparency and a wellbeing strategy that appears to involve biscuits, mince pies, carrots, and belief.

And perhaps that's the point, as a serious point to this, which is good leadership is rarely perfect. It's a mix of planning and panic and vision and improvisation, spreadsheets, and sheer willpower. It works not because it's flawless, but because people keep turning up and caring enough to make it work. So, thank you to our speakers for embracing the fun and revealing a few uncomfortable truths along the way. Thank you to all of you for voting and laughing with us. Honestly, this has been the funniest hour of my Christmas so far.

And thank you to all of you in the audience for supporting Dementia UK, because behind those jokes and Tinsel are the real families who need support, especially at this time of the year. Take care of yourselves, be kind to each other. And if Santa is running a lab anywhere, I hope he has a good lab manager, and we'll see you all soon. Thank you, very much and Merry Christmas.

Voice Over:

The Dementia Researcher Podcast was brought to you by University College London with generous funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Alzheimer's Research UK, Alzheimer's Society, Alzheimer's Association, and Race Against Dementia. Please subscribe, leave us a review, and register on our website for full access to all our great resources. Dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk