🏒 Fun to see a winning team at this venue, for once, and with a massive amount of goals. Will come back.
Today I learned, thanks to a leaked email from Vinay Prasad to his staff, I also learned that Prasad puts a double space after each period which is inexcusable in 2025 when we all use variable fonts on our electronic devices, not a fixed width-font typewriter. Whatever his high school typing teacher told him, he should drop the habit.that FDA’s CBER does actual bench research. This is pure stupidity on my part, as it is right there in the name: Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Silly me. They have a page dedicated to describing the work of their 65 principal investigators, and it seems to be at least on par in topics and rigor to the work done at the NIH Intramural Research Program though the latter if of course bigger.
Prasad’s email boils down to this: CBER research staff has strayed from its mission, which is primarily regulatory. We will look at work performed and planned and cut that which is not in line with the mission. He invokes sunken cost fallacy by name, so one would assume work in progress will also be cut, maybe even things completed that haven’t yet been written up — why spend hours formatting a manuscript when you could be reviewing IND Investigational New Drug applications and BLAs Biologics License Application, and let me use this sidebar to note how infuriating it is that one acronym includes the word “application” in it and the other doesn’t, forcing one to resort to clumsy phrases such as the one to the left. I supposed you could write “BLAs and IND applications” but that is listing them out of sequence. instead? And we certainly shouldn’t abuse the privilege of conducting research without having to apply for grants by just padding our CVs with insignificant work that will never be cited, which is another thing Prasad rises against.
My initial reaction was “damn right” but then I realized that regulatory review is just another price scientists-at-heart pay in order to do the work they want, similar to teaching in academia and low pay with no opportunity for outside activities at the NIH IRP. I suppose that eliminating the opportunity for self-directed research — which is what Prasad proposes instead of, let’s say, cutting it down to 10–20% of one’s time — would select for a certain type of a person (I imagine a box-checking blankface) but is that what we want? Is that what Prasad wants?
The tedious and unappreciated work of regulatory review is the price some scientists are willing to pay in order to perform research. Giving scientists the opportunity to do the work that’s meaningful to them is the price the FDA may have to pay to get good people to perform regulatory review. Any important scientific contributions that arise from this concession should be seen as an unexpected gift, not a requirement for staying employed as a reviewer.
It is infrastructure day on the blog today, with two updates:
When I wrote that opening up science and increasing trust in it are mutually opposed goals, I didn’t imagine the perfect example would come up so soon in both the thing that happened and the commentary about the thing. It is helpful, when interpreting what follows, to keep in mind CS Lewis’s lecture on The Inner Ring with the following two adjustments: there are in fact many rings, concentric, with people ordered in them according to some gradient; and although academia has the secret rings Lewis talks about there are also many public ones with members known, where the innermost ring to a high degree overlaps with Harvard.
The first thing that happened was a segment on 60 Minutes, America’s premier newstainment show, about the current administration’s defunding of Harvard and the implications for science. A few scientists gave interviews, including a bench researcher whose lab studied “different aspects of cancer biology, including tumor heterogeneity, cell-cell interactions, tumor microenvironment, cancer metabolism, drug resistance, and cell signaling.” So, very much a “cancer researcher”, though as far removed from the practical aspects of cancer management as you can imagine. Still, from applying for grants to writing up research results for peer-reviewed journals, scientists have been conditioned to tie whatever they are doing to real-life, practical applications: in the interview Dr Brugge said what she and her post-docs must have written hundreds of times before, that her work has the potential to prevent breast cancer.
There is a legitimate discussion to be had about overblown claims to practicality. The debate has in fact been ongoing for decades now in the editorial pages of various scientific journals. But then someone formerly of Harvard, then Duke, then out of academia completely after a legal dispute, wrote about the issue in light of the segment. This is the second thing that happened.
The article for the most part lists personal observations about the two scientists interviewed for the segment (the second was David Liu, about whom the authors had kinder words). It very much had the sound of someone expelled from the circle grinding an ax with the inner ring. This led to even its salient observations being framed somewhat maliciously. For example:
Universities and their faculty have learned that success in today’s system depends not as much on actually doing science but on marketing the perception of science — framing even routine findings as lifesaving advances. “Cancer” has become a brand, a universal justification for more funding and prestige. The public sees heroism; insiders see dollar signs. One of the strangest features of this ecosystem is how many researchers who do pure basic science — work with no foreseeable medical application — nevertheless frame their research as “curing cancer.”
Which goes from pure speculation to undisputable fact. The need to frame everything as “curing cancer” stems from all the money being allocated to cancer research. It is all about the incentives: Willie Sutton robbed banks because “that’s where the money was” and scientists are no different.
But did I just, even in this gentler framing, compare scientists to bank robbers? See, this is why the debate is best held behind closed doors, lest a politician uses the fact that most research findings are false as an excuse to cut funding. This is what most comments to [Mike
This is the open science dilemma: have the debate out in the open and risk providing ammunition to your enemies? Or do it behind closed doors and risk mistrust? A few decades ago the point was moot as the “enemies” were first powerless hippies, then only slightly more empowered religious zealots. As we all know, the anti-science front has since strengthen. Why that is, well, that is yet another debate. Since one of the reasons is that many scientists openly picked sides, whether out of conviction or out of fear from being ostracized, this is also a debate best held behind closed doors.
Until that happens, we will continue to have dialogues such as this one, The link is to what I think is the final post in the back-and-forth, which I think is the only guaranteed way to show the entire thread, but X truly wasn’t built for sharing these kinds of interactions and is not the best medium for having them. all in support of the beef-industrial complex. Other fields have already wised up: the Internet is dying on the outside but growing on the inside, with important conversations moving to private forums. Which, as I argued, they should.
After citing Niko McCarty’s list of 30 biomedical essays yesterday, I had an urge to find each and have a separate post linking to them. Well, good thing I procrastinated because he just came out with an ever longer list (130 and counting) that does have the links. Still no Mansions of straw…, but I’ve just asked asked him to consider adding it so let’s see how the list evolves.
You may have noticed more linked lists on this blog, starting this summer and ever-increasing. This is the direct result of moving my RSS reading from (mostly) NetNewsWire on the phone to (mostly) Feedly on the Daylight tablet. Whatever the cons I thought it had in the beginning, they melted away as the proof is in the output. Interestingly, I hardly ever use the pen, but did pair it with an old (pre-Touch ID) Magic keyboard encased in this handy case/tablet stand and this light-weight pair of devices is all I need on most short trips.
Now, it is not a cheap device! There is currently a 48 hour pre-Black Friday flash sale, and it is still $649 pre-tax. It is also much less versatile than an iPad (no camera and therefore no video calls, and certainly not a good media player although being an Android tablet it does have an official YouTube app, unlike some other better-screened devices. But if you already have a large phone and a laptop, does that middle screen truly need to be a full laptop replacement?
I was also pleasantly surprised by the (heavily customized) Android tablet interface. Things have evolved quite a bit since I briefly owned a Fire tablet, which appropriate to the name I wanted to burn in an effigy. I haven’t owned a Remarkable or a similar e-ink device, but from the refresh rate alone I would guess my reaction would be the same. The plain old LCD technology that Daylight uses Even though, yes, they’ve rebranded it to “e-paper” and say it’s their invention. I don’t know enough about screen technology to comment on whether this is valid, but to me it smells like mostly marketing. was the perfect compromise for my uses, and one I hope more companies would emulate.
🏒 Fun to see a winning team at this venue, for once, and with a massive amount of goals. Will come back.
📺 Common Side Effects (2025) worked for me on at least three levels: as a Mike Judge satire (and I love Mike Judge), as the spiritual successor to Scavengers Reign (ditto), and as a true-in-spirit if not in fact look at the American pharmaceutical industry (and here I could link to half of this blog). With 10 episodes of about 20 minutes each — the runtime of approximately one Irishman — it is well worth seeing at a single go.
I did it: I have found my coffee preciousness threshold. Our local coffee shop changed suppliers and only had the beans depicted below to offer. The very helpful barista even offered to pack me a bag of their own in-house coffee beans, which I declined but should have taken as the warning it was.
Because the beans were… fine. For a light roast, and particularly for the price. Perhaps even on par with Bird Rock, though I will need to make more than one pot for a real test. But everything about this coffee was over-designed, from the embossed packaging to the transparent plastic bag holding the beans to the “tasting notes” insert tucked into the outside pocket. And just look at that website (and the price)!
I am in fact embarrassed for buying it. Who is this for, and do they also own a Juicero? I choose beer over wine because I am repelled by the (usually faux) sophistication of the wine connoisseurs. I’d better reign in my coffee enthusiasm or else switch to tea.