📚 Finished reading: Thinking in Systems by Donella H. Meadows. Much like Nassim Taleb who started with probability and statistics only to end in the territory of ethics and values, Meadows starts with algorithms and quantities but ends with higher purpose and transcendence. A book to be re-read.

If you say that “$1 of research investment yields $5 in returns to the economy” — as some do — but then clarify that under those $5 you have a lot of laboratory-building and infrastructure-supporting — as some did — what point exactly are you trying to make? As ever, there is much wisdom in r/Jokes.

Another good podcast episode: neurosurgeon Theodore Schwartz talking to Tyler Cowen. Dr Schwartz is a bigger believer in science than yours truly:

COWEN: Do you think there are areas of science, though, where the institutions are so screwed up that you don’t actually trust the product of what is coming out, and there’s some systematic bias in the ideas being generated?

SCHWARTZ: I think, yes, there’s always going to be politics involved, and we always come to any problem from a unique single perspective, and institutions are going to have their biases. Yes, that is true, but in the long run, the scientific method will figure it out, and there will be one right answer. That institution — whatever their bias is — will be proven wrong in the long run. Now, those people might be dead and won’t be able to apologize at that point.

The problem, of course, is even when the scientific method does figure something out, people still keep doing things the old way, and no, generational change does not help. Witness homeopathy, kyphoplasty, vitamin C for colds, and — more relevant to Tyler’s question — the amyloid plaque hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Abandoning lobotomies was an aberration, zombie medicine is the rule.

Finally, a definition of “paradigm” I can understand:

So let’s get clear: a paradigm is made out of units and rules. It says, “the part of the world I’m studying is made up of these entities, which can do these activities.”

In this way, doing science is a lot like reverse-engineering a board game. You have to figure out the units in play, like the tiles in Scrabble or the top hat in Monopoly. And then you have to figure out what those units can and can’t do: you can use your Scrabble tiles to spell “BUDDY” or “TREMBLE”, but not “GORFLBOP”. The top hat can be on Park Place, it can be on B&O Railroad, but it can never inside your left nostril, or else you’re not playing Monopoly anymore.

From Adam Mastroianni, and the rest of the article is even better.

When “I don’t think I need to say much more” is followed by two more paragraphs of text the writer is not making the point they think they are making. The text in question is a defense of plagiarism which amounts to “what I copied wasn’t that original to begin with”. Hardy-har-har. (ᔥNassim Taleb)

The Department of Justice is just asking questions:

A federal prosecutor sent a letter to a medical journal editor, probing whether the publication is “partisan” when it comes to “various scientific debates.”

Edward R. Martin Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a list of questions to CHEST Editor-in-Chief Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, asking how the journal handles “misinformation” and “competing viewpoints,” among other things.

MedPage Today has learned that at least two other journals have received similar letters.

The Clinton administration bombed Yugoslavia under the thinnest of pretenses; his successor one-upped him. The Obama campaign used “Big Data” to target individual voters; his successor one-upped him. The Biden administration cloaked their attempts at censoring social media under the guise of “misinformation”; and, well, see above.

For every hair-raising breakdown of values and norms there is a precedent, and time and again the precedent has been set by the same side, with remarkable shortsightedness.

Richard Feynman popularized the term “cargo-cult science” as actions of research who follow the form but not showing much if any care for the substance of science. Andrew Gelman has second thoughts about the metaphor and proposes “ritual science” instead, and for good reason: cargo-cult implies a technological gap that may be impossible to bridge, while he uses ritual here to mean mindless repetition.

The maneuver does throw rituals under the bus, as proper rituals are far from mindless. Still, this is indeed how the word “ritual” is used colloquially so Gelman is on the right track. “Mindless science” would also cover the phenomena though is too broad: science — or rather, scientists — can be mindless in other ways. (ᔥAndrew Gelman)

With 23andMe closing shop today and the bluebird bio sale to private equity last month it is clear that the DNA bubble has burst.

Every bubble leaves something positive in its wake. Yes, there was a lot of speculation with tulips in the Netherlands, but the Netherlands is still the world’s top exporter of cut flowers. There was a railway bubble in the United States that left us with a lot of railroad tracks and not so great passenger rail. More recently, the dot-com bubble left decent network infrastructure and a lot of IT professionals with nothing better to do than to invent Web 2.0.

And so with DNA. Sequencing has never been cheaper, and it does have some valid uses. Unfortunately, there are many harms of fetishizing DNA, from thinking that DNA mutations are the be-all and end-all of every disease pathology — think, “the fat gene” — to completely missing the point of the entire field of epigenetics, which has much more to it than molecular changes to histones and base pairs.

Business and finance are now the first to realize that there is more to genetics than DNA, and more to medicine than genetics. Academia and funders, ossified as they are, will be slower on the uptake and come to this epiphany one retirement at a time.

Earlier this year I mentioned the anonymous X account Crémieux as a proponent of the concept of “National IQ”. Now we know the person behind that account, and the truth is in fact quite boring. This is the line between having a pseudonym and creating a sock puppet. (↬Sasha Gusev)

Today’s FT essay on the rise of the anti-vaccine movement was a miss. Instead of asking why so many people lost trust in institutions it goes straight to politics: 10 paragraphs on Germany’s AfD, no mention of whether some of the people’s concerns were valid. With that, the movement can only grow.