1. It won’t be close. Most pollsters are hacks who commit even greater statistics crimes than physicians so their 50/50 is most likely to mean a landslide either way.
2. That link above is to Nate Silver’s Substack post, but please remember that he is also a hack who builds prediction models from the polling garbage he describes above while knowing it is garbage. That is even worse than what the pollsters are doing because shouldn’t he know better?
3. Worse yet are economists who excuse the pollster behavior: they see crimes being committed and think yep, that’s how it should be. This is a University of Michigan professor of economics and a senior fellow of some pretty serious Think Tanks who doesn’t realize that fiddling with your results after you’ve collected them in order to better align with the aggregate of other people’s results is scientifically unsound. I’d send all of his papers to Retraction Watch for a close inspection.
4. From 538 to the NYT to Nate, every poll aggregator has for months been fed back its own bullshit. Little wonder then that they all converged to a 50/50: complete ignorance.
5. Prediction “markets” are no better than equity markets in reflecting reality. Which is to say, they reflect the reality of vibes and wishful thinking, not the ground truth. They are best ignored.
6. Sátántangó (2019) by the Hungarian director Béla Tarr is a 7-hour masterpiece shot in black and white; perfect for watching on a crisp autumn evening like tonight’s, no other screens allowed.

Hell froze: I am about to link to hype-master Eric Topol in a non-judgmental way, because the article he is hyping is one that I co-authored. It’s titled “Engineering CAR-T therapies for autoimmune disease and beyond” and it came out yesterday in Science Translational Medicine as their one free article from the issue. I’ll stop there because it’s work-related and it’s good to have some boundaries.

Andrew Gelman recently wrote about Columbia surgery professor’s research missconduct. I haven’t looked into the details but it seems like the retracted papers were all about lab research with no true clinical relevancy. In that context, this part of the post stuck out:

Can you imagine, you come to this guy with cancer of the spleen and he might be pushing some unproven treatment supported by faked evidence? Scary.

I can’t tell whether this was supposed to be a joke or if Gelman truly believes that faking mouse experiments directly leads to using unproven treatments, but in case it’s the latter I have to say that the logic is stretched. Yes, the kind of person who has no qualms about fake data is probably not all that rigorous about the evidence for surgical procedures, but for all we know he could be a master surgeon with excellent technique and great outcomes who also happens to have been a bad judge of character and trusted a bad actor. I suspect it’s the latter: the kind of multi-tasking surgery “superstar” that the professor in question seems to be tends to spend a lot more time in the the operating room (or, for another kind of a superstar, the board room), than the lab.

Now, if he were a medical oncologist or any other kind of doctor that gives cancer treatment then maybe things would have been more dubious — that kind of research tends to jump to clinic too quickly and without merit. But unless you’re transplanting pig’s hearts and working on other large animals, the lab is so far removed from the operating room that it is extremely unlikely any such evidence could be used to back up actual surgical treatment.

Incidentally, that last link is to Siddharta Mukherjee’s abomination of an article titled “The Improvisational Oncologist” (subtitle: “In an era of rapidly proliferating, precisely targeted treatments, every cancer case has to be played by ear.") from the May 2016 edition of The New York Times Magazine (it’s a gift link so feel free to read it; caveat lector) and it describes actual scientific and medical malpractice of bringing half-baked — though, admittedly, not faked — ideas from the lab into clinic. Gelman didn’t comment on his blog back then, but he did praise Mukherjee the following year for a New York Times opinion piece “A Failure to Heal” (another gift link there) that is about — wait for it — clinical trials that show the treatment that you thought would work doesn’t. ⊕ These kinds of trials tend to be called “negative” but there’s nothing negative about them! They bring positive value to the world. Maybe our improvisational oncologist learn something in those 18 months that separate the two texts?

To be clear, what Mukherjee artfully called “improvisational oncology” was (lab) bench to (hospital) bedside medicine, which is distinct from bench to bedside research: the concept of bringing laboratory findings to clinical practice quickly, but still with some semblance of a clinical trial that includes a pre-specified protocol, informed consent and regulatory oversight. You know, all the stuff that decreases the odds of laboratory malfeasance endangering patient care. I say decreases the odds and not prevents them completely because we do have a case of a bad actor completely destroying an entire field of clinical research (Alzheimer’s disease). Can you imagine the damage that kind of shenanigans would do if we didn’t have clinical trials standing between the lab and the commercial drug market?

COI statement: I am involved in a [course about clinical trials][6 and think they are the best thing that has happened to medicine since a cloth merchant wanted to take a closer look at some garments so there is some bias involved, but then again say what you’ll do and do as you say is both a major tenet of clinical trialists and good general practice.

Adam Mastroianni nails it:

When people revile a degree from Harvard’s Extension School and revere a degree from Harvard College, they’re saying that the value of an education doesn’t come from the fact that you got educated. It comes from the fact that you got picked.

Alas, it is a paid post, and the more I encounter those the less I think of Substack and — this is not rational, I know — people who use it to blog. Because that is all Substack is: a blog with an optional, easy to implement paywall. I am not a fan.

The Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine went to Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun, two American scientists for their discovery of micro RNA:

The pair began studying gene regulation while they were postdoctoral fellows at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the lab of H. Robert Horvitz, who won his own Nobel Prize in 2002.

And so the Nobel family tree grows.

From the Institute For Progress-supported newsletter, Macroscience:

Last year, IFP brought together some of our closest friends and collaborators to put together a podcast series that would serve as a beginner-friendly introduction to metascience.

The result? “Metascience 101” – a nine-episode set of interviews that doubles as a crash course in the debates, issues, and ideas driving the modern metascience movement. We investigate why building a genuine “science of science” matters, and how research in metascience is translating into real-world policy changes.

So far so good. First guests?

Journalist Dylan Matthews sits down with economist Heidi Williams and IFP co-founder Caleb Watney to set the scene.

Bah-rump. Episode two?

OpenPhil CEO Alexander Berger interviews economist Matt Clancy and Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison to talk about whether science itself is slowing down, one of the key motivating concerns in metascience.

A journalist, an entrepreneur, two economists and a policy wonk gather around the fireplace to talk science. What seems to be missing is actual scientists. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

And if your retort is that few if any scientists have metascience as there full-time field of study, well, are any of the above doing it full time? I am sure the discussions will be brilliant — I will write up updates as I listen along — but the start looks a helluva lot like an echo chamber. Hope I’m wrong!

(↬Tyler Cowen, because who else. He will also be a guest in a future episode.)

Here are a few unrelated articles that crossed my inbox this morning:

• “Studios start at $1,927”
• "$1,134: The amount I paid for my round-trip cross-country Amtrak ride"
• “A six-bedroom apartment costs about $50,000, and the maximum income for a family of four is $160,000."

The latest episode of The Talk Show was with Taegan Goddard, who all the way back in 1999 founded the blog Political Wire which is apparently a continuous intravenous drip for people interested in US politics. Now, I’ve had other preocupations back then and not being an American citizen still have little to no interest, so this blog wasn’t even on my radar until listening to the episode. But now I wonder: are there any more relevant blogs I’ve missed out on, about medicine and biotechnology in particular?

ChatGPT’s first pass was mediocre. I’ll save you the verbalist padding, but here are its suggestions in response to my prompt: “Is there a website/blog like politicalwire.com or daringfireball.net but for biotechnology?”

• Endpoints News
• Fierce Biotech
• STAT News
• In the Pipeline
• Xconomy

It’s a 20% hit rate: only Derek Lowe’s In the Pipeline comes close to what I asked for. The others are all medium to big news outlets that yes, focus on biotech, but that’s not what I asked for. The second try, after I asked for more like Lowe’s, was a tad better:

• Timmerman Report
• The Niche
• The Biotech Strategy Blog
• Leonid Schneider’s For Better Science
• Science Translational Medicine Blog

That’s more like it! 80% now, and if I were feeling generous I’d give it a full 100% since In the Pipeline is, in fact, a Sci Trans Med blog. But then I asked for too much, and it hallucinated 3 more, two of which were hallucinations (BioPunk and BiotechBits, which were at least plausible names) and one was a sub-blog of Endpoints that also didn’t exist.

So, now I have two new blogs to follow (Timmerman Report and The Niche; Biotech Strategy is behind a paywall and I’ve already been following the others), and an ever-increasing urge to update the Blogroll, which has been under construction for the past five months with no end in sight.

I had Linus Lee’s blog The Sephist filed under “Paused and Defunct” for a while now, but he is back at it. Although most of the subject matter is out of my wheelhouse this mental model of Motivation as a function of Exploration (or was it the other way around) rang true — certainly truer to the scientific method than what my 6th-grader has been hearing at school.

An interesting entry to the big and ever-growing book of unintended consequences:

Chernobyl caused many more deaths by reducing nuclear power plant construction and increasing air pollution than by its direct effects which were small albeit not negligible.

(ᔥAlex Tabarrok)