Here's a video in which Mike Rees, the founder of the Alliance for Paired Kidney Donation (APKD) describes how (with the help of a grant from Stanford) the APKD is helping Brazilian transplant docs get kidney exchange going there.
Earlier:
The US armed services have an unusual labor market. Most soldiers, sailers, airmen and now space forcers join the military pretty much right out of high school, either directly, or in college ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps), or in one of the military academies. Two exceptions are lawyers and doctors, who can join as officers without prior military experience (i.e. they can become officers without ever having learned how to salute).
Now that computer science of various sorts is entering warfare, cyber warriors are also needed. But there's only so much you can do with contractors and consultants.
This month, the Army is introducing a new career path for officers:
Army establishes new AI, machine learning career path for officers
"The U.S. Army has established a new career pathway for officers to specialize in artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML), formally designating the 49B AI/ML Officer as an official area of concentration. It advances the Army's ongoing transformation into a data-centric and AI-enabled force.
Full implementation of the new career field will be phased. The first selection of officers will occur through the Army's Volunteer Transfer Incentive Program (VTIP) beginning January 2026. The officers will be reclassified by the end of fiscal year 2026."
#########
And here's another report that indicates that some CS experts have also been laterally recruited into the officer corps.
Army creates AI career field, pathway for officers to join
"In June, the Army directly commissioned several tech executives with artificial intelligence backgrounds from companies such as Meta and Palantir as lieutenant colonels as part of its Executive Innovation Corps (EIC). Those executives serve in the reserves as “senior advisors,” the Army said.
The WSJ has the story:
Economists Are Studying the Slowing Job Market—and Feeling It Themselves
Newly minted Ph.D.s tend to work for universities, government agencies and big white-collar companies. It’s not a great hiring time for any of them. By Justin Lahart
"The economics job market is getting buffeted by a confluence of forces. Worries about federal funding have led many major universities to reduce, or even freeze, hiring. Jobs within the federal government have dried up. The private sector, where demand for economists has been intense in recent years, has pulled back.
“It’s like a perfect storm,” said Syracuse University economist John Cawley, who heads the American Economic Association’s job market committee.
"The tough market for doctoral students finishing up their studies is hardly unique to economics. What’s different about economists is that they are intensely interested in measuring and understanding how labor markets work—and they have brought that to bear on their own profession. As a result, armed with data from the AEA and all the knowledge they gained in graduate school, doctoral students in economics have a much more precise grasp of what type of environment they are facing than their counterparts in political science, philosophy or biophysics.
...
"The economics job market has its own peculiar rhythms and hierarchies. In the fall, students who are finishing their Ph.D.s, as well as economists in postdoctoral programs, apply for jobs that typically start the following summer. But because students can apply to dozens, or even hundreds, of jobs, this creates a matching problem: How does a prospective employer know which candidates are serious?
"Economists, being economists, have tried to solve this. When a candidate applies for jobs via JOE, they are able to send up to two “signals” of interest for jobs they are particularly interested in—almost like a winking emoji on a dating app. That signaling system was put together with the help of Stanford economist Alvin Roth, who also developed systems for matching kidney donors with patients and New York City schoolchildren with schools."
When I was president of the American Economic Association, we began to think it would be prudent to have a formal code of conduct (see the link below for details). But part of that effort resulted in a disclosure questionnaire required of all those who would serve on AEA committees. As I recall, I felt that one of the questions was too broadly posed.
I've agreed to serve another term on the Committee on the Job Market, so I get to fill out the questionnaire, once again. My responses are below. You should be able to guess the question I thought was phrased too broadly.
########
I would have had more reason(s) to answer "yes" if I had played on any gender-segregated athletic teams.
Religion and gender turn out to be complicated (and therefore well worth studying).
"6. TRADE COMPLIANCE: Each author warrants that if the author, any of the author’s coauthors or any other individual whose content is included in the Work resides in Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Crimea, the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) or the Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) regions of the Ukraine, the Work has been prepared in a personal, academic, or research capacity and not as an official representative or otherwise on behalf of the relevant government"
The Atlantic has a story about a controversy in cosmology about the expansion of the universe, and whether its explanation requires the hypothesis of dark energy. But what caught my eye is the author's apparent surprise that a Nobel laureate at the center of the controversy continued his research career, post-Nobel.
Here's the link, and the paragraphs that caught my eye:
The Nobel Prize Winner Who Thinks We Have the Universe All Wrong Cosmologists are fighting over everything. By Ross Andersen
"Adam Riess was 27 years old when he began the work that earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics, and just 41 when he received it.
...
"When he returned from Stockholm with his prize in 2011, he found that his academic life had changed. People around him started to behave oddly, he told me. Some clammed up. Others argued with him about trivial things, he said, perhaps so they could boast of having dunked on a Nobel laureate. Riess was besieged with invitations to sit on panels, give talks, and judge science fairs. He was asked to comment on political issues that he knew nothing about. He told me he was even recruited to run major scientific institutions.
"Riess wondered about that path—being the big boss of a NASA mission or gliding around a leafy university as its chancellor. He could see the appeal, but he hated fundraising, and unlike other, older Nobel laureates, he said, Riess still felt that he had scientific contributions to make, not as an administrator, but as a frontline investigator of capital-n Nature. “Scientists sometimes tell themselves this myth: I’ll go lead this thing, and then I’ll come back and do research,” he told me. But then, by the time they’ve finished up with their administrative roles, they’ve lost touch with the data. They become clumsy with the latest software languages. “The science passes them by,” Riess said.
"Riess decided to stick with research. "
Itai Ashlagi and I weigh in on recent controversy about "out of sequence" offers of organs for transplant, with some ideas about how the current system might be redesigned and maintained so as to reduce organ discards while maintaining transparency about how and to whom organs are offered.
Itai Ashlagi and Alvin E. Roth (2026). Out of Sequence Offers: Towards Efficient, Equitable Organ Allocation. The American Journal of Bioethics, 26(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2026.2594937
"Organs for transplant are very scarce compared to the need, and so the allocation of organs from deceased donors raises questions about both efficiency and fairness. Because offers of organs take time to consider, and because the viability of organs from deceased donors decreases over time, efficiency sometimes requires increasing the chance of reaching a patient who will accept the organ while it remains viable. So fairness and efficiency, concerning who gets to consider the next offer, and the probability that the organ on offer will be accepted in time for it to be transplanted, may sometimes be in conflict, or at least appear to be. And even the appearance of unfairness may undercut trust in the system of organ donation and transplantation.
"This conflict between fairness and efficiency has resulted in controversy about offers made “out of sequence” (Covered in a lead article in the NYT article (Times 2025))
...
"Collecting data is essential for both efficiency and transparency. It is unfair to future patients not to have transparent allocation systems that can be studied with precision (with causal inference from experimentation), so that it can be improved over time. It is also unfair to future patients who will join increasingly congested waiting lists as a result of the failure to utilize a large number of transplantable organs.
Public data about transplant centers’ performance and patients’ waiting times would further allow patients to choose, based on their own preferences, a transplant center that fits their need.
...
"Policies to expedite the placement of marginal quality organs that can be tested over time and studied with experiments include when to determine an organ is hard-to-place and when and how to adapt the priority list.
"In summary, it is sometimes desirable to expedite an organ that risks being unused, by offering it to a patient or transplant center that is likely to accept it if the offer is received in a timely way. But it is important to make sure that this flexibility does not promote unfairness to patients or transplant centers. Increasing the transparency and efficiency of the system for expediting organs can address both these issues."
########
The same issue of the journal contains a number of articles discussing organ allocation out of sequence
########
Earlier:
Posts
All Comments
