Science and politics: Can you fix science by doing much less of it?

 Today's NYT has a long opinion piece about (my former Stanford colleague) Jay  Bhattacharya in his role as the new head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  I found it confusing and confused. But the last two paragraphs made some sense.

Jay Bhattacharya Wants to Fix Science.  Is He in Over His Head?  
By Ari Schulman 

Here are the two concluding paragraphs:

"The mRNA vaccine decision was the clearest test case yet of how his idealism will go once released into the wild. In The Washington Post, he acknowledges that the Covid vaccines saved millions of lives without known safety problems. He notes unanswered questions, around dosing and side effects. But when push came to shove, his response to these questions was not, let’s answer them with science, as he told me, but: Shut the science down. It turns out that the power of science to solve problems has limits after all.

"The problem with Dr. Bhattacharya is not that he’s cynical, as his critics say. It’s that his theory is naïve about power, and so could easily become a mouthpiece for it. America’s golden age of innovation, backed by levels of public investment that make us the envy of the world, has been nice while it’s lasted. If we want to keep it going, this moment may call less for a fresh infusion of reason than some new animating spirit, not a new Galileo but a new Robert Moses, Carl Sagan, or J. Robert Oppenheimer. Let us hope that Jay Bhattacharya still has it in him. The country needs it." 

Politics and science disagree about drinking and climate change...

 It turns our that worries about drinking were just as woke about worries about climate change.

The NYT has the story on drinking, CBS on climate change:

Federal Report on Drinking Is Withdrawn
The upcoming U.S. Dietary Guidelines will instead be influenced by a competing study, favored by industry, which found that moderate alcohol consumption was healthy. 

"The Department of Health and Human Services has pulled back a government report warning of a link between cancer and drinking even small amounts of alcohol, according to the authors of the research.

Their report, the Alcohol Intake and Health Study, warned that even one drink a day raises the risk of liver cirrhosis, oral and esophageal cancer, and injuries. The scientists who wrote it were told that the final version would not be submitted to Congress, as had been planned." 

##########

Here's CBS's story on climate change:

More than 85 climate experts say Energy Department report on greenhouse gases is "full of errors"

"An international group of more than 85 climate experts on Tuesday published a 439-page review arguing that a report by the Trump administration's Energy Department fails to "adequately represent the current scientific understanding of climate change," and it "exhibits pervasive problems" by misrepresenting scientific literature and cherry-picking data.

"The Department of Energy's 151-page report, "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," was written by five authors who were hand-selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive. It included a controversial conclusion that "carbon dioxide-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed," and it states that "aggressive mitigation strategies" to address greenhouse gas emissions "could be more harmful than beneficial" — a statement that supports the oil and gas industry."

######

That has sparked a lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Matching Senators to committees: a(nother) party divide, by Ashutosh Thakur

 Here's an innovative paper by Ashutosh Thakur that does for legislative matching of senators to committees what the study of matching and market design has long been doing in economics, which is discovering and analyzing the underlying institutional mechanisms that make things happen.

Thakur, Ashutosh. "A matching theory perspective on legislative organization: assignment of committees." Political Science Research and Methods (2025): 1-25. 

Abstract: How legislatures allocate power and conduct business are central determinants of policy outcomes. Much of the literature on parties and the committee system in legislatures examines which members serve on which committees. What has received less attention are the mechanisms by which parties allocate members to committees. I show that parties in the US Senate use matching mechanisms, like those used in school choice and the medical residency match. Republicans and Democrats use two distinct matching mechanisms, such that canonical theories of parties cannot apply equally to them. The Republican mechanism is strategyproof, whereas the Democrat mechanism incentivizes politicians to manipulate their reported preferences. Leveraging matching theory, I make theoretical predictions; corroborating them with archival correspondence and committee requests/assignments data.

A Tale of Two Statues (in Denmark and U.S.)

 Public art is one of those things that depends in different ways on public and political support.

So, in Denmark, one statue of a mermaid is being removed, while in the U.S. statues of Confederate soldiers are being restored.

The Guardian has the story about the mermaid statue (which isn't _the_ famous little mermaid, but a bigger one):

Denmark to remove ‘pornographic’ mermaid statue, reports say. Danish agency for palaces and culture requests removal of 14-tonne sculpture from Dragør Fort in Copenhagen  by Miranda Bryant

########

USA Today has the story about a statue being restored in Washington D.C.

No one was sad to see this Confederate statue go. Now Trump is bringing it back. | Opinion
Trump wants us to move backward, to a time when our nation's ugly, racist past was swept under the rug. Why else would he be propping up inept Confederate generals while targeting Black history?  by Sara Pequeño

"President Trump is advocating for the restoration of a monument honoring Confederate Gen. Albert Pike.
...
Pike, a Freemason and member of the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party, was a Confederate general who served for less than two years before resigning. His troops were accused of scalping Union soldiers. There are claims that he was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War, but historians say this can’t be proven."

The science and politics of vaping in the U.S

 The Washington Post has the story:

FDA lets Juul market vapes in the U.S. three years after trying to ban them
Federal regulators first announced a ban of Juul products in 2022, although a court order allowed them to stay on store shelves while the company filed an appeal.  By David Ovalle and Shannon Najmabadi
 

"The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Juul Labs to market its electronic cigarettes, years after the agency tried to ban the company’s products amid outcry over its role in fueling the popularity of vapes among young people.

"The agency, after reviewing scientific data provided by the company, concluded that Juul’s electronic cigarette device and refillable cartridges in tobacco and menthol flavors can help adult cigarette users reduce smoking or switch to less harmful products, outweighing the risk to youth.

...

"The news comes a few days after the Vapor Technology Association, an industry group, said it launched a seven-figure ad campaign urging President Donald Trump to draw a distinction between vape products targeting youths and “safer, adult-focused alternatives” touted as smoking-cessation tools. Trump previously offered enthusiastic support for vaping and promised to protect the industry while campaigning in 2024.

...

"A 2024 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey found vapes were the most common tobacco product used by middle- and high-schoolers. About 1.6 million students use electronic cigarettes, according to the survey — and nearly 90 percent of those who vape prefer the flavored liquids, the survey reported.

Thursday’s Juul decision drew immediate outcry from public health groups that assert vapes are addictive and can harm the development of maturing brains."

Explaining economics can change the evaluation of policies, by Elias, Lacetera and Macis

 Perhaps economists should get involved in the discussion of public policies during political campaigns...

Is the Price Right? The Role of Economic Trade-Offs in Explaining Reactions to Price Surges
Julio Elías, Nicola Lacetera , Mario Macis    Management Science
Published Online:4 Jul 2025https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.04555 

Abstract: Public authorities often introduce price controls following price surges, potentially causing inefficiencies and exacerbating shortages. A survey experiment with 7,612 Canadian and U.S. respondents shows that unregulated price surges raise moral objections and widespread disapproval. However, acceptance increases and demand for regulation declines when participants are prompted to consider economic trade-offs between controlled and unregulated prices, whereby incentives from higher prices lead to additional supply and enhance access to goods. Moreover, highlighting these trade-offs reduces polarization in moral judgments between supporters and opponents of unregulated pricing. Textual analysis of responses to open-ended questions provides further insights into our findings, and an incentivized donation task demonstrates consistency between stated preferences and real-stakes behavior. Although economic trade-offs do influence public support for price control policies, the evidence indicates that even when the potential gains in economic efficiency from unregulated prices are explicit, a significant divide persists between the utilitarian views that standard economic thinking implies and the nonutilitarian values held by the general population.

 

"Overall, therefore, we document widespread opposition to sudden price surges, motivated in large part by moral and ideological considerations. However, explicitly describing possible economic trade-offs between policy regimes does affect people’s reactions by making them more open to letting prices move freely. This result suggests that people do not immediately consider efficiency or equilibrium considerations when reacting to and expressing a judgment about price surges. When considerations about economic efficiency are missing, moral reactions are highly polarized; when economic trade-offs are explicit, views tend to converge. However, the fact that most respondents still support price control policies in this case suggests that this position derives from normative concerns and not necessarily from a lack of consideration for equilibrium effects and efficiency implications."

Universities under attack, in Israel and the U.S., by warfare and lawfare

Both the U.S. and Israel have distinguished universities, some older than the country in which they sit.

Both have universities that have recently been under attack from their enemies.

 Two stories:

This, from Haaretz:

'We Were Targeted': Iran Put Israel's Scientific Research High on Their Kill List  by Gid'on Lev and Noa Limone

“Even before the war with Iran, Israeli universities and research institutes were suffering their two toughest years ever. Hundreds of faculty members and students were killed or wounded in Gaza, while tens of thousands were diverted from their studies and research by reserve duty, or were forced to leave their homes near Gaza or the Lebanese border. 

"Compounding this were the government's efforts to curb academic freedom – and then the 12-day war with Iran raised the bar to a record high. "For the first time, we were really targeted," says the chairman of the Association of University Heads, Prof. Daniel Chamovitz. 

“This began with a direct hit on the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot southeast of Tel Aviv, and continued with two strikes on Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in the south. A week ago, Iranian missiles damaged Tel Aviv University, and during the war Tehran put out a warning suggesting it was targeting the Technion.”

####

And this, from the NYT (one of many):

Trump Administration Finds Harvard Violated Civil Rights Law  By Michael C. Bender and Alan Blinder

Thinking about the ethical, legal and political relationships between IVF and abortion (in JAMA)

Some people support both IVF and abortion (women's right to choose) and some people oppose both (embryos are people), but many oppose abortion but support IVF.  Here's an article that focuses on some ethical distinctions (is the intention to have a child or not), and also on some political ones (IVF patients are on average more affluent than abortion patients).

Watson K. Rethinking the Ethical and Legal Relationship Between IVF and Abortion. JAMA. Published online May 22, 2025. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.6733 

"US voters have elected a president who promised he would make the government or private insurance cover in vitro fertilization (IVF), yet takes credit for reversing Roe v Wade. These positions highlight a question that has lingered since US IVF practice began in 1981: are hospital and governmental policies that support IVF but do not support abortion ethically consistent? And if not, why is this division so common?

"Those who see IVF and abortion as ethically distinct often focus on differences in intention and outcome—having a baby vs avoiding having a baby. Others see them as comparable practices because both destroy embryos. I offer a third perspective, which is that abortion and IVF are comparable practices because both are family-building medical interventions; therefore, support for IVF access ought to lead to support for abortion access.

"Abortion was a federal constitutional right until 2022, and IVF was subject to state regulation like the rest of medicine. Yet constitutional protection did not stop many states from heavily regulating abortion, and IVF rarely faced governmental limits. A stark example of their disparate treatment occurred shortly after Roe v Wade was reversed when the traditionally antiabortion state of Indiana began its statute criminalizing abortion provision by clarifying “This article does not apply to in vitro fertilization” (IN Code §16-34-1-0.5 [2024]).

"Yet like abortion, IVF also involves embryo death. 

...

" differences in patient income, race, age, and education also suggest a stark difference in political power between the constituencies invested in IVF and abortion. Eighty-one percent of fertility patients have household incomes of more than $100 000 and 75% are White6; 72% of abortion patients have incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty line and 59% are Black or Latinx.3 Sixty-four percent of IVF patients are 35 years or older,7 while 70% of abortion patients are in their teens or 20s.3 Fourteen percent of births to women with a college or graduate degree were conceived with the use of assisted reproductive technology, but only 1.5% of births to women with some college or less were conceived with assisted reproductive technology in 2023.8 In contrast, 77% of abortion patients have some college or less.9 (There are no data documenting how many IVF patients deferred their childbearing by having an abortion when they were younger, or how many IVF patients later abort to decrease a multiple pregnancy or avoid unexpected medical problems.)

"Entities involved in providing IVF also have financial interests in preserving the legality of a practice with a median cost of $19 200 per cycle.6 Infertility care generates approximately $8 billion per year in gross revenues in the US.10 High operating margins have drawn private equity investors to many private fertility practices, and IVF is lucrative for hospitals and physicians."

Kennedy proposes to focus on chronic disease, but terminates large-scale long-running NIH Diabetes Prevention study

 The NYT has the story:

As Kennedy Champions Chronic Disease Prevention, Key Research Is Cut.  Two significant programs that invested in research on diabetes, dementia, obesity and kidney disease have ended since the start of the Trump administration. By Gina Kolata  April 7, 2025

"on Monday he is starting a tour in the Southwest to promote a program to combat chronic illness, emphasizing nutrition and lifestyle.
 

"But since Mr. Kennedy assumed his post, key grants and contracts that directly address these diseases, including obesity, diabetes and dementia, which experts agree are among the nation’s leading health problems, are being eliminated.

...

“This is a huge mistake,” said Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the co-director of the Healthcare Transformation Institute at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine."

Decades of Diabetes Research Discontinued
"Ever since its start in 1996, the Diabetes Prevention Program has helped doctors understand this deadly chronic disease. The condition is the nation’s most expensive, affecting 38 million Americans and incurring $306 billion in one recent year in direct costs. With about 400,000 deaths in 2021, it was the eighth leading cause of death.
"The program has been terminated 

..

"On March 7, the Trump administration cut $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia, saying Jewish students were not protected from harassment during protests over the war in Gaza. The diabetes grant was among those terminated: $16 million a year that Columbia shared across 30 medical centers. The study ended abruptly.

...

"Now much of the work cannot begin, and the part that had started remains incomplete."

CDC’s laboratory on sexually transmitted diseases is shut by Trump administration

 Statnews has the story:

CDC’s top laboratory on sexually transmitted diseases is shut by Trump administration
‘We are blind,’ researcher says, noting the lab is crucial to tracking drug-resistant gonorrhea and other diseases  By Helen Branswell April 5, 2025

"At a time when the world is down to a single drug that can reliably cure gonorrhea, the U.S. government has shuttered the country’s premier sexually transmitted diseases laboratory, leaving experts aghast and fearful about what lies ahead.

"The STD lab at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — a leading player in global efforts to monitor for drug resistance in the bacteria that cause these diseases — was among the targets of major staff slashing at the CDC this past week. All 28 full-time employees of the lab were fired.

...

"A CDC white paper on antibiotic resistance released during the first Trump administration listed drug-resistant gonorrhea as one of five urgent threats facing the country. Antimicrobial resistance to that last drug that reliably works to cure gonorrhea, ceftriaxone, is rare but on the rise globally."

 

Open letter on Science

 Here's the NYT story out this morning,

Trump Administration Has Begun a War on Science, Researchers. Say Nearly 2,000 scientists urged that Congress restore funding to federal agencies decimated by recent cuts.

 

And here's the letter (and all the signatures):
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
We all rely on science. Science gave us the smartphones in our pockets, the navigation systems in our cars, and life-saving medical care. We count on engineers when we drive across bridges and fly in airplanes. Businesses and farmers rely on science and engineering for product innovation, technological advances, and weather forecasting. Science helps humanity protect the planet and keeps pollutants and toxins out of our air, water, and food.

For over 80 years, wise investments by the US government have built up the nation’s research enterprise, making it the envy of the world. Astoundingly, the Trump administration is destabilizing this enterprise by gutting funding for research, firing thousands of scientists, removing public access to scientific data, and pressuring researchers to alter or abandon their work on ideological grounds.

The undersigned are elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, representing some of the nation’s top scientists, engineers, and medical researchers. We are speaking out as individuals. We see real danger in this moment. We hold diverse political beliefs, but we are united as researchers in wanting to protect independent scientific inquiry. We are sending this SOS to sound a clear warning: the nation’s scientific enterprise is being decimated.

The administration is slashing funding for scientific agencies, terminating grants to scientists, defunding their laboratories, and hampering international scientific collaboration. The funding cuts are forcing institutions to pause research (including studies of new disease treatments), dismiss faculty, and stop enrolling graduate students—the pipeline for the next generation’s scientists.

The administration’s current investigations of more than 50 universities send a chilling message. Columbia University was recently notified that its federal funding would be withheld unless it adopted disciplinary policies and disabled an academic department targeted by the administration. Destabilizing dozens of universities will endanger higher education—and the research those institutions conduct.

The quest for truth—the mission of science—requires that scientists freely explore new questions and report their findings honestly, independent of special interests. The administration is engaging in censorship, destroying this independence.  It is using executive orders and financial threats to manipulate which studies are funded or published, how results are reported, and which data and research findings the public can access. The administration is blocking research on topics it finds objectionable, such as climate change, or that yields results it does not like, on topics ranging from vaccine safety to economic trends.

A climate of fear has descended on the research community. Researchers, afraid of losing their funding or job security, are removing their names from publications, abandoning studies, and rewriting grant proposals and papers to remove scientifically accurate terms (such as “climate change”) that agencies are flagging as objectionable. Although some in the scientific community have protested vocally, most researchers, universities, research institutions, and professional organizations have kept silent to avoid antagonizing the administration and jeopardizing their funding.

If our country’s research enterprise is dismantled, we will lose our scientific edge. Other countries will lead the development of novel disease treatments, clean energy sources, and the new technologies of the future. Their populations will be healthier, and their economies will surpass us in business, defense, intelligence gathering, and monitoring our planet’s health. The damage to our nation’s scientific enterprise could take decades to reverse.

We call on the administration to cease its wholesale assault on U.S. science, and we urge the public to join this call. Share this statement with others, contact your representatives in Congress, and help your community understand what is at risk. The voice of science must not be silenced.  We all benefit from science, and we all stand to lose if the nation’s research enterprise is destroyed.  

The views expressed here are our own and not those of the National Academies or our home institutions.

Trans Forming Liberty. Amy Sherald at SFMOMA

 Sometimes politics make an artwork even more politically fraught than when it was painted.

 

 

 

Demonstrating for science (in Washington and elsewhere)

 Scientists are more accustomed to demonstrating science than demonstrating for science, but that may need to change.

Nature has the story:

NEWS, 03 March 2025
US science is under threat ― now scientists are fighting back
Researchers are organizing protests and making their voices heard as Trump officials slash funding and lay off federal scientists. By Heidi Ledford & Alexandra Witze 

"Across the United States, researchers are navigating uncomfortable territory. Repeated threats to research funding and the mass firings of federal workers have pushed some scientists to take on unfamiliar roles as activists, speaking at rallies, calling legislators and forming new pressure groups. “Historically, scientists have done a really bad job of advocating for their own activities,” says David Meyer, a sociologist at the University of California, Irvine. “So this is a new challenge.”

Unaccustomed role

The events of the past six weeks have compelled many scientists to embrace that challenge. Soon after the second inauguration of US President Donald Trump on 20 January, the new administration attempted to freeze payments on federal grants; announced that it would review and potentially cancel any grant that mentioned terms it deemed indicative of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes; and issued dramatic cuts to the overhead, or ‘indirect costs’, paid on projects funded by the US National Institutes of Health.

...

"For many scientists, the big event is coming up on 7 March, at ‘Stand Up for Science’ rallies slated to take place in 32 cities around the country. The main event, in Washington DC, is spearheaded by a group of five researchers, most of them graduate students, who came together to combat their own initial feelings of powerlessness. “It’s been inspiring, as this has grown, to see how many people were feeling the same way and to take action,” says Emma Courtney, a graduate student in biology at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York."

Politics, Physician Senators, and the Hippocratic Oath (regarding the confirmation of RFK Jr. as HHS secretary)

 Here's an opinion piece from MedpageToday

Physician Senators, What Have You Done?— They have betrayed the Hippocratic Oath in voting to confirm RFK Jr.   by Joseph V. Sakran, MD, MPH, MPA, and Samuel Okum, February 14, 2025 

"When Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-La.) -- a physician, longtime advocate for healthcare policy, and potential swing vote on the Finance Committee -- voted to advance Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of HHS, he didn't just make a political choice. He made a choice that undermines science, public health, and the very Hippocratic Oath he once swore to uphold.

"While Cassidy claims to have taken this decision "very seriously," he must know it is wrong. As a legislator, he understands that the HHS secretary oversees critical health institutions like the CDC, FDA, and CMS. As a doctor, he has firsthand knowledge of how these agencies impact patient care, from ensuring access to safe medications to shaping life-saving public health policies. Entrusting this role to Kennedy -- a man with no qualifications beyond his fame as a purveyor of medical disinformation -- isn't just reckless. It endangers us all. 

...

"Through his organization, Children's Health Defense, Kennedy has falsely linked vaccines to autismopens in a new tab or window, opposed COVID-19 safety measuresopens in a new tab or window, and promoted debunked medical treatmentsopens in a new tab or window. In 2021, the Center for Countering Digital Hate identified him as one of the "Disinformation Dozenopens in a new tab or window" -- a small group responsible for nearly two-thirds of anti-vaccine content circulating online. All of this suggests this promotion of falsehoods has eroded public trust in vaccines, contributing to preventable disease outbreaks and declining immunization ratesopens in a new tab or window.

"The consequences of his rhetoric have been deadly. In 2019, Kennedy traveled to Samoa to support an investigationopens in a new tab or window into routine childhood vaccinations. His visit coincided with a devastating measles outbreak that infected thousands and killed dozens of unvaccinated children. When confronted by the country's prime minister, Kennedy expressed no remorse. Instead, he baselessly suggested that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccineopens in a new tab or window itself may have been responsible for the deaths.

...

"

We believe Cassidy prioritized political expediency over medical integrity. He arguably chose to align himself with President Donald Trump and conspiracy rather than the national interest and public health.

Meanwhile, Cassidy set the stage for his physician colleagues -- Republican senators Roger Marshall, MD (Kan.), John Barrasso, MD (Wyo.), and Rand Paul, MD (Ky.) -- to follow suit. They have all betrayed their oath as doctors."

give yourself a scare

 Want to see something scary? 

Click here: 

The White House  https://www.whitehouse.gov/

Practical market design makes policy recommendations (which can violate NBER publication policy)

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) publishes a widely read series of working papers, before publication in refereed journals. They also distribute a list of papers that have been published in medical journals, since those journals don't allow prepublication in working papers.  For both these series the NBER has a rule against papers that make policy recommendations.

This is sometimes a problem for the field of market design, since practical market design is about finding ways to improve the operation of markets, which is a kind of policy advice. I encountered this recently with the two papers described below, published in medical journals, which apparently are too policy related: the policy being to save more lives by arranging more transplants, in this case of hearts and kidneys respectively. (Medical journals have their own conventions, but aren't opposed to advice on medical practice...)

I received the following email from the NBER, accompanied by a line of explanation for each paper.

The email began:

"I apologize for my belated response about your journal articles; while the subject matter is clearly vital, after review of the full-text, we determined that your articles make policy recommendations that are too specific for NBER’s policy on working papers (which we apply to papers in the article list)."

 It then continued by highlighting the offending sentences in each article:

1. Alyssa Power MD*, Kurt R. Sweat MA*, Alvin Roth PhD, John C. Dykes MD, Beth Kaufman MD, Michael Ma MD, Sharon Chen MD, MPH, Seth A. Hollander MD, Elizabeth Profita MD, David N Rosenthal MD, Lynsey Barkoff NP, Chiu-Yu Chen MD PhD, Ryan R. Davies MD, Christopher S. Almond MD, MPH, “Contemporary Pediatric Heart Transplant Waitlist Mortality,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol 84, no. 7, August 13, 2024: 620-632.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109724075624

"Policy language:  A more flexible allocation system that accurately reflects patient-specific risks and considers transplant benefit is urgently needed."

2. Vivek B. Kute, Himanshu V Patel, Subho Banerjee,Divyesh P Engineer, Ruchir B Dave, Nauka Shah, Sanshriti Chauhan ,Harishankar Meshram , Priyash Tambi  , Akash Shah, Khushboo Saxena,Manish Balwani , Vishal Parmar, Shivam Shah, Ved Prakash ,Sudeep Patel, Dev Patel, Sudeep Desai, Jamal Rizvi , Harsh Patel, Beena Parikh, Kamal Kanodia, Shruti Gandhi, Michael A Rees,  Alvin E Roth,  Pranjal Modi “Impact of single centre kidney-exchange transplantation to increase living donor pool in India: A cohort study involving non-anonymous allocation,”Nephrology, September 2024,https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nep.14380

"Policy language: We suggest stepwise progress to achieve multicentre, regional, State and then a National program. Ideally, there should be engagement by the National Organ & Tissue Transplant Organization and the World Health Organization. 

While we recommend simultaneous surgery for mDRPs in a single exchange, sometimes logistical aspects have necessitated non-simultaneous exchanges"

##########

Earlier posts:

Thursday, August 8, 2024  Pediatric Heart Transplants: rethinking the waitlist, by Power, Sweat...Almond et al.

 Wednesday, September 18, 2024 More on non-anonymous kidney exchange in India

Nobel prize in economics to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, James A. Robinson

  "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024 to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, James A. Robinson “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity”

These three have a broad scope of work together.  One aspect that fits well with this year's prizes in Physics and Chemistry is a connection to artificial intelligence, particularly in the book Power and Progress by Acemoglu and Johnson:  

Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity  May 16, 2023 by Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson 

Here's the blurb by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo

"One powerful thread runs through this breathtaking tour of the history and future of technology, from the Neolithic agricultural revolution to the ascent of artificial intelligence: Technology is not destiny, nothing is pre-ordained. Humans, despite their imperfect institutions and often-contradictory impulses, remain in the driver’s seat. It is still our job to determine whether the vehicles we build are heading toward justice or down the cliff. In this age of relentless automation and seemingly unstoppable consolidation of power and wealth, Power and Progress is an essential reminder that we can, and must, take back control."

Anger and Sadness in Tel Aviv

Saturday, on the last night of my just-ended visit to Israel, I attended two adjacent mass public events. 

One was a political demonstration against the leadership of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his governing coalition. The other was a vigil for the kidnapped hostages, living and dead.

In each of these two events, the one Hebrew word you heard more than any other was NOW (עכשיו).  As in "Elections NOW!"  or "Bring them home NOW!"

In the political demonstration, the primary mood expressed by the speakers was anger.  In the vigil, it was sadness.

Below some pictures and a video of a speech with added subtitles in English translation.

From the demonstration:

The signs say "Elections Now!"

The sign (addressed to Bibi) says: "You are the boss.
You are guilty"

From the vigil for the hostages:

Prepared to welcome the hostages home  to Shabbat dinner

x

And one bonus picture, on the road connecting the two gatherings, from the Women Who Wage Peace