Research misconduct in the marketplace for science

Lately there have been a number of news stories about research misconduct of the "conventional" sort, involving scientists falsifying the scientific record by fabricating or misrepresenting data. When federal granting agencies find that someone has committed this kind of fraud they have procedures for denying them future grants, etc.

Here's a story about a kind of egregious scientific misconduct that is not covered by such procedures, although the criminal law addresses a small part of it. The story is about a scientist who sabotoged another scientist's experiments: Research integrity: Sabotage!

"Bhrigu, over the course of several months at Michigan, had meticulously and systematically sabotaged the work of Heather Ames, a graduate student in his lab, by tampering with her experiments and poisoning her cell-culture media. Captured on hidden camera, Bhrigu confessed to university police in April and pleaded guilty to malicious destruction of personal property, a misdemeanour that apparently usually involves cars: in the spaces for make and model on the police report, the arresting officer wrote "lab research" and "cells".
...
"Bhrigu's actions are surprising, but probably not unique. There are few firm numbers showing the prevalence of research sabotage, but conversations with graduate students, postdocs and research-misconduct experts suggest that such misdeeds occur elsewhere, and that most go unreported or unpoliced. In this case, the episode set back research, wasted potentially tens of thousands of dollars and terrorized a young student. More broadly, acts such as Bhrigu's — along with more subtle actions to hold back or derail colleagues' work — have a toxic effect on science and scientists. They are an affront to the implicit trust between scientists that is necessary for research endeavours to exist and thrive.


"Despite all this, there is little to prevent perpetrators re-entering science. In the United States, federal bodies that provide research funding have limited ability and inclination to take action in sabotage cases because they aren't interpreted as fitting the federal definition of research misconduct, which is limited to plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of research data. In Bhrigu's case, administrators at the University of Michigan worked with police to investigate, thanks in part to the persistence of Ames and her supervisor, Theo Ross.
...
"At Washtenaw County Courthouse in July, having reviewed the case files, Pollard Hines delivered Bhrigu's sentence. She ordered him to pay around US$8,800 for reagents and experimental materials, plus $600 in court fees and fines — and to serve six months' probation, perform 40 hours of community service and undergo a psychiatric evaluation.


"But the threat of a worse sentence hung over Bhrigu's head. At the request of the prosecutor, Ross had prepared a more detailed list of damages, including Bhrigu's entire salary, half of Ames's, six months' salary for a technician to help Ames get back up to speed, and a quarter of the lab's reagents. The court arrived at a possible figure of $72,000, with the final amount to be decided upon at a restitution hearing in September.

"Before that hearing could take place, however, Bhrigu and his wife left the country for India...
"Now that Bhrigu is in India, there is little to prevent him from getting back into science. And even if he were in the United States, there wouldn't be much to stop him. The National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, through its Office of Research Integrity, will sometimes bar an individual from receiving federal research funds for a time if they are found guilty of misconduct. But Bhigru probably won't face that prospect because his actions don't fit the federal definition of misconduct, a situation Ross finds strange. "All scientists will tell you that it's scientific misconduct because it's tampering with data," she says."

HT: Muriel Niederle

Selling blood plasma as a part time job

In the Chronicle, Lawrence Biemiller writes, At Central Michigan U., It’s a Matter of Money

“For a lot of college students, it’s just a little extra spending money,” Mr. Canze said when I asked about the plasma trade. “I probably know nine to a dozen people who will go regularly. They screen you, hook you up, pump you, and get you on your way.” Each visit to the local BioLife Plasma Services facility takes about an hour, during which you can read, listen to music, or get on Facebook through the company’s Wifi network. The facility even offers day care.

“Donating” is a euphemism the company uses. The frequently-asked-questions section of the company’s Web site includes the question: “Why do plasma donors receive money for donating?” The answer: “Plasma donors spend up to two hours, as often as twice a week, in our centers to help save someone’s life or improve the quality of it. We merely offer compensation to our donors for their commitment to the program. For more compensation information, contact your local center directly.”

You make $20 per BioLife visit, Mr. Canze told me. You can go as often as twice a week, and if you go at least once a week for a month, you get a $20 bonus. The math is easy enough—you can make $180 a month. That’s real money, especially for college students, especially in Michigan.

More on compensation for marrow donors

Representatives of the major world marrow donation clearinghouses come out against compensation for donors:

Remuneration of hematopoietic stem cell donors: principles and perspective of the World Marrow Donor Association by Michael Boo, Suzanna M. van Walraven^*, Jeremy Chapman, Brian Lindberg, Alexander H. Schmidt, Bronwen E. Shaw, Galen E. Switzer, Edward Yang and Torstein Egeland, Blood, 2010 Oct 4. [Epub ahead of print]

Abstract: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a curative procedure for life threatening hematological diseases. Donation of hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) from an unrelated donor, frequently residing in another country, may be the only option for 70% of those in need of unrelated HSCT. To maximize the opportunity to find the best available donor, individual donor registries collaborate internationally. To provide homogeneity of practice among registries, the World Marrow Donor Association (WMDA) sets standards against which registries are accredited, and provides guidance and regulations concerning unrelated donor safety and care. A basic tenet of the donor registries is that unrelated HSC donation is an altruistic act; non-payment of donors is entrenched in the WMDA standards and in international practice. In the United States, the prohibition against remuneration of donors has recently been challenged. In this document we describe the reasons that the WMDA continues to believe that HSC donors should not be paid due to ethical concerns raised by remuneration, potential to damage the public will to act altruistically, the potential for coercion and exploitation of donors, increased risk to patients, harm to local transplantation programs and international stem cell exchange, and the possibility of benefiting some patients while disadvantaging others."

Previous posts:
Compensating donors: how about bone marrow? (in connection with which see Flynn v. Holder Challenge to the National Organ Transplant Act

Compensation for bone marrow donors: opposing views

HT: Rod Garratt (whose related papers are
“One Chance in a Million: Altruism and the Bone Marrow Registry” with Ted Bergstrom and Damien Sheehan-Connor, American Economic Review

and
Stem Cell Matching for Patients of Mixed Race” with Ted Bergstrom and Damien Sheehan-Connor


(About this latter paper he writes "Ted Bergstrom and I will be presenting this work at a session on The Economics of Blood, Stem Cell and Organ Donation at this year's winter meeting of the American Economic Association in Denver.  If you are interested in attending, the session will take place Jan 08, 2011 10:15 am at the Sheraton, Director's Row H.

Illegal markets for organ transplants: Kosovo trials

Illegal, black markets for kidneys are often cited both by opponents and proponents of legal markets: opponents look at the abuses in illegal markets and fear that legal markets would spread them, and proponents look at illegal markets and hope that legal markets would curb them.

Seven Charged in Kosovo Organ-Trafficking Ring
"At least seven people have been charged with participating in an international organ-trafficking network based in Kosovo that sold kidneys and other organs from impoverished victims for up to $200,000 to patients from as far away as Israel and Canada, police and senior European Union officials said Monday.

"According to the indictment, the traffickers lured people from slums in Istanbul, Moscow, Moldova and Kazakhstan with promises of up to $20,000 for their organs. Law enforcement officials say many never received a cent. The operations were performed at a private clinic in a run-down neighborhood on the outskirts of Pristina, the Kosovar capital.

"While the ring was first discovered two years ago, the global scale of the network and its victims is only now becoming clear.

"Officials said the ringleader was a highly regarded surgeon and professor at Pristina University Hospital, Dr. Lutfi Dervishi. The clinic was run by his son, Arban. Also charged was Ilir Rrecaj, a senior official in Kosovo’s Health Ministry when the ring was broken. They and two others are accused of crimes including trafficking in humans and body parts, unlawful medical activity, participating in organized crime, and abuse of office. All were released on bail.
...
"The trafficking network’s tentacles reached far. Warrants were issued for a Turkish doctor and an Israeli financier, and two other doctors, an Israeli and a Turk, were named as co-conspirators.

"The police said the ring had its roots at a medical conference in 2006 in Istanbul, where Dr. Dervishi met the Turkish doctor being sought, Yusuf Sonmez. Law enforcement officials describe Dr. Sonmez as a notorious international organ trafficker.

"The Medicus clinic had been founded by a European philanthropist who aided ethnic Albanian doctors during the war in Kosovo in 1999. Dr. Dervishi, police officials said, secretly transformed it into a hub for illegal organ transplants, which were performed by Dr. Sonmez.

"The indictment was first reported by The Associated Press. In it, a European Union prosecutor, Jonathan Ratel, said that in 2008, 20 foreign nationals living in “extreme poverty or acute financial distress” were “recruited with the false promises of payments.”

"The police said they broke the ring in November of that year, when a young Turkish man, Yilman Altun, was found at the Pristina airport, weak and frail. Mr. Altun told the police that his kidney had been stolen. When the police raided the Medicus clinic, they discovered an elderly Israeli man who had received Mr. Altun’s kidney.

"European Union officials said that the indictment in the case had been filed in district court in Kosovo and that a preliminary hearing was expected by the end of the year. If a judge confirms the charges, a trial will follow.
...
"Western law enforcement officials said they suspected the ring might be part of a larger criminal network whose nexus was in Israel. In September, five doctors from South Africa were charged with participating in an international kidney-trading syndicate in which dozens of poor Brazilians and Romanians were paid for kidneys for wealthy Israelis. Analysts said the organ-trafficking case was part of a disturbing global trend in which unscrupulous traffickers take advantage of the growing waiting lists of desperate patients and the vulnerability of poor people further buffeted by the international financial crisis."

Update: Dec 15. The Telegraph follows the beginning of the trial: Kosovo physicians accused of organ trafficking racket -- A gang of Kosovan organ traffickers operated an elaborate international network that traded in the organs of people living in extreme poverty, a court heard.

The Job Market for New Economists: timely JEP article

The JEP has just published our report on various "new" features of the job market for new Ph.D. economists, including the signaling mechanism and the scramble.

The Job Market for New Economists: A Market Design Perspective, by Peter Coles, John Cawley, Phillip B. Levine, Muriel Niederle, Alvin E. Roth, and John J. Siegfried (Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 24, Number 4—Fall 2010—Pages 187–206)

Matching in practice: conference today in Berlin

Here's the preliminary program:

Preliminary Program of the 1st Workshop on “Matching in Practice”
November 15, 2010
Location: Social Science Research Center (WZB)

Organizers:
Estelle Cantillon
ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Dorothea Kübler
Social Science Research Center (WZB)

Friday, November 15, 2010

10.00 – 10.55 Peter Biró (Hungarian Academy of Sciences)
“The Hungarian Higher Education Matching Scheme”

10.55 – 11.50 Alex Westkamp (University of Bonn)
“An Analysis of the German University Admissions System”

12.05 – 13.00 Patrick Legros (ECARES Brussels)
“Rock and Roll Bands: (In)complete Contracts and Creativity”

13.45 – 14.30 Informal discussion about how the network could be useful

14.45 – 15.40 Estelle Cantillon (ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles)
“The Multi-unit Assignment Problem: Theory and Evidence from
Course Allocation at Harvard”

15.40 – 16.35 Antonio Nicolò (University of Padova)
“Pairwise Kidney Exchange: Age-Based Preferences”

16.35 – 17.30 Alexey Kushnir (University of Zurich)
“Preference Signaling in Matching Markets”

The market for mothers' milk

The main consumers of human breast milk are infants, but here's a story that caught my eye:
A Manhattan chef recently began serving cheese made from his nursing wife’s milk. Legendary critic Gael Greene samples the now-banned fromage.

"It’s the unexpected texture that’s so off-putting. Strangely soft, bouncy, like panna cotta."

Aside from some articles that Steve Leider pointed out to me, which are now several years old, I don't find much online about the market for mothers' milk. But in 2007, it apparently looked like the market for wet nurses might be making a comeback.

Outsourcing Breast Milk:
"...wet-nursing (hiring a woman to breast-feed your baby), which most of the Western world abandoned in the 19th century, is making a minor comeback among young moms. So is cross-nursing, in which mothers breast-feed one another's babies. Both reflect several cultural trends: more U.S. babies--upwards of 70%--are breast-fed than at any time in at least 50 years, more women work outside the home, and more young women undergo breast surgery. Advocates argue that milk sharing lets women be good moms while fulfilling other goals. Says Natalia Chang, 29, who has cross-nursed with her San Jose, Calif., neighbor: Breast milk is "a communal commodity around here."

"Not everyone is comfortable with this freewheeling baby feeding. Milk banks, which sell bottled breast milk, already make some people squirm; the idea of physically breast-feeding a child not your own evokes even deeper taboos. Rhonda Shaw, a sociologist who studies shared nursing in New Zealand, where the trend is also up, says many confuse "adult meanings of eroticism with breast feeding ... Sometimes people associate a woman breast-feeding another woman's baby with pedophilia." Even the pro-nursing group La Leche League has concerns about milk sharing because, in addition to helpful immunities and antibodies, viruses can be passed through breast milk."
...
"Even if you accept that cross-nursing is for the collective good, wet nurses magnify the discomfort that many people already feel about the wealthy employing less advantaged women to do domestic duties. That's why the few women who hire wet nurses--mostly because they have adopted, have had breast implants or reductions or have high-powered careers--keep it a secret, for fear of being judged bad mothers. Still, Robert Feinstock, who owns CertifiedHouseholdStaffing.com a Los Angeles--based agency that supplies wet nurses nationwide, says demand has steadily risen in the past four years, even though the standard fee of $1,000 a week is more than the average nanny gets.
"Brenda (whose last name is withheld to protect her clients' privacy), 42, has wet-nursed 10 babies in the past seven years partly to help send her own two kids to college. She has mulled over the social implications of her work--because she's black and eight of the families she has worked for are white. "A friend asked me, Don't you feel like you're the mammy?" she recalls. But she finds her job fulfilling, and sometimes amusing. "If you're someplace with the family and the baby starts to pull at your blouse or put his hand in your bra, that can be embarrassing," she says, laughing."

Economics "Grand Challenge" white papers

The American Economic Association has published what appears to be the full set of 'white papers' in Economics submitted to the NSF in reply to their earlier request:

"Grand Challenge" White Papers for Future Research in the Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences

There are 48 short papers, from Acemoglu to Weir, two with market design in the title:

Cramton, Peter Market Design: Harnessing Market Methods to Improve Resource Allocation

Roth, Al Market Design: Understanding markets well enough to fix them when they’re broken

Economic Science Association conference in Tucson

I'm in Tuscon Arizona, at the 2010 Regional ESA Conference, November 11-13, 2010.

I'll give a paper today written with Judd Kessler, who is on the market (you could hire him:)

The market for rabbis

A Duke law professor who is also on his shul's hiring committee thinks that the Conservative rabbinate's efforts to shape the career paths of rabbis violates the antitrust laws. (I'm no lawyer, but religious institutions probably have some constitutional protection...)  My impression is that quite a few religious denominations similarly try to shape the labor market for clergy.

Rabbi Searches Are Tough, but Are They Illegal?

 "As a member of my synagogue’s rabbi search committee, I was deeply troubled to learn of the rules imposed by the Rabbinical Assembly, the Conservative movement’s governing rabbinical body, on rabbinic searches. The RA requires synagogues to enroll exclusively in its search process, filters the selection of candidates the congregations may interview, and prohibits candidates and congregations from finding each other directly. Any Conservative rabbi who seeks a pulpit outside the RA’s centralized process, and any congregation that interviews candidates from other movements, will be penalized.
...
"RA placement rules, for example, prohibit young rabbis from assuming pulpits at anything but the smallest congregations. The placement rules also prohibit congregations from extending long-term contracts to rabbis hired as “transitional” rabbis, even when those congregations and rabbis would prefer to stay together. By restricting Conservative congregations from interviewing rabbis from other movements, the rules also are designed to ward off competitive threats from independent seminaries such as Boston’s Hebrew College and denominational seminaries such as the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. These are rules aimed to achieve full employment for RA members rather than to advance Conservative Judaism.

"Although our search did not immerse us in the rules of other American denominations, it appears that the other movements employ similarly restrictive — and similarly illegal — placement systems. The Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis, which mostly draws from Hebrew Union College campuses, adheres to an assignment system whereby years of pulpit experience strictly correlate with size of synagogue and salary."

More on (more) early admissions

The Chronicle of Higher Ed reports on The Troubling Rise in Early Admissions

Last week, a survey of the National Association for College Admission Counseling found that colleges and universities are increasing the number of students admitted through early admissions programs.  This development is highly disturbing, especially in light of a new study, published in Teachers College Record, highlighting the inequity of the practice, which is employed at many institutions.

According to the NACAC report, State of College Admission 2010, 65 percent of colleges and universities reported increases in the number of students admitted through “early decision,” a practice in which applicants apply early to one institution, and, if admitted, must commit to enrolling.  The report also found that 73 percent of institutions reported increases in the number of students admitted through “early action” policies, under which students are admitted early but do not commit to attending.

Researchers, including Christopher Avery, Andrew Fairbanks, and Richard Zeckhauser, have long found that these practices tends to benefit white, wealthy and educated applicants, who receive an admissions boost equivalent to 100 SAT points.  Critics have pointed out that early decision programs are particularly unfair to low-income applicants because the binding commitment to attend a particular college eliminates the ability to bargain between colleges for the most advantageous financial aid packages.  The unfairness of these programs prompted Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Virginia to abandon the practice.  But most other colleges and universities did not follow suit, and now polling suggests many institutions are actually increasing their reliance on early admissions.

Some institutions, such as Yale and Stanford, employ early action, rather than early decision, thus permitting low-income students to compare financial aid packages.  But a new study by Julie J. Park of Miami University and M Kevin Eagan of the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute, finds that both early action and early decision programs raise troubling questions about equity given the makeup of the student population who have the cultural capital to know the advantages of applying early.

The study found not only that white and wealthier students were more likely to apply early; in addition, other factors mattered a great deal.  Receiving private college counseling was the strongest predictor of enrolling through early admissions.  In addition, attending a high school where each college-counselor has a manageable number of students increased the chances of students taking advantage of early admissions.

Importantly, while most previous research on early admissions has focused on a small number of elite institutions, Park and Eagan’s study, “Who Goes Early? A Multi-Level Analysis of Enrolling via Early Action and Early Decision Admissions,” employ a much larger national data set involving 88,086 students who came from 4,491 high schools and applied to 290 colleges and universities.

The authors point out that the policy of early admissions – like the policy of legacy preferences – defies the commitment of colleges to make “need blind” admissions.  They write: “early decision in particular works as a sort of class-based affirmative action that gives wealthier applicants a ‘plus’ factor: a higher likelihood of being admitted than if they applied under the regular decision deadline.”

Turnover at the NYC Dept of Education

One lesson we've learned from working on school choice in NYC and Boston is that the educational bureaucracies have enough turnover that it is hard to keep in close contact. In each place, the people with whom we worked most closely have moved on to other jobs. Now in NYC the last of the higher level leaders who were involved in revamping the high school choice process are leaving as well:
Elizabeth Sciabarra is leaving as head of student enrollment, and Joel Klein is leaving as chancellor (Publishing exec named new NYC schools chancellor)

Update: New York Schools Chancellor Ends 8-Year Run has more on Klein's tenure.

School choice in San Francisco: a promise of transparency

San Francisco school board member Rachel Norton blogs about the most recent school board meeting this week, concerning the new SF school choice algorithm, which they are now implementing in house (see this earlier post, and a followup interview).

The latest news sounds good regarding plans for transparency. Norton writes:

"Staff did pledge to make the documentation of the algorithm requirements and process flows public by February; I will continue to push to make the assignment algorithm itself open source."

Markets for buying and selling privacy

Noam Nisan at AGT/E reports on New Papers on Auctions by computer scientists, including this one that I find interesting for several reasons: it is about market design for markets in which privacy is sold.

Selling Privacy at Auction by Arpita Ghosh and Aaron Roth

We initiate the study of markets for private data, through the lens of differential privacy. Although the purchase and sale of private data has already begun on a large scale, a theory of privacy as a commodity is missing. In this paper, we propose to build such a theory. Specifically, we consider a setting in which a data analyst wishes to buy information from a population from which he can estimate some statistic. The analyst wishes to obtain an accurate estimate cheaply. On the other hand, the owners of the private data experience some cost for their loss of privacy, and must be compensated for this loss. Agents are selfish, and wish to maximize their profit, so our goal is to design truthful mechanisms. Our main result is that such auctions can naturally be viewed and optimally solved as variants of multi-unit procurement auctions. Based on this result, we derive auctions for two natural settings which are optimal up to small constant factors:
1. In the setting in which the data analyst has a fixed accuracy goal, we show that an application of the classic Vickrey auction achieves the analyst’s accuracy goal while minimizing his total payment.
2. In the setting in which the data analyst has a fixed budget, we give a mechanism which maximizes the accuracy of the resulting estimate while guaranteeing that the resulting sum payments do not exceed the analysts budget.
In both cases, our comparison class is the set of envy-free mechanisms, which correspond to the natural class of fixed-price mechanisms in our setting.
In both of these results, we ignore the privacy cost due to possible correlations between an individuals private data and his valuation for privacy itself. We then show that generically, no individually rational mechanism can compensate individuals for the privacy loss incurred due to their reported valuations for privacy.

How to Fix a Broken Marketplace

That's the title of an interview/story by Carmen Nobel that HBS Working Knowledge put online today: How to Fix a Broken Marketplace


The lead sentence is "An economic handyman of sorts, Alvin E. Roth fixes broken markets."

Incentives and erroneous research

The Atlantic runs a profile of Dr. John Ioannidis, who studies bad science. He focuses on medicine, where the incentives are perhaps highest (and in which the costs of bad science might be greatest). But the issues he discusses concern all scientists: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

"He chose to publish one paper, fittingly, in the online journal PLoS Medicine, which is committed to running any methodologically sound article without regard to how “interesting” the results may be. In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views. “You can question some of the details of John’s calculations, but it’s hard to argue that the essential ideas aren’t absolutely correct,” says Doug Altman, an Oxford University researcher who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine.

"Still, Ioannidis anticipated that the community might shrug off his findings: sure, a lot of dubious research makes it into journals, but we researchers and physicians know to ignore it and focus on the good stuff, so what’s the big deal? The other paper headed off that claim. He zoomed in on 49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years, as judged by the science community’s two standard measures: the papers had appeared in the journals most widely cited in research articles, and the 49 articles themselves were the most widely cited articles in these journals. These were articles that helped lead to the widespread popularity of treatments such as the use of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, vitamin E to reduce the risk of heart disease, coronary stents to ward off heart attacks, and daily low-dose aspirin to control blood pressure and prevent heart attacks and strokes. Ioannidis was putting his contentions to the test not against run-of-the-mill research, or even merely well-accepted research, but against the absolute tip of the research pyramid. Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable. That article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "

The article ends on a philosophical note:

"We could solve much of the wrongness problem, Ioannidis says, if the world simply stopped expecting scientists to be right. That’s because being wrong in science is fine, and even necessary—as long as scientists recognize that they blew it, report their mistake openly instead of disguising it as a success, and then move on to the next thing, until they come up with the very occasional genuine breakthrough. But as long as careers remain contingent on producing a stream of research that’s dressed up to seem more right than it is, scientists will keep delivering exactly that.

“Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.”

"Proofiness" as mathematical truthiness

The NY Times Magazine "On Language" column covers Truthiness, Stephen Colbert's neologism describing things that sound true but aren't.

"The latest in the “X-iness” parade is the title of Charles Seife’s new book, “Proofiness,” defined by Seife as “the art of using bogus mathematical arguments to prove something that you know in your heart is true — even when it’s not.” Seife, an associate professor of journalism at New York University, told me that the title is very much a homage to Colbert. He credits his wife with recognizing during the writing of the book that his topic was “the mathematical analogue of truthiness.” "

The market for Ph.D. economists

Here's a description of the market for Ph.D. economists, as viewed by the founders of the site walras.com, on VoxEU: A brief guide to hiring PhD economists by Raphael Auer Goran Mišković Jason Wildhagen

Dan Ariely constructs a Forbes list of new economists

Dan gives new meaning to the word "new" as applied to economists...at least in my case. (Although I'm reminded of Frank Hahn's wish to live to a very old age but be remembered as having passed away young and full of promise...)

Here is Dan's list in Forbes (Dan Ariely picks the seven most powerful new economists) , and (easier to scan) on his web page: New Economists worth knowing.

Continued unraveling of college admissions, accompanied by growing use of waiting lists

The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) has released their  (gated) 2010 State of College Admission report .

From the press release:
"Early Decision and Early Action Activity Increases: 65 percent of colleges with ED policies reported increases in the number of students accepted through Early Decision, compared to 43 percent in 2008 and 36 percent in 2007. Nearly three-quarters of colleges reported an increase in Early Action applications and Early Action admits.

"At Colleges with Early Decision (ED) Policies, Gap In Acceptance Rates Between ED and Regular Decision Applicants Increases: For the Fall 2009 admission cycle, colleges with Early Decision policies reported a 15-percentage point gap in acceptance rates between ED applicants and the overall applicant pool (70 percent versus 55 percent), up from an 8 percentage point gap in Fall 2006 (61 percent compared to 53 percent)."

Furthermore (the Chronicle of Higher Ed reports),
"The survey also found an uptick in the proportion of colleges with waiting lists: 39 percent used them in the 2009 cycle. That’s a greater share than in recent years, with the exception of 2007, when waiting-list use reached a high of 41 percent. Forty-seven percent of colleges reported placing more students on a waiting list than they did the year before, and 51 percent said they had accepted more students off of the list.


"This year, for the first time, colleges were asked whether they stratified their waiting lists by various criteria. Fifty-six percent said they had stratified the list based on academic credentials; 45 percent by students’ interest in the college; 33 percent based on students’ commitment to attend if admitted; and 27 percent on ability to pay. On average, colleges accepted 34 percent of students who chose to remain on waiting lists."