Roland Fryer on the Economics of Slavery (in the WSJ)

 The Economics of Slavery
Probing the incentives and institutions that kept slavery alive can help us value what freedom means,  by Roland Fryer 

"Learning what slavery entailed is enough to horrify us; understanding why it endured demands economics. Moral repulsion at reducing people to property can—and must—coexist with the need to explain how such barbarism flourished in a nation that proclaimed “all men are created equal.” Only by probing the incentives and institutions that kept slavery alive can we fully appreciate what freedom means.

...

"Slavery endured not only because society condoned it but also because, for slaveholders, it paid. Fogel and Engerman overturned the then-fashionable view that bondage was an economically backward form of racist exploitation, manned by an idle workforce that dragged the South down. Their data revealed a colder truth: For those who owned people, slavery was the most profitable and therefore most rational labor system on offer. Recognizing the profit calculus behind slavery doesn’t dilute its moral horror—it sharpens it. It exposes how market incentives can entrench inhumanity and how the lure of profit can eclipse compassion.

...

"Teaching that slavery was simply racial exploitation differs from showing that it was capitalism run amok, an incentive-driven system that targeted black people because doing so maximized profit. Both interpretations acknowledge slavery’s brutality, but the economic framing sheds light on how incentives can be reshaped, pointing to concrete ways the future can be brighter."

8th Interdisciplinary Market Studies Workshop (IMSW), June 16 – June 18

 Markets are such an important way in which humans interact that I'm always cheered to note that economists aren't alone in studying them. (And studying them is different from simply appreciating them...:). Here's an interdisciplinary conference just finishing up that doesn't seem to involve many economists at all.

the program is here:

8th Interdisciplinary Market Studies Workshop (IMSW), June 16 – June 18, 2025, Stockholm School of Economics

 

 And here's the very interesting call for papers, which I've quoted below the link:

The 8th Interdisciplinary Market Studies Workshop
Theme: Nordic Noir – Exploring the Dark Sides of Markets 

"Since its first meeting in Sigtuna in 2010, IMSW has gathered scholars interested in the creation and operation of markets. At the heart of the workshop are empirical accounts of mundane market practices as well as market formation and change processes. Over the years, discussions at IMSW have highlighted the variability of market arrangements and outcomes, paid close attention to the metrologies and evaluative practices linked to markets, scrutinized the power in and of markets, and engaged in speculations on the possibility of better markets. While the ethos of the workshop has always been to question the benevolence and neutrality of markets, we believe that as IMSW now returns to Stockholm, the time is ripe for something a bit different. We therefore call for an even more explicit focus on the negative externalities, excesses, and ethical impotency of markets. As befits the return of IMSW to the land of Nordic noir, we invite contributions that explore the dark sides of markets.

Perhaps more than ever before, markets provoke concern. The climate crisis is intimately connected with the current economic system – and many find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. The growing influence of financial markets leads to the hegemony of narrow forms of valuation and the severing of many human ties. Marketized technologies pose threats to democracy through their production of both ignorance and further polarization. Digital market infrastructures work as mechanisms of surveillance but also facilitate the formation and operation of markets beyond the reach of regulatory interventions. The marketization of areas such as education and healthcare contributes to problems of unequal access, and bureaucratization makes structures inflexible to change or improvement. These and other similar developments certainly warrant the attention of the market studies community.

As IMSW turns 15, we propose, in the spirit of the gloomiest, moodiest instincts of adolescence, a side-step from constructivist market studies to "destructivist" market studies. This challenge involves new markets to study, new verbs to master, and new questions to ask. Instead of the very respectable markets usually studied by market studies scholars, we encourage the exploration of taboo markets, illegal markets, and repugnant markets. In addition to studies of imagining, designing, and maintaining markets, we would like to see inquiries into destroying, deceiving, threatening, and scheming in markets. We look forward to submissions addressing questions such as: What role do markets play in the current rather destructive time capsule? How are affects such as hate, fear, loathing, and shame provoked and used in markets? What effects do markets have when they create insiders and outsiders? How do market epistemologies help actors mobilize obscurity and opacity in society?

Markets have been lauded as mechanisms for optimal resource allocation and denounced as structures of oppression. Beyond this polemic debate, the workshop’s historical rooting in STS and ANT serves as a reminder to look beyond contestations and trace the practices (and not only the ideologies) that (in)form them. In short, the field of interdisciplinary market studies has responded by assuming a position where both “Le bon Dieu” and “The Devil” are to be found in the details. In this vein, we look forward to a workshop full of constructive discussions. While finding solutions to the problems identified may not always be within our reach, a sound introspection, reflection, and mapping of the values we guard definitely is.  

Submission topics

We particularly invite submissions that address or are related to any of the following topics, though we are open to other relevant areas of work:

The Externalities of Markets:

In line with the established approach of studying market framing, we invite submissions that explore the production of negative externalities and unexpected consequences of markets. This includes studies of markets for exchange objects with negative effects (i.e.,‘bads’ for sale instead of ‘goods’), human and non-human suffering caused by markets, as well as attempts to make visible and address negative externalities.

The Excesses of Markets:

Contemporary markets are characterized by excesses such as overconsumption, waste, and luxury indulgence. We invite submissions that explore the processes and practices giving rise to and making visible these and other excesses. This includes studying the setting of standards and norms related to sufficiency and excess, whether in relation to economic growth or consumer lifestyles.

The “Otherness” of Markets:

In contemporary market society, having access to markets can have decisive impact. For markets to operate, frames and/or boundaries need to be established, but boundaries (by default) also create insiders and outsiders. The “Otherness” of markets invites explorations of the effects of boundaries, focusing on the consequences of being an “outsider” with identifiable topics such as poverty, gender discrimination, and inequality.

The Ignorance of Markets:

Recent decades have seen increased trust in and skepticism towards knowledge produced in and around markets. Sophisticated tools improve forecasting and knowledge sharing, yet as recent failures of prediction have shown (financial crisis, Covid-pandemic, US election 2016) their conclusions can be arbitrary, biased, and ideologically motivated. We invite submissions that explore the production of ignorance and “non-knowledge” in markets as well as their hidden, discreet, and invisible dimensions.  

The Repugnance of Markets:

We invite submissions exploring themes of moral outrage, taboo, and disgust in and around markets. This includes the study of illegal and/or illicit markets, but also of variations in the legal and moral categorization of market phenomena across national, (sub)cultural, and temporal settings.

The Repair of Markets:

The dark sides of markets give rise not only to despair but also to various efforts at repair. The heterogeneity and pliability of markets remain central tenets in market studies and can be usefully applied also to situations of concern and discontent. We therefore invite contributions that explore the work of proposing alternative market arrangements and/or alternatives to markets, creating better markets, and caring for markets. "

 

HT: Koray Caliskan 

Informed consent and mortal sin, in the case of Medical Aid in Dying

 Studying morally contested transactions doesn't always suggest paths by which consensus might be reached. It often suggests that conflicting views may be irreconcilable. 

That seems to be the case for the growing legalization of Medical Aid in Dying (MAID, also called medically assisted suicide), about which I've recently blogged several times.  

MAID laws face determined religious opposition.  When Hawaii legalized MAID in 2018, the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu issued some guidance to clergy pointing out that the law's requirements for informed consent seemed to coincide with the requirements for a sin to be a mortal sin.

 Diocese of Honolulu November 5, 2018: Instruction Regarding Sacraments and Funerals In Situations Involving Physician Assisted Suicide for Clergy, Parish Staff and Ministers to the Sick and Homebound
“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], no. 2280)

...

7."For a sin to be a mortal sin, three conditions must be fulfilled:

•  the matter must be grave,
•  the person must have knowledge of the gravity of the matter, and
•  the person must freely choose the matter after sufficient deliberation (see CCC, nos. 1857-1859).

8."The process required by the State of Hawaii for a person seeking medically assisted suicide is meant to guarantee that he or she is fully informed and has made a deliberate consent, thus likely fulfilling the requirements for mortal sin.

9." If a person dies in mortal sin without contrition, such final impenitence results in the “exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back” (CCC, no. 1861; see no. 1864)

 

HT: Julio Elias

Axel Ockenfels to head new Adenauer School of Government in Cologne

 Here's the press release:

University of Cologne founds Adenauer School of Government 

"On 5 June 2025, the University of Cologne and the non-profit Alfred Landecker Foundation, founded by the Reimann family, signed a cooperation agreement to establish the Adenauer School of Government (ASG). The aim of the ASG is to establish itself as a leading, non-partisan center for public policy, governance and administrative sciences that helps to shape relevant developments in economics and other research fields. The school will be funded for an unlimited term, with an initial budget of ten million euros per year.

...

"Professor Dr Axel Ockenfels was appointed head of the Adenauer School of Government. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Cologne and Director at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in Bonn. In addition to establishing the School as a central academic institution and preparing a study and research programme, the university will also initiate the first appointment procedures in the coming months."

#########

Here's the new school's new web page: Adenauer School of Government 

European workshop on Market Design, June 16-17

 The workshop takes place at ZEW – Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research  L7, 168161 Mannheim

European Workshop on Market Design #5

16 — 17 June 2025

• Home
• Outline
• Program
• Venue
• Contact

Program

Download Program (pdf)

Monday, June 16

9:00 - 09:25			Welcome and Coffee
9:25 - 09:30			Opening Remarks
9:30 - 11:30 Session 1: Mechanism Design Chair: Marion Ott	Marco Ottaviani (Bocconi University with Nenad Kos): Self-Selection, Evaluation, and Optimal Ordeals Laura Doval (Columbia Business School, with Alex Smolin): Calibrated Mechanism Design
11:30 - 12:00			Coffee Break
12:00 - 13:00 Session 2: Natural Language Equilibrium Chair: Olivier Bos			Philip Reny (University of Chicago): Natural Language Equilibrium: Off-Path Conventions I
13:00 - 14:30 Lunch & Posters			Yulia Evsyukova (ZEW Mannheim): Selling Information with Free Samples Daniel Linnenbrink (ZEW Mannheim & Mannheim University): Pay-as-bid Auctions with Private Information Cyril Rouault (ENS Paris-Saclay, CEPS): Job Matching and Affirmative Action: The Impact of Transfer Policies Philip Zilke (University of Muenster): Funding mechanisms for green projects
14:30 - 16:30 Session 3: Competition Chair: Nicolas Fugger			Francisco Poggi (Mannheim University): tba Anna Sanktjohanser (Toulouse School of Economics, with Johannes Hörner & James Dana): Competition and Consumer Search
16:30 - 17:00			Coffee Break
17:00 - 18:00 Chair: Olivier Bos			Lecture in Memory of Nora Szech Thomas Mariotti (Toulouse School of Economics, with Andrea Attar & François Salanié): Competitive Nonlinear Pricing under Adverse Selection
19:00			Social Dinner (by invitation)

Tuesday, June 17

9:00			Coffee
9:30 - 11:30 Session 5: Matching 1 Chair: Thilo Klein	Karolina Vocke (University of Innsbruck): Stability in Matching Markets Vincent Meisner (Humboldt University of Berlin, with Müge Süer, Michel Tolksdorf & Sokol Tominaj): Confidence in Strategy-Proof Matching Mechanisms
11:30 - 12:00			Coffee Break
12:00 - 13:00 Session 6: Screening Chair: Daniil Larionov			Patrick Lahr (ENS Paris-Saclay, CEPS, with Axel Niemeyer): Extreme Points in Multi-Dimensional Screening
13:00 - 14:30			Lunch & Posters
14:30 - 16:30 Session 7: Information Disclosure Chair: Daniil Larionov			Paula Onuchic (London School of Economics, with Aurélien Salas): Disclosing Proxies Ferdinand Pieroth (Yale University, with Carlo M. Cusumano): Due Diligence in Common Value Auctions
16:30 - 17:00			Coffee Break
17:00 - 18:00 Session 8: Matching II Chair: tba			Tina Danting Zhang (UC Davis, with Ester Camina & Andrés Carvajal): Satisficing Matching
19:00			City Tour (by invitation)

 

 

Worrying about fascism like it's 1925--an open letter

 The organization https://stopreturnfascism.org/ has published an open letter (in multiple languages) expressing concern, one hundred years after an open letter concerned about the rise of Fascism in 1925.

The Manifesto of the Anti-Fascist Intellectuals, 100 years later
"In 1925, the Italian intellectual Benedetto Croce wrote the first Manifesto of the Anti-Fascist Intellectuals, knowing that he had the right to speak and the duty to respond to the rise of Fascism on Italy.

"A century later, intellectuals from around the world are raising the alarm and speaking out against the return of Fascism.

"As of June 14th, 2025, the 2025 letter has been signed by over 400 academics, including 31 Nobel Prize winners. Join them in defending democracy. "

 

Here's the letter in English: June 14, 2025

A Century Later: A Renewed Open Letter Against the Return of Fascism

Some excerpts: 

"On 1 May 1925, with Benito Mussolini already in power, a group of Italian intellectuals publicly denounced his fascist regime in an open letter. The signatories – scientists, philosophers, writers and artists – took a stand in support of the essential tenets of a free society: the rule of law, personal liberty and independent thinking, culture, art and science. Their open defiance against the brutal imposition of the fascist ideology – at great personal risk – proved that opposition was not only possible, but necessary. Today, 100 years later, the threat of fascism is back – and so we must summon that courage and defy it again.

"Fascism emerged in Italy a century ago, marking the advent of modern dictatorship. Within a few years, it spread across Europe and the world, taking different names but maintaining similar forms. Wherever it seized power, it undermined the separation of powers in the service of autocracy, silenced opposition through violence, took control of the press, halted the advancement of women’s rights and crushed workers’ struggles for economic justice. Inevitably, it permeated and distorted all institutions devoted to scientific, academic and cultural activities. Its cult of death exalted imperial aggression and genocidal racism, triggering the second world war, the Holocaust, the death of tens of millions of people and crimes against humanity.

...

" Fascism never vanished, but for a time it was held at bay. However, in the past two decades, we have witnessed a renewed wave of far-right movements, often bearing unmistakably fascist traits: attacks on democratic norms and institutions, a reinvigorated nationalism laced with racist rhetoric, authoritarian impulses and systematic assaults on the rights of those who do not fit a manufactured traditional authority, rooted in religious, sexual and gender normativity.

...

"This is an ongoing struggle. Let our voices, our work and our principles be a bulwark against authoritarianism. Let this message be a renewed declaration of defiance."

Nobel laureates: Eric Maskin, Roger B Myerson, Alvin E Roth, Lars Peter Hansen, Oliver Hart, Daron Acemoglu, Wolfgang Ketterle, John C Mather, Brian P Schmidt, Michel Mayor, Takaaki Kajita, Giorgio Parisi, Pierre Agostini, Joachim Frank, Richard J Roberts, Leland Hartwell, Paul Nurse, Jack W Szostak, Edvard I Moser, May-Britt Moser, Harvey James Alter, Victor Ambros, Gary Ruvkun, Barry James Marshall, Craig Mello, Charles Rice

Leading scholars on fascism and democracy: Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Timothy Snyder, Jason Stanley, Claudia Koonz, Mia Fuller, Giovanni De Luna and Andrea Mammone

The full list of signatories can be found here

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem's centennial party is cancelled

The Hebrew University in Jerusalem is older than the state of Israel, and is and has been a steady anchor in difficult times.  It was scheduled to celebrate its 100th anniversary on Monday. I was planning to attend. 

But here’s the latest

" It is with deep regret that we inform you of the cancellation of this year’s Board of Governors events at the Hebrew University, in accordance with the directives of Israel’s Homefront Command and in light of the current security situation. ... We thank you for your understanding and continued support, and we join together in hoping for quieter and peaceful days ahead."

On behalf of the Hebrew University,

The Hebrew University Celebrates 100 Years Since Its Opening 

 "The Hebrew University of Jerusalem celebrates its centennial as a pioneering academic institution that has significantly shaped Israel’s intellectual, scientific, and cultural landscape. Founded by visionaries like Albert Einstein and Chaim Weizmann, the university has been a hub for groundbreaking research, producing leaders in various fields and fostering global academic collaborations. It continues to excel in innovation, diversity, and industry partnerships, reinforcing its commitment to education, scientific advancement, and societal impact as it embarks on its second century."

#####

As part of the ceremonies, the Hebrew University planned to award a number of prizes, and ten honorary doctorates (including to two economists and a computer scientist:) 

Interdisciplinary science: a heated dispute

 Here's an article in the latest PNAS, about issues in evolution that I know nothing about, but I was struck by how clearly the author makes plain in the abstract his view that some authors of other papers also know nothing.

Complexity myths and the misappropriation of evolutionary theory  by Michael Lynch, Edited by Nils Stenseth    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2425772122

Abstract: Recent papers by physicists, chemists, and geologists lay claim to the discovery of new principles of evolution that have somehow eluded over a century of work by evolutionary biologists, going so far as to elevate their ideas to the same stature as the fundamental laws of physics. These claims have been made in the apparent absence of any awareness of the theoretical framework of evolutionary biology that has existed for decades. The numerical indices being promoted suffer from numerous conceptual and quantitative problems, to the point of being devoid of meaning, with the authors even failing to recognize the distinction between mutation and selection. Moreover, the promulgators of these new laws base their arguments on the idea that natural selection is in relentless pursuit of increasing organismal complexity, despite the absence of any evidence in support of this and plenty pointing in the opposite direction. Evolutionary biology embraces interdisciplinary thinking, but there is no fundamental reason why the field of evolution should be subject to levels of unsubstantiated speculation that would be unacceptable in any other area of science.

Evangelical resolution on the 21st Century

 The NYT has the story:

Southern Baptists Endorse Effort to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage
The nation’s largest Protestant denomination was motivated by conservative Christians’ success in reversing Roe v. Wade.   By Ruth Graham

"Southern Baptists voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to call for the overturning of the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, with strategists citing the successful effort that overturned the right to legal abortions as a possible blueprint for the new fight.

...

"The measure opposing same-sex marriage was part of a sweeping and unusually long resolution under the title, “On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family.” It includes calls for defunding Planned Parenthood, for “parental rights in education and healthcare,” and ensuring “safety and fairness in female athletic competition,” a reference to the debate over transgender women in women’s sports.

...

"The resolution that passed on Tuesday criticizes the pursuit of “willful childlessness” and refers to the country’s declining fertility rate as a crisis. That language goes beyond Baptists’ traditional support of general “family values,” embracing a cultural agenda that encourages larger families as a matter of civilizational survival. Baptist theology does not oppose birth control per se.

Other resolutions passed on Tuesday called for banning pornography, and condemning sports betting. “We denounce the promotion and normalization of this predatory industry in every athletic context,” the gambling resolution stated. It called on corporations involved to “cease their exploitative practices,” on policymakers to curtail sports betting, and on Christians to refuse to participate.

...

"Last year, the convention adopted a resolution opposing the use of in vitro fertilization, frustrating many Republicans who wanted to reassure voters that their opposition to abortion would not endanger widely popular fertility treatments."

New York State senate passes medical aid in dying bill

 Yesterday the NY State Senate took the next step in making medical aid in dying legal in NY.  Now the bill goes to the governor...

The NYT has the story:

New York Moves to Allow Terminally Ill People to Die on Their Own Terms
A bill permitting so-called medical aid in dying passed the State Legislature and will now head to Gov. Kathy Hochul for her signature. by Grace Ashford

"Eleven states and the District of Columbia have passed laws permitting so-called medical aid in dying. The practice is also available in several European countries and in Canada, which recently broadened its criteria to extend the option to people with incurable chronic illnesses and disabilities.

The bill in New York is written more narrowly and would apply only to people who have an incurable and irreversible illness, with six months or less to live. Proponents say that distinction is key.

“It isn’t about ending a person’s life, but shortening their death,” said State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat and one of the sponsors of the bill. It passed on Monday night by a vote of 35 to 27, mostly along partisan lines.

...

"The bill was first introduced a decade ago by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, a Westchester Democrat who leads the body’s Health Committee, at a time when few states were considering such measures.

...

"The bill has earned the support of a range of powerful interest and advocacy groups, including the New York State Bar Association, the New York State Psychiatric Association, the Medical Society of the State of New York and the New York Civil Liberties Union.

"While it was also backed by some religious groups, including Congregation B’nai Yisrael, a Westchester synagogue, and Catholics Vote Common Good, it was staunchly opposed by the New York State Catholic Conference."

Medical aid in dying bill advances (controversially) in New York State

 A bill to legalize Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) in New York state has passed the Assembly and been referred to the Senate (after which it would go to the Governor for signature).  It's controversial, so I don't have a good sense of whether it will become law.

Here's the text of the bill itself, on the NY State Assembley page: "Medical Aid in Dying Act"

Here's a well written article summarizing the controversy, and ultimately opposing the bill in its present form.

Will New York Soon Make It Too Easy to Die?   By Madeleine Kearns

"In April, New York’s “Medical Aid in Dying Act” passed the state assembly by a vote of 81 to 67. It has until the end of the legislative session—June 12—to face a vote in the Senate. On Thursday, June 5, Senate majority leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said she believed there were enough votes for the legislation to pass and “it is likely that it will come to the floor.” Perhaps as soon as Monday, June 9.

If the legislation passes, New York would join the 11 other states that have legalized assisted dying in various forms. (It is also legal in the District of Columbia.) For those who have seen difficult deaths or are daunted by the prospect, the kind of death Nancy describes—peaceful and pain-free—is what they are hoping the law will all but guarantee.

But those opposed to assisted suicide—their preferred term—warn that such laws endanger the vulnerable by reshaping social norms so that, for some, the right to die becomes a duty to die. Moreover, New York’s legislation, they argue, is on the “outer edge” of liberalization, eliminating safeguards that exist in other states where medical aid in dying (MAID) is legal."

Ransomware evolving

 MedCity News reports on the evolving cat and mouse game between ransomware criminals and health care organizations.

The Changing Landscape of Ransomware: Why Healthcare Organizations Are Paying Less
Threat actors continue to refine their strategies, and the financial incentives for cybercrime persist. However, the combination of stronger defenses, regulatory pressure, and industry collaboration is starting to shift the balance in favor of defenders.  By Chris Henderson  

"Ransomware has long been a persistent and costly threat to healthcare organizations, which hold vast amounts of sensitive patient data and operate under critical, time-sensitive conditions. The disruption caused by these attacks can have life-threatening consequences, delaying essential treatments and compromising patient safety. Historically, the urgency of restoring services quickly and avoiding disruptions compelled many victims to pay ransoms. But that’s starting to change. As healthcare organizations boost their cybersecurity investments — with IT budget allocations rising from 10% in 2020 to 14%(Opens in a new window) in 2024 — fewer victims are paying ransoms, thanks to stronger defenses and heightened regulatory scrutiny.

Overall, ransomware payments in the U.S. dropped 35%(Opens in a new window) in 2024, totaling $813 million, down from $1.25 billion in 2023. The median ransom payment also fell 45%(Opens in a new window) in Q4 2024 to $110,890, as payments remain largely a last-resort option for those without alternatives to recover critical data. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) researchers also noted a decline in the number of ransomware victims reporting(Opens in a new window) ransom payments

...

"One of the most effective deterrents to paying ransomware demands is having a robust backup and disaster recovery strategy. In the past, many healthcare organizations lacked adequate redundancy, leaving them with few options beyond paying attackers to restore access to their systems. However, the industry has made significant progress by investing in modern backup solutions, including immutable storage, air-gapped backups, and real-time data replication. Restoration from backups is rarely instantaneous, though. This makes having documented and practiced continuity plans critical for maintaining operations without key technology.

These measures significantly reduce the leverage attackers hold. With reliable, easily restorable backups, and rehearsed continuity plans, healthcare providers can refuse ransom demands and recover systems independently. Additionally, security tools that improve organizations security posture, like endpoint detection and response (EDR), managed detection and response (MDR), and zero-trust architectures, are making it harder for ransomware to gain a foothold in the first place.

...

"At the same time, government regulations are increasing the risks associated with making payments. In the U.S., the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has issued warnings that organizations paying ransoms to groups linked to sanctioned entities could face legal consequences. Given that many ransomware groups have ties to sanctioned regions, healthcare providers face significant liability if they choose to pay.

...

"As direct ransomware payments decline, cybercriminals are adapting their tactics. Many groups have shifted away from traditional encryption only attacks toward data exfiltration and extortion. Instead of only locking organizations out of their systems, attackers steal sensitive patient records, financial data, and proprietary information, threatening to release it publicly if their demands aren’t met.

This strategy allows cybercriminals to bypass traditional defenses such as backups and file encryption protection, which are ineffective against data leaks. While organizations may recover their infrastructure without paying, the risk of exposing protected health information (PHI) creates a new pressure point for victims."

College athletes are now professionals

 For a long time the sports world tried to make a sharp distinction between amateur and professional athletes, especially in the Olympics and in college sports. The idea was that it was repugnant to pay amateurs, who just played for fun.  Like student athletes.

The last shreds of that posture are crumbling, after a long decline.

ESPN has the story:

Judge OK's $2.8B settlement, paving way for colleges to pay athletes by Dan Murphy

"Schools are now free to begin paying their athletes directly, marking the dawn of a new era in college sports brought about by a multibillion-dollar legal settlement that was formally approved Friday.

Judge Claudia Wilken approved the deal between the NCAA, its most powerful conferences and lawyers representing all Division I athletes. The House v. NCAA settlement ends three separate federal antitrust lawsuits, all of which claimed the NCAA was illegally limiting the earning power of college athletes."

Disturbing NYT report about an Organ Procurement Organization in Kentucky

 Deceased donation of organs mostly occurs after potential donors suffer brain death, which, roughly speaking, means the loss of all organized brain activity, including the automatic activities that control breathing and heartbeat.  If the deceased died while on a ventilator, their organs continue to get oxygen, and may be able to save other lives through organ donation.

But sometimes the patient appears to be dead, but there's still enough brain activity to potentially support breathing and heartbeat.  If the decision is made to remove the patient from the ventilator, breathing and heartbeat may cease very quickly, and the patient dies (including brain death which follows the loss of blood  circulation).  In some cases the patient can be reconnected to the ventilator and become a potential organ donor. This is called Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD).  But sometimes the patient doesn't die right after being removed from the ventilator, and might remain alive, for some time,  and even posssibly recover.

Today's NYT reports cases in Kentucky in which the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) apparently tried to press physicians to declare death prematurely,.

Doctors Were Preparing to Remove Their Organs. Then They Woke Up.   A federal investigation found a Kentucky nonprofit pushed hospital workers toward surgery despite signs of revival in patients.   By Brian M. Rosenthal  June 6, 2025,

"[A federal] investigation examined about 350 cases in Kentucky over the past four years in which plans to remove organs were ultimately canceled. It found that in 73 instances, officials should have considered stopping sooner because the patients had high or improving levels of consciousness. 

...

"Most of the patients eventually died, hours or days later. But some recovered enough to leave the hospital, according to an investigation by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, whose findings were shared with The New York Times.

"The investigation centered on an increasingly common practice called “donation after circulatory death.” Unlike most organ donors, who are brain-dead, patients in these cases have some brain function but are on life support and not expected to recover. Often, they are in a coma.

"If family members agree to donation, employees of a nonprofit called an organ procurement organization begin testing the patient’s organs and lining up transplant surgeons and recipients. Every state has at least one procurement organization, and they often station staff in hospitals to help manage donations.

"Typically, the patient is taken to an operating room where hospital workers withdraw life support and wait. The organs are considered viable for donation only if the patient dies within an hour or two. If that happens, the procurement organization’s team waits five more minutes and then begins removing organs. Strict rules are supposed to ensure that no retrieval begins before death or causes it."

Yale celebrates Larry Samuelson

 

Economist Larry Samuelson on Pioneering Game Theory Research at Cowles.  Yale professor Larry Samuelson's research was pivotal in the evolution of game theory economics. The former Cowles Foundation Director and president of the Econometrics Society sits down with Richard Panek to explain his motivations behind the work Samuelson is best known for. 

"Larry Samuelson was born in 1953 in Rockford, Illinois, then a solidly blue-collar, middle-class, Midwest industrial town. After high school Samuelson decided to go away to college—the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana (today, Urbana-Champaign), a three-hour drive from Rockford—although he had "not much of an idea” about what he wanted to study. Instead, he had chosen to attend college because, on the scale of good-for-me/bad-for-me, he guessed it would be more advantageous than the alternative.

"His willingness to take the road less traveled resurfaced when the time came to choose classes. He happened upon an economics course and, without knowing why, signed up. The course proved to be revelatory. The teacher was “particularly inspiring,” Samuelson says, but it was the subject itself that riveted him.

"He already knew that he liked mathematics—its “logic,” he says, its “beauty.” But in economics he discovered “an ideal blend of precision and rigor on the one hand, and relevance on the other hand.” After graduation he stayed at the University of Illinois to pursue a masters in economics and then a doctorate. “Being an economist,” he says, explaining the reasoning behind his choice of career, “you’re doing math in the service of what looked like some really important questions.”

"In the mid-1970s game theory wasn’t part of the standard curriculum in the study of economics; it was what Samuelson calls “a specialty.” Nonetheless, Illinois did offer a course on the topic, and as a graduate student Samuelson, once again electing for an option off the beaten path, took the course—and, once again, found a fortunate combination of inspiring instructor and compelling topic. One of the teachers in that class was Alvin E. Roth, future co-recipient, with Lloyd Shapley, of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences partly for his work on, yes, game theory.

...

"After completing his PhD in economics at Illinois, Samuelson embarked on the life of an itinerant academic. For a year he taught at the University of Florida, Gainesville, then for three years at Syracuse University, then for the rest of the 1980s at Pennsylvania State University. In 1990 he settled down at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and there he remained for nearly two decades, before joining the faculty at Yale in 2007. Along the way Samuelson became a leading figure in two subsets of game theory in economics.

One was evolutionary game theory.

At first, the evolution in evolutionary game theory was metaphorical. From the late 1980s through the 1990s, Samuelson studied scenarios in which players would adjust their behavior over the course of repeated plays of a single game, experimenting with various actions and gravitating toward those that had tended to bring good outcomes and away from actions that had produced disappointing results. The basic question was whether such learning would lead players in a game to a Nash equilibrium, and the basic answer, albeit with many caveats and qualifications, was yes: Stable outcomes of learning dynamics are Nash equilibria.

Then Samuelson began taking the word evolution more literally, extending his mathematical work on evolutionary game theory into biology. In collaboration with Yale evolutionary biologist and ornithologist Richard Prum, for instance, Samuelson studied cases of members of a species mimicking the members of other, typically more dominant, species. The example they used in a 2012 paper was the evolution of Downy Woodpeckers that are now nearly identical in appearance to the generally larger Hairy Woodpeckers.

...

"More recently, Samuelson has extended his literal interpretation of the word evolution. Rather than using evolution to study other species, he has begun applying it to the biology of humans.  An old joke: The reason economists don’t sell their children is that they might be worth more later. And yes, Samuelson grants, “the mechanics of evolutionary selection are fundamentally selfish. Evolution selects for traits, behaviors, and preferences that increase the reproduction prospects of the individual, or indeed more precisely the gene.”

But.

“There's nothing intrinsic to economics that requires people to be selfish,” Samuelson says. Economic theory assumes that behaviors follow preferences, but it makes no assumptions about the content, whether selfish or selfless, of those preferences. “To an economist Mother Teresa is as good a model of economic behavior as is”—a pause—“Elon Musk might come to mind. Mother Teresa was as selfless as could be, but she followed that goal consistently and coherently, and one would have no trouble fitting that into an economic model.”

And because preferences “are the point of departure for models of individual behavior,” they are also the point of departure “for all of economics.” Biological and cultural evolution helped shape our preferences just as it helped shape many of our characteristics. By identifying aspects of preferences that would have conferred an advantage on our evolutionary ancestors, Samuelson’s research has allowed economists to sharpen their assumptions about preferences and therefore the subsequent economic analyses.  

In the late 1990s Samuelson began investigating the topic that would become his second major area of research: repeated games, especially the concept of reputations. As the name suggests, repeated games involve modeling that extends beyond the decision-making apparatuses of a one-off competition.

...

"By the 2010s Samuelson had become somewhat of an elder statesmen in the field of game theory economics. In 2011 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The following year he received a fellowship from the Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory. From 2014 to 2020 he served as the director of the Cowles Foundation, where he initiated a homecoming of sorts: In 1934 Alfred Cowles, champion of the use of statistics in economics, helped fund the launch of the Econometrics Society, and Samuelson, in his role at the head of the Cowles Foundation, orchestrated the transfer of the Society’s office to Yale. As of 2025 Samuelson is serving as the president of the Society.

Not surprisingly his five-decade immersion in game theory has affected his view of the world. “I think about incentives a lot,” he says. “If I had to summarize all of economics in one phrase, that phrase would be: Incentives matter. That sounds trite,” he quickly adds, “but it’s something people very easily lose sight of.”

So what, I wonder, was his incentive to sit for this interview? What went through his game theorist’s brain when the current director of the Cowles Foundation invited him to be the subject of the first of what might become a series of faculty profiles on the Cowles website? Can Samuelson describe his decision in terms of game theory?

He immediately defaults to a familiar framing.

“This could be good for the organization, and indirectly that’s good for me. Or,” he goes on, after a moment’s reflection, “at least it makes me feel good about me.”

INFORMS Market Design Impact Award: call for nominations

 Here's the call for nominations for a new prize to recognize practical market design.

 Call for Submissions: Market Design Impact Award

The INFORMS Auctions and Market Design (AMD) is happy to announce the Market Design Impact Award. The prize is awarded annually and is intended to recognize major contributions in market design. It may be awarded to one individual or a small team when the research is joint. The award may be given for original research from the last 15 years that has made a lasting impact (directly or indirectly) on the field and/or the practice of market design.

Nomination Procedure

Anyone in the market design community may nominate a candidate. The committee is seeking nominations, which include a nomination letter and two letters of recommendation, highlighting the nominee's accomplishments with emphasis on the criteria for the award. Please send nominations to amdimpactaward@gmail.com by July 30 with the subject "Market Design Submission"

A nomination letter of no more than 1000 words describing the content of the contributions.
Bibliographic data (and links or the papers) as needed.
One-two sentences that describe the contribution.
At least two (and most three)  endorsement letters that describe in at most 500 words the lasting contribution, significance, and impact of the paper(s) and work. The letters should specify the relationship of the endorser to the nominees. The nominator should solicit these letters.
The Award Committee welcomes questions from anyone considering or intending to submit a nomination. The committee may be contacted by email at amdimpactaward@gmail.com.

Committee 2025

Jose Correa, University of Chile

Alvin Roth, Stanford University

David Shmoys, Cornell University

The winner(s) will be recognized at the AMD business meeting of the 2025 INFORMS Annual Meeting. Information on this prize can also be found at the AMD webpage.

The latest coffee science (and willing suspension of correlation not being causation skepticism)

 The NYT has the good news, for those of us who appreciate getting certain parts of our science from newspapers:

That Cup of Coffee May Have a Longer-Term Perk
A new study of over 47,000 women found links between coffee drinking and healthy aging. Here’s what we know.   By Alice Callahan
 

"Most people who drink coffee appreciate the quick jolt of energy it provides. But in a new study, presented today at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition, scientists have found that coffee may offer the much longer-term benefit of healthy aging.

"The study has not been peer-reviewed or published, but it was rigorous... 

...

"The researchers found a correlation between how much caffeine the women typically drank (which was mostly from coffee) when they were between 45 and 60 years old and their likelihood of healthy aging. After adjusting for other factors that could affect aging, such as their overall diet, how much they exercised and whether they smoked, those who consumed the most caffeine (equivalent to nearly seven eight-ounce cups of coffee per day) had odds of healthy aging that were 13 percent higher than those who consumed the least caffeine (equivalent to less than one cup per day).

...

"because the benefits associated with coffee have been so consistent, it’s unlikely that they are entirely explained by other aspects of a person’s life, Dr. Zhang said. If anything, drinking coffee is often associated with unhealthy habits, like smoking and less exercise. The fact that you see benefits after accounting for these differences means that coffee is probably helping, Dr. Zhang said.

...

"There are plenty of other, more evidence-backed ways to boost your health and longevity, Dr. Shadyab added, such as following a balanced diet, exercising regularly, getting enough sleep and having an active social life."

Medical aid in dying in Canada doesn't require a terminal diagnosis--should it?

 Repugnance to medical aid in dying is sharpest when death isn't otherwise imminent.  Canada allows patients with irremediable pain to qualify for MAID (qualifying in this way is called Track 2).  Here's a thoughtful article in the NYT about some of the issues.

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?
Paula Ritchie wasn’t dying, but under Canada’s new rules, she qualified for a medically assisted death. Was that kindness or cruelty?   By Katie Engelhart 

"While a Track 1 patient could technically apply for and receive MAID within a day, the process for Track 2 was slower; there had to be at least 90 days from the start of the assessment to the patient’s death. Each patient was assessed by two independent clinicians, and if neither of the assessing clinicians had expertise in the patient’s medical condition, they had to consult with a clinician who did. The patient requesting assisted death also had to be informed of “the reasonable and available means” to relieve the suffering — and to give “serious consideration” to those means.

"By law, a MAID patient had to be suffering in some way. The suffering could come either directly from the medical condition or indirectly from the condition’s follow-on effects. It could be either physical or psychological, as long as it was “enduring.” The law did not define exactly what it meant to suffer, or exactly how a medical professional was meant to evaluate the suffering. It was up to individual clinicians to figure out, in conversation with their patients. In a “Model Practice Standard” published by Health Canada, the country’s federal health regulator, MAID assessors were instructed to “respect the subjectivity of suffering.”

"For other clinicians, the concern about Track 2 was more philosophical. Dr. Madeline Li, a cancer psychiatrist who developed the MAID program for Toronto’s University Health Network and who has personally overseen hundreds of Track 1 patients, told me that she was hesitant to involve herself in Track 2 because it didn’t fit with her larger understanding of medicine and its purpose. “If you want to allow people to end their lives when they want to, then put suicide kits in hardware stores, right?” Li told me. It was not “assistance in dying” if the patient was not actually dying.

...

"The most organized critique of Canada’s law came from disability rights advocates. In September 2024, two people with disabilities and several nonprofit organizations announced a legal challenge to Bill C-7. Their case argues that, by definition, all Track 2 MAID patients are disabled — people with medical conditions that limit daily functioning — and thus, that the law is discriminatory. If a nondisabled person is suffering and wants to die, her desire will be understood as pathological, and she will be offered suicide prevention. If a disabled person is suffering and wants to die, her doctor will hand her the proverbial gun.

...

“I’m certainly not going to argue that the system is in good shape,” Wonnacott said. He tended to receive criticism of MAID with equanimity. Of course the system was broken. Of course people ended up on the wrong side of it. And of course the government should work urgently to improve it. But then again, it was the system. There was no other system on offer. “And to force people to continue suffering as we wait an indefinite amount of time to fix it is unfair.” Sure, in any given MAID assessment, Wonnacott could allow himself to get caught up in the past conditional of what should have been done, what could have been. But there was the suffering patient sitting in front of him, here and now, wanting an answer.

"Wonnacott also disagreed with the solution that the critics offered: to shut it all down. Fundamentally, he didn’t think the best way to protect poor and marginalized patients was to force them to stay alive, because in some counterfactual version of events, in which the world was a better and more just place, they might have chosen differently. That wasn’t how anything in medicine worked; a doctor always treated the patient as she was. How could it be otherwise? If only those who were rich or well connected were recognized to have autonomy and allowed to choose?

...

"The critics seemed to imply that a few hundred Track 2 deaths each year were, together, taking the pressure off government officials to improve the system. And that, inversely, if enough people who wanted to die were instead forced to live, their suffering would create the moral imperative for a wide-reaching social-welfare revolution. Wonnacott and his colleagues thought this seemed unlikely. As it was, Canada had more publicly funded health care than many other countries."

Kidney Transplants in Pakistan. Many patients unaware that paying donors is illegal.

Here's a recent paper on  "Barriers to Kidney Transplants in Pakistan.  A striking fact is that only 4.9% of patients with kidney failure were aware that paying a donor is illegal in Pakistan.

 Afzal, Aurangzeb, Muhammad Ahmad Rauf, Zohra Khanum, Hafiza Sumaira Rahman, Zahid Rafique, Areeba Gulzar, Waqas Rasheed, Jehangir Afzal Mobushar, Beenish Abbas Bajwa, and Muhammad Ahmad Rauf IV. "Barriers to Renal Transplant in Pakistan." Cureus 17, no. 5 (2025).

 

  ...

"The study revealed limited knowledge regarding legal restrictions on kidney donation, with only 9.8% aware that non-related persons cannot donate kidneys according to the law, and a mere 4.9% knowing that financial compensation for donation is illegal. This lack of awareness may perpetuate illegal organ trade and exploitation [4]. Educational initiatives targeting both patients and the general public are essential to promote ethical transplantation practices and protect vulnerable populations."

Children adopted from China can now find birth-family connections via DNA sites

 Like children conceived with the help of anonymous sperm donors, adopted children can use DNA websites to search for family members.  For children adopted from China during the one-child policy period, that can mean finding siblings and even parents who may have put them up for adoption under duress.

The New Yorker has the story:

The Chinese Adoptees Who Were Stolen. As thousands of Chinese families take DNA tests, the results are upending what adoptees abroad thought they knew about their origins.
By Barbara Demick   May 23, 2025

"Back when China started allowing foreign adoptions, in the early nineties, there was no expectation that adoptees would ever connect with their birth families. The babies, mostly girls, were said to have been picked up at train stations, markets, and roadsides, where they had been abandoned by families fearful of the ruthlessly enforced one-child policy. They had no identification. Even the orphanages didn’t know who they were. And China, with its staggeringly large population—more than one billion—was so far away from the adoptive parents. An adoptee finding her birth family seemed no more likely than locating a particular grain of sand.

"Those assumptions have been upended in recent years. Like it or not, and many do not, technology has compressed this vast world into an interconnected village. Adoptees who could only fantasize about their birth families are now identifying them through DNA testing and chatting with them online. Even more unexpected, Chinese birth parents and, sometimes, adult siblings are seeking out and finding their lost kin who were adopted abroad."

American doctors moving to Canada

 Many Canadian doctors practice in the U.S., where pay is generally higher and they may have more access to high tech imaging and other medical equipment.  But there's a stream of docs moving in the other direction now.

KFF Health news has the story:

American Doctors Are Moving to Canada To Escape the Trump Administration
By Brett Kelman 

"The Medical Council of Canada said in an email statement that the number of American doctors creating accounts on physiciansapply.ca, which is “typically the first step” to being licensed in Canada, has increased more than 750% over the past seven months compared with the same time period last year — from 71 applicants to 615. Separately, medical licensing organizations in Canada’s most populous provinces reported a rise in Americans either applying for or receiving Canadian licenses, with at least some doctors disclosing they were moving specifically because of Trump.

...

"Doctors Manitoba, which represents physicians in the rural province that struggles with one of Canada’s worst doctor shortages, launched a recruiting campaign after the election to capitalize on Trump and the rise of far-right politics in the U.S.

"The campaign focuses on Florida and North and South Dakota and advertises “zero political interference in physician patient relationship” as a selling point."

Tinder has plans to become less focused on hookups

 The WSJ has the story:

Tinder’s New Chief Is Out to Change Its Hookup-App Reputation. Spencer Rascoff is rethinking Match Group’s biggest app as younger online daters grow tired of swiping  By  Chip Cutter 

"Tinder’s new chief, Match Group CEO Spencer Rascoff, aims to revamp the app’s image away from hookups to attract Gen Z.

"Rascoff plans to introduce new features, leverage AI, and enhance user safety to improve user experience.

"Tinder is testing a “double dating” feature and will roll it out globally this summer to create low-pressure ways for people to meet.

...

“This generation of Gen Z, 18 to 28—it’s not a hookup generation. They don’t drink as much alcohol, they don’t have as much sex,” he told investors this month. “We need to adapt our products to accept that reality.”

Medical aid in dying advances in France

 The proposed French law has some familiar and some novel features.

Reuters has the story:

French lawmakers approve assisted dying bill, paving the way for approval
By Elizabeth Pineau May 27, 2025

"- French lower house lawmakers approved a bill on Tuesday to legalise assisted dying, paving the way for France to become the latest European nation to allow terminally ill people to end their lives.
 

"The final passage of the bill remains some way off, with the text now heading to the Senate. However, the legislation is expected to pass, with polls showing more than 90% of French people in favour of laws that give people with terminal diseases or interminable suffering the right to die.

...

"The bill, which was approved in parliament by 305 votes to 199, provides the right to assisted dying to any French person over the age of 18 suffering from a serious or incurable condition that is life-threatening, advanced or terminal.
 

"The person, who must freely make their decision, must also have constant physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated. Lawmakers stipulated that psychological suffering alone would not be enough to end one's life.
 

"The patient can administer the lethal dose themselves or by an accredited medical professional if they are physically unable. Healthcare workers who object to doing so are free to opt out. Anyone found to have obstructed someone's right to die can face a two-year prison sentence and a 30,000 euro fine.

"Laws to enable assisted dying are gathering steam across Europe. In November, British lawmakers voted in favour of allowing assisted dying, paving the way for Britain to follow countries such as Australia, Canada and some U.S. states in what would be the biggest social reform in a generation.
 

"In March, the Isle of Man, a self-governing British Crown Dependency off northwest England, approved an assisted dying bill, potentially making the island the first place in the British Isles where terminally ill people could end their lives.
 

"France is one of the last countries in Western Europe to legislate on this issue," leftist lawmaker Olivier Falorni told Reuters. "We are in a global process ... France is behind, and I hope we will do it with our own model."

 

 

HT: Alex Chan

Kidney and liver exchange in India

 Here's an update from Dr. Vivek Kute and his colleagues on kidney and liver exchange in India.

Kute, V. B., Patel, H. V., Banerjee, S., Aziz, F., Godara, S. M., Bansal, S. B., ... & Srivastava, A. (2025). Analysis of kidney and liver exchange transplantation in India (2000–2025): a multicentre, retrospective cohort study. The Lancet Regional Health-Southeast Asia, Volume 37, June 2025, 100597. 

Ethical compensation for research participants: an open letter

 Institutional review boards (IRBs) are often faced with the question of whether research participants should or must be compensated, and how much.  In the medical ethics community there is often a presumption that there are ethical reasons not to offer participants too much compensation. This is a very different intuition from the more general notion (embodied e.g. in minimum wage laws) that there are ethical reasons not to offer too little compensation.

I'm one of 64 signers of an open letter about this...

Abadie, R. et al. (2025) ‘Pursuing Fair and Just Compensation for Research Participants: An Open Letter to the Research Ethics Community’, The American Journal of Bioethics, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2025.2506328.
 

"We, the 64 undersigned, from fields including philosophy, law, medicine, policy, public health, patient advocacy, and research ethics, offer this open letter to highlight the growing recognition of the pitfalls of excessive concern over payment to research participants. Experts in the field of research oversight, including institutional review boards/research ethics committees (IRB/RECs), now recognize that for adult participants capable of providing their own informed consent, instances of monetary undue influence are generally quite rare, underpayment is far more common and ethically concerning than overpayment, and that lowering payments threatens justice and fairness without providing substantive protection for participants.

...

"Absent strong evidence that monetary payment will lead to undue influence, it is likely that more harm than good is done by lowering compensation levels for a given study. Research participation generates immense social value, and generous compensation can reflect this value and serve as an important sign of respect and appreciation for participants (Fernandez Lynch et al. Citation2021).

...

"Concern over undue influence through monetary compensation, while well intended, receives outsized attention, even at the expense of other ethical issues. Ultimately, there must be very strong rationale when suggesting such limits for an otherwise approved study, and attempts to limit payment based on the potential for undue influence should be scrutinized especially closely. IRBs/RECs should still keep in mind the amount of time required and burden on participants to ensure at least a minimum standard of compensation is met. At times, they should even require sponsors or investigators to increase compensation amounts when what they are proposing is insufficient. It is high time that the default question shift from “is this payment too much?” to “is this enough?” in clinical trials."

 

Signed by:

Roberto Abadie    Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Kinesiology
Adam L. Anderson    Associate Professor of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis
Emily E. Anderson    Professor of Bioethics, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine
Andrew Berman    Professor of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School
Barbara Bierer    Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Faculty Director, MRCT Center
François Bompart    Member, INSERM Ethics Committee (France)
Brandon Brown    Professor of Medicine, University of California, Riverside, School of Medicine
Arthur Caplan    Head, Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine
Carolyn Riley Chapman    Lead Investigator/Faculty, Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard
Coalition for Clinical Trial Equity
Alexandra Collins    Assistant Professor of Community Health, Tufts University
Marci Cottingham    Associate Professor of Sociology, Kenyon College
Stephanie Solomon Cargill    Associate Professor of Research Ethics, Albany Medical College
Arlene M. Davis    Professor of Social Medicine, UNC School of Medicine
David DeGrazia    Elton Professor of Philosophy, George Washington University
David Diemert    Professor of Medicine, George Washington University
Anna Durbin    Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Jake Earl    Adjunct Lecturer in Philosophy, Georgetown University
Jake D. Eberts    Member of the Board of Directors, 1Day Sooner
Gunnar Esiason    Head of Patient Engagement & Patient-Centered Innovation, RA Ventures
James A. Feldman    Professor of Emergency Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine
Holly Fernandez Lynch    Associate Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
Susan S. Fish    Professor, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine
Celia B. Fisher    Marie Ward Doty Endowed University Chair in Ethics and Professor of Psychology
Jill A. Fisher    Professor of Social Medicine, UNC Center for Bioethics
Allison Foss    Executive Director, Myasthenia Gravis Association
Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research
Luke Gelinas    Senior IRB Chair Director, Advarra
Kevin Griffith    Assistant Professor of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University
Marielle Gross    Founder/ceo, de-bi, co; Faculty, Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics
Scott D. Halpern    John M. Eisenberg Professor in Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Logan Harper    ILD & Sarcoidosis Center, Cleveland Clinic, Assistant Professor of Medicine, CCLCM/CWRU School of Medicine
David A. Heagerty    Associate Director, University of Pennsylvania IRB
Kristin Hermann    Executive Vice President, Strategic Accounts, Scout
W. Ennis James    Associate Professor of Medicine and Sarcoidosis Program Director, Medical University of South Carolina
Steven Joffe    Art and Ilene Penn Professor and Chair of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
Nancy M. P. King    Emeritus Professor, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Stephanie A. Kraft    Assistant Professor, Geisinger College of Health Sciences
Walter K. Kraft    Professor, Thomas Jefferson University
Benjamin Krohmal    Assistant Professor, Georgetown University School of Medicine
Emily A. Largent    Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
Anne Drapkin Lyerly    Professor of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lazarex Cancer Foundation
Dylan Matthews    Senior Correspondent, Vox
Lindsay McNair    Principal Consultant, Equipoise Consulting
Josh Morrison    President, 1Day Sooner
Joseph Millum    Senior Lecturer, University of St Andrews
Torin Monahan    Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Axel Ockenfels    Professor of Economics at the University of Cologne and Director at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in Bonn
Joshua Osowicki    Infectious diseases physician and Team Leader, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
Leah Pierson    MD/PhD candidate, Harvard Medical School; Cohost of the Bio(un)ethical podcast
Jessica Propps    Caregiver Advocate, Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research
Jeanne M. Regnante    Principal, Patient 3i, LLC
David B. Resnik    Bioethicist
Donald Richardson    Cardiovascular Disease Fellow, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Alvin Roth    Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics, Stanford University
Julian Savulescu    Professor of Medical Ethics, National University of Singapore
Scout Clinical    
Peter H. S. Sporn    Professor of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Kawsar Talaat    Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Rebecca L. Walker    Professor of Philosophy and of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Margaret Waltz    Research Associate, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Kathryn Washington    Sarcoidosis patient advocate
Sarah A. White    Executive Director, The Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard
Megan M. Wood    Assistant Professor of Communication and Media, Ohio Northern University

 

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."

A controversial artificial intelligence experiment in Hungary

 Peter Biro alerts me to this artificial intelligence experiment  that caused a backlash when it was conducted in Hungary.

Here's the story from Telex.hu, via Google Translate:

"Some of the students can use AI in the exam, the other part cannot, and they were outraged  by
Halász Nikolett,Interior May 21, 2025  

"This semester, the teachers of the subject of operations research have started a special experiment at the Corvinus University of Budapest, where one half of the students can use artificial intelligence (such as ChatGPT) in exams, while the other half cannot. More than ten students contacted our newspaper because they consider the system unfair, but according to the lecturers of the subject, the experiment was preceded by very careful professional consultation.

...

"In order not to be disadvantaged by either group, the instructors introduced point compensation, which brings the average of the two groups to the same level, i.e. the worse performers receive the difference calculated from the average of the other group. To illustrate with an example: Marcsi belongs to experimental group B. The participants of group A scored an average of 67 points during the year, and the participants of group B scored an average of 62 points. Marcsi scored 46 points on the exam. This score is compensated by the 5 points resulting from the group differences, so she scored a total of 51 points on the exam. 

...

"According to several students, the main problem is that there are students who can complete the subject with zero work invested with the help of AI. While others prepare for several days, even a week, and achieve a similar result, but they have actually acquired the knowledge."

############

Somewhat related earlier post:

Saturday, June 8, 2024

The ethics of field experiments in Economics, in the Financial Times

Deceased organ allocation: deciding early when to move fast

The deceased donor waiting list for kidneys to transplant is congested: offers, which take time to evaluate, are often rejected, while cold ischemia time accumulates.

 Here's a paper just published in Transplantation, in which we suggest new ways to detect organs that will be hard to match, and which might therefore be expedited through the allocation process (to get more quickly to patients who will accept them).

Insights From Refusal Patterns for Deceased Donor Kidney Offers, by Guan, Grace MS1; Neelam, Sanjit MS2; Studnia, Joachim MS2; Cheng, Xingxing S. MD, MS3; Melcher, Marc L. MD, PhD4; Rees, Michael A. MD, PhD5,6; Roth, Alvin E. PhD7; Somaini, Paulo PhD8; Ashlagi, Itai PhD1
Author Information
Transplantation ():10.1097/TP.0000000000005434, May 21, 2025 

"Background.
The likelihood that a deceased donor kidney will be used evolves during the allocation process. Transplant centers can either decline an organ offer for a single patient or for multiple patients at the same time. We hypothesize that refusals for a single patient indicate issues with individual patients, whereas simultaneous refusals for multiple patients indicate issues with organ quality.

Methods.
We investigate offer refusal patterns between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data. We aggregate refusals at the same timestamp by a center and define a multiple patient refusal as >1 or >5 patients simultaneously refused. We report the refusal codes associated with single and multiple patient refusals and the nonutilization rate after receiving single and multiple patient refusals by cross-clamp.

Results.
Patient-related refusal reasons are more commonly single patient refusals, whereas organ-related refusal reasons are more commonly multiple patient refusals. Multiple patient refusals before cross-clamp are associated with nonutilization, but single patient refusals are positively correlated with utilization. The nonutilization rate was 28% for organs without pre-clamp refusals, 35% with a single center sending a multiple patient refusal, but only 12% with a single center sending a single patient refusal.

Conclusions.
The risk of nonutilization can be assessed early in the offering process based on the number of single and multiple patient refusals received by a specific time (e.g., cross-clamp). Understanding refusal patterns can guide the development of transparent protocols for accelerated placement."