Sometimes politics make an artwork even more politically fraught than when it was painted.
I'll post market design related news and items about repugnant markets. See also my Stanford profile. I have a general-interest book on market design: Who Gets What--and Why The subtitle is "The new economics of matchmaking and market design."
Scientists are more accustomed to demonstrating science than demonstrating for science, but that may need to change.
Nature has the story:
NEWS, 03 March 2025
US science is under threat ― now scientists are fighting back
Researchers are organizing protests and making their voices heard as Trump officials slash funding and lay off federal scientists. By Heidi Ledford & Alexandra Witze
"Across the United States, researchers are navigating uncomfortable territory. Repeated threats to research funding and the mass firings of federal workers have pushed some scientists to take on unfamiliar roles as activists, speaking at rallies, calling legislators and forming new pressure groups. “Historically, scientists have done a really bad job of advocating for their own activities,” says David Meyer, a sociologist at the University of California, Irvine. “So this is a new challenge.”
The events of the past six weeks have compelled many scientists to embrace that challenge. Soon after the second inauguration of US President Donald Trump on 20 January, the new administration attempted to freeze payments on federal grants; announced that it would review and potentially cancel any grant that mentioned terms it deemed indicative of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes; and issued dramatic cuts to the overhead, or ‘indirect costs’, paid on projects funded by the US National Institutes of Health.
...
"For many scientists, the big event is coming up on 7 March, at ‘Stand Up for Science’ rallies slated to take place in 32 cities around the country. The main event, in Washington DC, is spearheaded by a group of five researchers, most of them graduate students, who came together to combat their own initial feelings of powerlessness. “It’s been inspiring, as this has grown, to see how many people were feeling the same way and to take action,” says Emma Courtney, a graduate student in biology at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York."
Here's an opinion piece from MedpageToday
Physician Senators, What Have You Done?— They have betrayed the Hippocratic Oath in voting to confirm RFK Jr. by Joseph V. Sakran, MD, MPH, MPA, and Samuel Okum, February 14, 2025
"When Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-La.) -- a physician, longtime advocate for healthcare policy, and potential swing vote on the Finance Committee -- voted to advance Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of HHS, he didn't just make a political choice. He made a choice that undermines science, public health, and the very Hippocratic Oath he once swore to uphold.
"While Cassidy claims to have taken this decision "very seriously," he must know it is wrong. As a legislator, he understands that the HHS secretary oversees critical health institutions like the CDC, FDA, and CMS. As a doctor, he has firsthand knowledge of how these agencies impact patient care, from ensuring access to safe medications to shaping life-saving public health policies. Entrusting this role to Kennedy -- a man with no qualifications beyond his fame as a purveyor of medical disinformation -- isn't just reckless. It endangers us all.
...
"Through his organization, Children's Health Defense, Kennedy has falsely linked vaccines to autismopens in a new tab or window, opposed COVID-19 safety measuresopens in a new tab or window, and promoted debunked medical treatmentsopens in a new tab or window. In 2021, the Center for Countering Digital Hate identified him as one of the "Disinformation Dozenopens in a new tab or window" -- a small group responsible for nearly two-thirds of anti-vaccine content circulating online. All of this suggests this promotion of falsehoods has eroded public trust in vaccines, contributing to preventable disease outbreaks and declining immunization ratesopens in a new tab or window.
"The consequences of his rhetoric have been deadly. In 2019, Kennedy traveled to Samoa to support an investigationopens in a new tab or window into routine childhood vaccinations. His visit coincided with a devastating measles outbreak that infected thousands and killed dozens of unvaccinated children. When confronted by the country's prime minister, Kennedy expressed no remorse. Instead, he baselessly suggested that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccineopens in a new tab or window itself may have been responsible for the deaths.
...
"
We believe Cassidy prioritized political expediency over medical integrity. He arguably chose to align himself with President Donald Trump and conspiracy rather than the national interest and public health.
Meanwhile, Cassidy set the stage for his physician colleagues -- Republican senators Roger Marshall, MD (Kan.), John Barrasso, MD (Wyo.), and Rand Paul, MD (Ky.) -- to follow suit. They have all betrayed their oath as doctors."
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) publishes a widely read series of working papers, before publication in refereed journals. They also distribute a list of papers that have been published in medical journals, since those journals don't allow prepublication in working papers. For both these series the NBER has a rule against papers that make policy recommendations.
This is sometimes a problem for the field of market design, since practical market design is about finding ways to improve the operation of markets, which is a kind of policy advice. I encountered this recently with the two papers described below, published in medical journals, which apparently are too policy related: the policy being to save more lives by arranging more transplants, in this case of hearts and kidneys respectively. (Medical journals have their own conventions, but aren't opposed to advice on medical practice...)
I received the following email from the NBER, accompanied by a line of explanation for each paper.
The email began:
"I apologize for my belated response about your journal articles; while the subject matter is clearly vital, after review of the full-text, we determined that your articles make policy recommendations that are too specific for NBER’s policy on working papers (which we apply to papers in the article list)."
It then continued by highlighting the offending sentences in each article:
1. Alyssa Power MD*, Kurt R. Sweat MA*, Alvin Roth PhD, John C. Dykes MD, Beth Kaufman MD, Michael Ma MD, Sharon Chen MD, MPH, Seth A. Hollander MD, Elizabeth Profita MD, David N Rosenthal MD, Lynsey Barkoff NP, Chiu-Yu Chen MD PhD, Ryan R. Davies MD, Christopher S. Almond MD, MPH, “Contemporary Pediatric Heart Transplant Waitlist Mortality,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol 84, no. 7, August 13, 2024: 620-632.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109724075624
"Policy language: A more flexible allocation system that accurately reflects patient-specific risks and considers transplant benefit is urgently needed."
2. Vivek B. Kute, Himanshu V Patel, Subho Banerjee,Divyesh P Engineer, Ruchir B Dave, Nauka Shah, Sanshriti Chauhan ,Harishankar Meshram , Priyash Tambi , Akash Shah, Khushboo Saxena,Manish Balwani , Vishal Parmar, Shivam Shah, Ved Prakash ,Sudeep Patel, Dev Patel, Sudeep Desai, Jamal Rizvi , Harsh Patel, Beena Parikh, Kamal Kanodia, Shruti Gandhi, Michael A Rees, Alvin E Roth, Pranjal Modi “Impact of single centre kidney-exchange transplantation to increase living donor pool in India: A cohort study involving non-anonymous allocation,”Nephrology, September 2024,https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nep.14380
"Policy language: We suggest stepwise progress to achieve multicentre, regional, State and then a National program. Ideally, there should be engagement by the National Organ & Tissue Transplant Organization and the World Health Organization.
While we recommend simultaneous surgery for mDRPs in a single exchange, sometimes logistical aspects have necessitated non-simultaneous exchanges"
These three have a broad scope of work together. One aspect that fits well with this year's prizes in Physics and Chemistry is a connection to artificial intelligence, particularly in the book Power and Progress by Acemoglu and Johnson:
Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity May 16, 2023 by Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson
Here's the blurb by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo
"One powerful thread runs through this breathtaking tour of the history and future of technology, from the Neolithic agricultural revolution to the ascent of artificial intelligence: Technology is not destiny, nothing is pre-ordained. Humans, despite their imperfect institutions and often-contradictory impulses, remain in the driver’s seat. It is still our job to determine whether the vehicles we build are heading toward justice or down the cliff. In this age of relentless automation and seemingly unstoppable consolidation of power and wealth, Power and Progress is an essential reminder that we can, and must, take back control."
Saturday, on the last night of my just-ended visit to Israel, I attended two adjacent mass public events.
One was a political demonstration against the leadership of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his governing coalition. The other was a vigil for the kidnapped hostages, living and dead.
In each of these two events, the one Hebrew word you heard more than any other was NOW (עכשיו). As in "Elections NOW!" or "Bring them home NOW!"
In the political demonstration, the primary mood expressed by the speakers was anger. In the vigil, it was sadness.
Below some pictures and a video of a speech with added subtitles in English translation.
From the demonstration:
The signs say "Elections Now!" |
The sign (addressed to Bibi) says: "You are the boss. You are guilty" |
From the vigil for the hostages:
Prepared to welcome the hostages home to Shabbat dinner |
The Bangladesh Daily Star publishes an open letter, and the NY Times provides some general background.
Here's the open letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina:
‘Judicial harassment of Yunus’: 104 Nobel laureates, 79 global figures voice concern
"A total of 104 Nobel Laureates and 79 other global figures in an open letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina yesterday expressed concern about the safety and freedom of Nobel Laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus.
...
"As you know, Prof Yunus' work, which has been inspirational to all of us, focuses on how social business can be a force for international progress resulting in zero poverty, zero unemployment, and zero net carbon emissions. He is a leading example of how Bangladesh and Bangladeshis have contributed to global progress in recent decades. We sincerely wish that he be able to continue his path-breaking work free of persecution or harassment.
...
"According to the case documents, officials of the Inspection for Factories and Establishments Department on August 16, 2021, inspected the office of Grameen Telecom in the capital's Mirpur and found several violations of labour laws.
"On June 6 this year, the court framed charges against the accused -- including Prof Yunus -- in the case. The trial began on August 22.
...
"In its review, the law firm said, "Professor Yunus is facing six months in prison for a crime that he not only did not commit, but that legally does not exist….Events are moving quickly in Bangladesh driven by a forthcoming election and a presumed desire to imprison Prof Yunus prior to that election….Not only are the allegations entirely without merit, but the legal process is wrong in law….A miscarriage of justice is happening in Bangladesh and the state must not be allowed to carry it to its conclusion."
"Following are the Nobel Laureates who are the signatories of the letter:
PEACE: Barack H. Obama, 2009; José Ramos-Horta, 1996; Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, 1976; Shirin Ebadi, 2003; Leymah Roberta Gbowee, 2011; Albert Arnold Gore Jr., 2007; Tawakkol Karman, 2011; Denis Mukwege, 2018; Nadia Murad, 2018; Maria Ressa, 2021; Oscar Arias Sanchez, 1987; Juan Manuel Santos, 2016; Rigoberta Menchu Tum, 1992; and Jody Williams, 1997.
CHEMISTRY: Peter Agre, 2003; Thomas R. Cech, 1989; Martin Chalfie, 2008; Emmanuelle Charpentier, 2020; Aaron Ciechanover, 2004; Johann Deisenhofer, 1988; Jacques Dubochet, 2017; Joachim Frank, 2017; Walter Gilbert, 1980; Alan Heeger, 2000; Richard Henderson, 2017; Dudley R. Herschbach, 1986; Avram Hershko, 2004; Roald Hoffmann, 1981; Robert Huber, 1988; Martin Karplus, 2013; Brian K. Kobilka, 2012; Yuan T. Lee, 1986; Robert J. Lefkowitz, 2012; Jean-Marie Lehn, 1987; Michael Levitt, 2013; Tomas Lindahl, 2015; Paul L. Modrich, 2015; John C. Polanyi, 1986; Jean-Pierre Sauvage, 2016; Sir John E. Walker, 1997; Arieh Warshel, 2013; and Sir Gregory P. Winter, 2018.
ECONOMICS: Oliver Hart, 2016; Finn E. Kydland, 2004; Paul R. Milgrom, 2020; Edmund Phelps, 2006; Alvin E. Roth, 2012; Vernon L. Smith, 2002; and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2001.
LITERATURE: J. M. Coetzee, 2003; Herta Muller, 2009; Orhan Pamuk, 2006; and Wole Soyinka, 1986.
MEDICINE: Harvey J. Alter, 2020; David Baltimore, 1975; Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, 2008; J. Michael Bishop, 1989; Elizabeth H. Blackburn, 2009; William C. Campbell, 2015; Peter C. Doherty, 1996; Jeffrey Connor Hall, 2017; Leland H. Hartwell, 2001; Jules A. Hoffmann, 2011; Tasuku Honjo, 2018; H. Robert Horvitz, 2002; Sir Michael Houghton, 2020; Craig C. Mello, 2006; Edvard Moser, 2014; May-Britt Moser, 2014; Sir Paul M. Nurse, 2001; Ardem Patapoutian, 2021; Sir Peter J. Ratcliffe, 2019; Charles M. Rice, 2020; Sir Richard J. Roberts, 1993; Michael Rosbash, 2017; Gregg L. Semenza, 2019; Hamilton O. Smith, 1978; Jack W. Szostak, 2009; Harold E. Varmus, 1989; Eric F. Wieschaus, 1995; Torsten N. Wiesel, 1981; and Michael W. Young, 2017.
PHYSICS: Barry Clark Barish, 2017; Steven Chu, 1997; Andre Geim, 2010; Sheldon Glashow, 1979; David J. Gross, 2004; John L. Hall, 2005; Takaaki Kajita, 2015; Anthony J. Leggett, 2003; John C. Mather, 2006; Michel Mayor, 2019; Arthur B. McDonald, 2015; Konstantin Novoselov, 2010; Giorgio Parisi, 2021; James Peebles, 2019; Roger Penrose, 2020; William D. Phillips, 1997; H. David Politzer, 2004; Brian P. Schmidt, 2011; Horst L. Stormer, 1998; Daniel C. Tsui, 1998; Carl E. Wieman, 2001; and David J. Wineland, 2012."
********
The letter also appeared as an ad in the International edition of the New York Times:
The Financial Times reports on the surprising primary election performance of a far right candidate, Javier Milei.
Argentina radical rightwinger shakes up presidential race with primary win. by Ciara Nugent
"Javier Milei, a radical libertarian economist and outsider candidate, unexpectedly won Argentina’s primary poll, indicating a strong shift to the right as the South American country prepares to vote in a presidential election.
"Milei, a former television personality and one-term congressional representative who has called for extreme austerity and dollarising Argentina’s economy, won 30.1 per cent of the vote on Sunday, surpassing pollsters’ average forecast of 20 per cent, with 96 per cent of votes counted.
"That put his Freedom Advances party ahead of centre-right force Together for Change, with 28.3 per cent, and the ruling populist coalition Union for the Homeland, whose candidate is centrist economy minister Sergio Massa, which earned 27.2 per cent."
**********
I'm not a close follower of Argentine politics, but his name rang a bell, and reminded me that I had blogged about him in connection of his support for markets for kidneys. (There's no indication that was an issue in the presidential primaries...)
Yesterday's Senate Finance committee hearings on The Cost of Inaction and the Urgent Need to Reform the U.S. Transplant System are on video, and the following witness statements (delivered beforehand) are now also available.
If you only have time to read one, I'd recommend clicking on the testimony of Matthew Wadsworth, the President And CEO of the OPO, Life Connection of Ohio.
Watch right now or listen later. UNOS is not popular in the Senate.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?529461-1/health-advocates-testify-improving-organ-transplant-system
Patients and health professionals testify on the effectiveness of the organ transplant system before the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care.
x
x