Showing posts sorted by date for query challenge. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query challenge. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Interview with Joel Mokyr: "I'm Not Sure Democracy Will Survive"

 Joel Mokyr, the Dutch-Israeli-American 2025 Nobel Laureate in Economics for his work on the history of technology, is interviewed in Haaretz.  He's worried about democracy, but still optimistic about technology.

'I'm Not Sure Democracy Will Survive': Israeli 2025 Nobel Laureate Fears for the West's Future  by Guy Rolnik

“I can envision a world where democracy and the legal institutions we know and cherish do not survive, while technological progress continues. And some argue that this may really be what we need, because the greatest technological challenge we face today is climate change – and it's very hard right now to claim that democracies are handling it well. By contrast, China has been manufacturing electric cars endlessly, they've been manufacturing solar panels, they've been addressing climate change."  


Would you want your daughters to live in a technologically advanced but undemocratic world?

 
"No, but I'm not sure I can prevent it. Democracy is a modern product. Most societies in the past, including those that produced Newton, Galileo and Spinoza, were not democratic societies. The notion of democracy never occurred to them. This idea was born – or at least revived – in the Enlightenment, in the 18th and 19th centuries, and even then, it took many years for democracy to become the most common form of government. 
"Democracy isn't something that keeps evolving – there have been very serious setbacks. Between the two world wars, many countries pulled back from democracy, putting in place some form of dictatorship. Even France, which protected its democracy – as soon as the Germans arrived it all collapsed. So democracy is a fragile system. I'm not sure democracy will survive, but I'm sure technological advances will."

...

How worried are you about the future of Israel? 

 
"This is a difficult question. The Middle East is a huge graveyard for prophecies. Compared to the Israel you were raised in during the 1950s and 1960s, its geopolitical situation is better than ever. The threat from Arab countries, which was very real in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, is practically gone. Almost all Arab countries have accepted its existence. The countries hostile to us are, in fact, Muslim non-Arab countries – which is a kind of sad progress. 
"The big problem – the huge gorilla in the room – is what nobody addresses: Israel needs to learn that it cannot succeed in doing what South Africa tried and failed to do. You cannot live indefinitely as an occupying army without morally destroying the country from within."

Tuesday, November 11, 2025

Ethical considerations and global cooperaton in transplantation, Wednesday in Cairo

It's Wednesday morning in Cairo, and here's today's conference schedule, which will include discussion of (and voting on) global cooperation in transplantation. (See my earlier post for context.) 

 

8:00 AM

08:30 AM

Opening Session of Ethical Consensus

Global Consensus on Emerging Ethical Frontiers in Transplantation:
Innovations & Global Collaboration

HALL A
Strategic Co-Leaders

(Alphabetical)

Alvin E. Roth (Stanford University, USA)

John Fung (University of Chicago, USA)

Mark Ghobrial (Methodist Hospital, Houston, USA)

Osama A Gaber (Methodist Hospital, Houston, USA)

Sandy Feng (UCSF, USA)

Valeria Mas (University of Maryland, USA)

Chairs

(Alphabetical)

Ahmed Elsabbagh (University of Pittsburgh, USA)

Medhat Askar (Baylor University, USA)

Mohamed Ghaly (Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar)

Mohamed Hussein (National Guard Hospital, KSA)

Scientific Committee

(Alphabetical)

Abdul Rahman Hakeem (King’s College Hospital, UK)

Dieter Broering (KFSHRC, KSA)

Hermien Hartog (Groningen, the Netherlands)

Hosam Hamed (Mansoura University, Egypt)

Manuel Rodriguez (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico)

Matthew Liao (Center for Bioethics, New York University, USA)

Nadey Hakim (King’s College, Dubai, UAE)

Stefan Tullius (Harvard Medical School, USA)

Varia Kirchner (Stanford University, USA)

Wojciech Polak (Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

 

Leadership of Jury Committee

(Alphabetical)

Chair: John Fung (University of Chicago, USA)

Vice-Chairs

  • Hatem Amer (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA)
  • Lloyd Ratner (Columbia University, USA)
  • Maye Hassaballa (Cairo University, Egypt)
08:30 AM

09:30 AM

State of Art Lecture (1, 2) HALL A
Chairpersons
(Alphabetical)
Mahmoud El-Meteini (Ain Shams University, Egypt)

Mehmet Haberal (Baskent University, Turkey)

Sandy Feng (UCSF, USA)

08:30 AM
09:00 AM
From Dr. Starzl to the Future: The Evolution of Transplantation and the Call to Continue the Journey

John Fung (University of Chicago, USA)

09:00 AM
09:30 AM
Organ Transplant Ethics: How Technoscientific Developments Challenge Us to Reaffirm the Status of the Human Body so as to Navigate Innovation in a Responsible Manner
Hub A.E. Zwart (Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands)
09:30 AM

11:00 AM

 Working Group 1: HALL A
Chairpersons
(Alphabetical)
Ali Alobaidli (Chairman of UAE National transplant committee)

Hermien Hartog (Groningen, The Netherlands)

Khalid Amer (Military Medical Academy, Egypt)

Lloyd Ratner (Columbia University, NY, USA)

Thomas Müller (University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland)

09:30 AM
09:50 AM
Keynote Lecture: Xenotransplantation: Scientific Milestones, Clinical Trials, Risks, and Opportunities
Jay Fishman (MGH, USA)
09:50 AM
11:00 AM
WG1 Presentation & Panel Voting
  • Matthew Liao (Center for Bioethics, New York University, USA)
  • Hosam Hamed (Mansoura University, Egypt)
  • Daniel fogal (New York University, USA)
11:00 AM

11:30 AM

Coffee Break
11:30 AM

01:00 PM

 Working Group 2: HALL A
Chairpersons
(Alphabetical)
Daniel Maluf (University of Maryland, USA)

Karim Soliman (University of Pittsburgh, USA)

Marleen Eijkholt (Leiden University Medical Centre, Netherlands)

Refaat Kamel (Ain Shams University, Egypt)

Varia Krichner (Stanford University, USA)

11:30 AM
11:50 AM
Keynote Lecture: Smart Transplant: How AI & Machine Learning Are Shaping the Future
Dorry Segev (NYU Langone, USA)
11:50 AM
01:00 PM
WG2 Presentation & Panel Voting
  • Hub A.E. Zwart (Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands)
  • Varia Krichner (Stanford University, USA)
  • Eman Elsabbagh (Duke University, USA)
  • Mohammad Alexanderani (University of Pittsburgh, USA)
01:00 PM

02:30 PM

 Working Group 3: HALL A
Chairpersons
(Alphabetical)
Ahmed Marwan (Mansoura University, Egypt)

Ashraf S Abou El Ela (Michigan, USA)

Mostafa El Shazly (Cairo University, Egypt)

Peter Abt (UPenn, USA)

Philipp Dutkowski (University Hospital Basel, Switzerland)

01:00 PM
01:20 PM
Keynote Lecture: Ischemia-Free Transplantation: A New Paradigm in Organ Preservation and Transplant Medicine
Zhiyong Guo (The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, China)
01:20 PM
02:30 PM
WG3 Presentation & Panel Voting
  • Jeffrey Pannekoek (Center for Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic, USA)
  • Abdul Rahman Hakeem (King’s College Hospital, UK)
  • Georgina Morley (Center for Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic, USA)
02:30 PM

03:30 PM

 Lunch Symposium HALL B
03:30 PM

05:00 PM

 Working Group 4: HALL A
Chairpersons
(Alphabetical)
David Thomson (Cape Town University, South Africa)

Lucrezia Furian (University Hospital of Padova, Italy)

May Hassaballa (Cairo University, Egypt)

Abidemi Omonisi (Ekiti State University, Nigeri)

Vivek Kute (IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India)

03:30 PM
03:50 PM
Keynote Lecture: Framing the Conversation: Ethical considerations at the foundation for global transplant collaboration
Marleen Eijkholt (Leiden University Medical Centre, Netherlands)
03:50 PM
05:00 PM
WG4 Presentation & Panel Voting
  • Alvin Roth (Stanford University, USA)
  • Marleen Eijkholt (Leiden University Medical Centre, Netherlands)
  • Michael Rees (University of Toledo, USA)
  • Ahmed Elsabbagh (University of Pittsburgh, USA)
  • Nikolas Stratopoulos (Leiden University Medical Centre, Netherlands)
05:00 PM

05:30 PM

Closing Session of Ethical Consensus

Global Consensus on Emerging Ethical Frontiers in Transplantation:
Innovations & Global Collaboration

HALL A
Strategic Co-Leaders

(Alphabetical)

Alvin E. Roth (Stanford University, USA)

John Fung (University of Chicago, USA)

Mark Ghobrial (Methodist Hospital, Houston, USA)

Osama A Gaber (Methodist Hospital, Houston, USA)

Sandy Feng (UCSF, USA)

Valeria Mas (University of Maryland, USA)

Chairs

(Alphabetical)

Ahmed Elsabbagh (University of Pittsburgh, USA)

Medhat Askar (Baylor University, USA)

Mohamed Ghaly (Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar)

05:10 PM
05:30 PM
State of Art Lecture (3): Reflections from a Transplant Pioneer: Ethics, Policy, and the Future of Global Collaboration
Ignazio R. Marino (Thomas Jefferson University, Italy/USA)

 

Wednesday, October 22, 2025

Divergent views on behavioral economics: books by Loewenstein and Chater, and Thaler and Imas

 You could hardly have two more different books on behavioral economics, both by important contributors to the field. Chater and Loewenstein regret their part in what they feel has turned into a scam, while Thaler and Imas celebrate how it has gone from victory to victory.

It's On You.  How they rig the rules and we get the blame for society's problems 
by
Nick Chater and George Loewenstein
 

"Two decades ago, behavioral economics burst from academia to the halls of power, on both sides of the Atlantic, with the promise that correcting individual biases could help transform society. The hope was that governments could deploy a new approach to addressing society’s deepest challenges, from inadequate retirement planning to climate change—gently, but cleverly, nudging people to make choices for their own good and the good of the planet.

"It was all very convenient, and false. As behavioral scientists Nick Chater and George Loewenstein show in It’s On You, nudges rarely work, and divert us from policies that do. For example, being nudged to switch to green energy doesn’t cut carbon, and it distracts from the real challenge of building a low-carbon economy.

"It’s on You shows how the rich and powerful have repeatedly used a clever sleight of hand: blaming individuals for social problems, with behavioral economics an unwitting accomplice, while lobbying against the systemic changes that could actually help. As two original proponents of the nudge principle, Nick and George now argue that rather than trying to “fix” the victims of bad policies, real progress requires rewriting the social and economic rulebook for the common good."

Book cover of It's On You by Nick Chater, George Loewenstein 

###### 

 

The Winner's Curse: Behavioral Economics Anomalies, Then and Now
by Richard H. Thaler  and Alex Imas  

"Nobel Prize winner Richard H. Thaler and rising star economist Alex O. Imas explore the past, present, and cutting-edge future in behavioral economics in The Winner’s Curse.

"Why do people cooperate with one another when they have no obvious motivation to do so? Why do we hold on to possessions of little value? And why is the winner of an auction so often disappointed?

"Over thirty years ago, Richard H. Thaler introduced readers to behavioral economics in his seminal Anomalies column, written with collaborators including Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. These provocative articles challenged the fundamental idea at the heart of economics that people are selfish, rational optimizers, and provided the foundation for what became behavioral economics. That was then.

"Now, three decades later, Thaler has teamed up with economist Alex O. Imas to write a new book with an original and creative format. Each chapter starts with an original Anomaly, retaining the spirit of its time stamp. Then, shifting to the present, the authors provide updates to each, asking how the original findings have held up and how the field has evolved since then.

"It turns out that the original findings not only hold up well, but they show up almost everywhere. Anomalies pop up in people’s decisions to save for retirement and how they carry outstanding credit card debt. Even experts fail to optimize. The key concept of loss aversion explains missed putts by PGA pros and the selection of which stocks to sell by portfolio managers. In this era of meme stocks and Dogecoin, it is hard to defend the view that financial markets are highly efficient. The good news, however, is that the anomalies have gotten funnier." 

 

Saturday, August 30, 2025

Michel Callon (1945-2025)

 Hans Kjellberg  informs me that the eminent sociologist of markets, Michel Callon has died. Kjellberg writes about his long collaboration with Callon, including an interval during the Covid pandemic that involved the three of us:

"A more recent collaboration was the essay “The design and performation of markets: a discussion” that I curated between Alvin Roth and Michel for a special issue of AMS Review on theorizing markets (with Riikka Murto). I had spoken to Michel about contributing an essay to the issue, but when Alvin suggested that they do something together, Michel very quickly accepted this intellectual challenge. Their exchange took place at the height of the pandemic, and I acted as the go-between and facilitator of their (mostly email-based) exchange of ideas. It developed into a great example of what is needed in contemporary society: two intellectual giants coming from very different starting points engaging in an open and earnest conversation to try to understand each other’s point of view. If you have not yet read it, have a look at: https://lnkd.in/dBxJBbtW."

Here's the obit from the Centre for the Sociology of Innovation:

Michel Callon (1945-2025)

"Michel Callon passed away on July 28, 2025. 

...

"With an interest in economics (and economy) since his early days, Michel Callon developed a keen understanding of markets in the late 1990s, focusing on the role of scientific knowledge and technical devices. The 1998 collective volume he edited, The Laws of the Markets, paved the way for an original analysis of market phenomena that many researchers in France and other countries would follow. In Market Devices (2007), Callon, Yuval Millo, and Fabian Muniesa compiled a collection of texts emblematic of the variety of devices used in the organization of markets. In Market in the Making (2021), he analyses how market arrangements work and questions their integration into contemporary society. "


Here are all my blog posts mentioning  Callon.

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

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 

Monday, June 2, 2025

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."

Thursday, April 17, 2025

Freezing and thawing organs for transplant moves one step closer

 In March, surgeons at Mass General Hospital thawed and transplanted a frozen pig organ into a pig.  The challenge of freezing and then thawing an organ back to life, so that it can be stored until an appropriate transplant can be arranged, is one of long standing. The difficulty is that during both freezing and thawing, there is a danger of ice crystals forming inside the cells, which would destroy them.

Here's a NYT article that explains why being able to freeze and then successfully thaw organs could help relieve the congestion in kidney transplants for humans.

This Kidney Was Frozen for 10 Days. Could Surgeons Transplant It?
Scientists developed a way to freeze a large mammal’s kidney, which could ease organ shortages in the future. First, they had to see if their method would work in a pig.
   By Gina Kolata

"the promise from freezing and storing organs is great.

"There is a severe and ongoing shortage of kidneys for transplants — more than 92,000 people are on waiting lists. One reason is that the window of 24 to 36 hours is so brief that it limits the number of recipients who are good matches.

"How much better it might be to have a bank of stored, frozen organs so an organ transplant could be almost like an elective surgery.

"That, at least, has been the decades-long dream of transplant surgeons.

But the attempts of medical researchers to freeze organs were thwarted at every turn. In many cases, ice crystals formed and destroyed the organs. "

 

HT: Colin Rowat

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

Here's an earlier post, about a 2017 paper that turns out to have set some of the goal posts:

Monday, June 12, 2017  Organ preservation could bring big changes to transplantation

Transplantation would be a lot less hectic if organs could be preserved. Here's a 42-author paper (the biggest coauthorship I've been involved in) that discusses some of the possibilities.

The promise of organ and tissue preservation to transform medicine 
 Sebastian Giwa, Jedediah K Lewis, Luis Alvarez, Robert Langer, Alvin E Roth, George M Church, James F Markmann, David H Sachs, Anil Chandraker, Jason A Wertheim, Martine Rothblatt, Edward S Boyden, Elling Eidbo, W P Andrew Lee, Bohdan Pomahac, Gerald Brandacher, David M Weinstock, Gloria Elliott, David Nelson, Jason P Acker, Korkut Uygun, Boris Schmalz, Brad P Weegman, Alessandro Tocchio, Greg M Fahy, Kenneth B Storey, Boris Rubinsky, John Bischof, Janet A W Elliott, Teresa K Woodruff, G John Morris, Utkan Demirci, Kelvin G M Brockbank, Erik J Woods, Robert N Ben, John G Baust, Dayong Gao, Barry Fuller, Yoed Rabin, David C Kravitz, Michael J Taylor & Mehmet Toner

Nature Biotechnology 35, 530–542 (2017) doi:10.1038/nbt.3889
Published online 07 June 2017

##

Here's the Google Scholar link, which also includes links to the subsequent literature:

The promise of organ and tissue preservation to transform medicine

S Giwa, JK Lewis, L Alvarez, R Langer, AE Roth… - Nature …, 2017 - nature.com

 

Wednesday, March 5, 2025

Demonstrating for science (in Washington and elsewhere)

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

Nature has the story:

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


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

Unaccustomed role

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

...

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


Saturday, February 22, 2025

Kidney exchange and liver exchange are connected by graph theory

 Practical market design involves logistics, and here's a paper by five doctors at the Liver Transplantation Institute of Inonu University in Malatya, Turkey, explaining how they developed the logistics of their busy single-center liver exchange program.  

They also explain the connection between liver exchange and the graph theory involved in kidney exchange. The relevant graphs are compatibility graphs indicating which donors are compatible with which recipients, which are different for kidneys (involving blood types and antibodies) and for livers (involving blood types and anatomy--chiefly size.) But in either case, when the graph is sparsely connected, two way cycles are likely to be rare, so longer cycles and chains become important.


Multiple Swaps Tested: Rehearsal for Triple and Five Liver Paired Exchanges, by Sezai Yilmaz,  Ahmet Kizilay, Nuru Bayramov, Ahmet Tekin, and Sukru Emre, Transplantation Proceedings
Volume 56, Issue 9, November 2024, Pages 2003-2005

" many potential living liver donors cannot donate their organs to their relatives because of blood group incompatibility, unsuitable anatomy due to small graft to recipient weight ratio, small liver remnant size, and the donor's arterial, venous, or biliary anatomic variants. Liver paired exchange (LPE) can be used to overcome incompatibilities between living donor-recipient pairs and should be considered as a means to expand the donor pool and reduce deaths on the LT waiting list. A small number of liver pair exchanges have been performed [[4], [5], [6]]. In this study, we report the early and late results of three and five LDLTs performed simultaneously to initiate the more complex LPE program

...

"Inonu University Liver Transplantation Institute has 12 operating theatres, 3 intensive care units (each with a capacity of 12 patients), and 116 in-patient beds. In our institute, there are 25 LT surgeons, 8 anesthesiologists, 4 intensive care specialists, 3 radiologists, 3 hepatologists, 3 infectious disease specialists, and 1 pediatric hepatologist, and 3 infectious disease specialists who are specialized in both LT and LDLT in adults and pediatrics. As one of the leading LDLT centers in the world, our challenge has been always to deal with patients do not have matching donors. Therefore, our next challenge was to create the Liver Pair Exchange Program. Our experience, facilities, and need for an LPE program convinced us that we should initiate such a program. This was a major undertaking, and we would like to test what kind of problems we could face if we should start an LPE program. To test possible hurdles, we decided to perform five simultaneous LDLTs. In June 2019, we performed 5 simultaneous LDLTs, including 1 pediatric and 5 adult patients. All operations started at 8 am and ended between 4 and 6:30 pm.

... 

 "Collaborations between medical and mathematical modeling professionals have resulted in widespread adoption of kidney pair exchange programs worldwide over the last 2 decades and resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of living donor kidney transplants obtained in this way using tools from fields of optimization and market design [10,11]. These techniques are recently extended to the LPE program as well [12]. One of the important contributions of mathematical modeling professionals had been showing the importance of larger than two-way donor exchanges for increasing the number of transplants that can be obtained through kidney pair exchange or LPE programs [13,14]. Therefore, by demonstrating that our center is capable of performing up to five LDLTs, we have taken an important step for establishing a complex LPE program that can conduct up to five-way donor exchange

...

"[10] AE Roth, T Sönmez, MU Ünver, Kidney exchange
Quarterly J Econ, 119 (2004), pp. 151-188

[11]AE Roth, T Sönmez, M Utku Ünver, A kidney exchange clearinghouse in New England, Am Econ Rev, 95 (2005), pp. 376-380

[12]H. Ergin, T Sönmez, MU Ünver
Efficient and incentive-compatible liver exchange
Econometrica, 88 (2020), pp. 965-1005

[13] AE Roth, T Sönmez, MU Ünver, Efficient kidney exchange: coincidence of wants in markets with compatibility-based preferences, Am Econ Rev, 97 (2007), pp. 828-851

[14] SL Saidman, AE Roth, T Sönmez, MU Unver, FL Delmonico
Increasing the opportunity of live kidney donation by matching tor two-and three-way exchanges, Transplantation, 81 (2006), pp. 773-782 "

Sunday, February 2, 2025

Challenge trials are becoming more accepted

Challenge trials, also called human infection trials, are clinical trials in which e.g. a vaccine is tested on participants who have volunteered to be infected with the disease the vaccine is meant to prevent. It's been a source of controversy.  But maybe open letters have some effect after all?  

The NYT has the story:

Would You Get Sick in the Name of Science?  Since the pandemic, drug trials that purposely make people vomit, shiver and ache have become a research area of growing interest. All that’s needed: brave volunteers. By Brent Crane

"challenge trials have become an area of enthusiasm since the Covid-19 pandemic. Funding for trials has poured in. Countries including India, Canada and Australia are beginning to develop the capacity for conducting them. Some researchers have found it easier to recruit volunteers, who are willing to shiver, sweat, puke and ache all in the name of helping others (and earning a little cash).

...

" Researchers have found that challenge trials can be used to observe not just immune responses but also transmission and infection. And by the standards of disease research, they are nimble; the whole process can take as little as a few months. This is in contrast to the years it often takes to run a traditional trial requiring thousands of research subjects to naturally become infected with a disease.

...

" In April 2020, 35 U.S. congressional members wrote a letter calling on regulators to permit challenge trials for Covid-19 vaccines. Three months later, 177 prominent scientists, including 15 Nobel laureates, joined their call. But opponents argued that the risks of infecting volunteers with a poorly understood virus were too great. The National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all refused to allow them. At least one trial, in the Netherlands, was scuttled because of the perceived risk.

"And yet, instead of torpedoing the field, the pandemic “revitalized” it, said Dr. Christopher Chiu, an immunologist at Imperial College London. In 2021, after months of deliberation, the world’s first Covid-19 challenge trial began at Imperial College London — one of two that took place between 2021 and 2022 for Covid-19 — and interest grew from there.

"In 2020, while locked down in his Brooklyn apartment, a former corporate lawyer named Joshua Morrison stumbled upon an early draft of the Journal of Infectious Diseases article arguing for Covid challenge trials. That March, Mr. Morrison and two others founded an advocacy group in Washington, D.C., as a place to organize potential volunteers for Covid-19 challenge trials. As a nod to the speed of challenge trials, they called it 1Day Sooner. Within months, the organization had tens of thousands of sign-ups.

"1Day Sooner went on to promote challenge trials for maladies including norovirus, hepatitis-C and shigella, a bacteria that can cause dysentery."

  ########H

Here are all my posts on challenge trials




Monday, December 23, 2024

Nicole Immorlica celebrated (and interviewed) in a Microsoft Resarch podcast

 Here's a podcast with Nicole Immorlica, in which she talks about her research origins (including a course and a poem), what computer science brings to economics, and the role of theory in the age of generative AI.

Ideas: Economics and computation with Nicole Immorlica 

December 5, 2024 | Gretchen Huizinga and Nicole Immorlica

When research manager Nicole Immorlica discovered she could use math to make the world a better place for people, she was all in. She discusses working in computer science theory and economics, including studying the impact of algorithms and AI on markets.

 

Line illustration of Nicole Immorlica

Behind every emerging technology is a great idea propelling it forward. In the Microsoft Research Podcast series Ideas, members of the research community at Microsoft discuss the beliefs that animate their research, the experiences and thinkers that inform it, and the positive human impact it targets.

In this episode, host Gretchen Huizinga talks with Senior Principal Research Manager Nicole Immorlica. As Immorlica describes it, when she and others decided to take a computational approach to pushing the boundaries of economic theory, there weren’t many computer scientists doing research in economics. Since then, contributions such as applying approximation algorithms to the classic economic challenge of pricing and work on the stable marriage problem have earned Immorlica numerous honors, including the 2023 Test of Time Award from the ACM Special Interest Group on Economics and Computation and selection as a 2023 Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Fellow. Immorlica traces the journey back to a graduate market design course and a realization that captivated her: she could use her love of math to help improve the world through systems that empower individuals to make the best decisions possible for themselves.

 

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

"Reviews of Michel Callon’s Markets in the Making: Rethinking Competition, Goods, and Innovation, In Journal of Cultural Economy

 Here's a set of brief reactions to Michel Callon's book Markets in the Making: Rethinking Competition, Goods, and Innovation. The reactions are by a diverse set of authors (as an economist I added a good deal to the diversity:)

"Review Symposium: Michel Callon’s Markets in the Making: Rethinking Competition, Goods, and Innovation. Zone Books,"  by Michel Callon, Paul Langley, Bill Maurer, Timothy Mitchell , Alvin Roth & Koray Caliskan, Journal of Cultural Economy  Published online: 28 Oct 2024

 The symposium collects the following comments:

Introduction to the symposium  by Koray Caliskan

Markets in the making by Paul Langley

The anthropologist at the end of the world? Salvaging anthropology for alternative value propositions by Bill Maurer 

Special and highly artificial processes by Timothy Mitchell 

Markets in the making  by Alvin E. Roth 

Discussion and commentary by Michel Callon

*********

Here is the beginning of my comment:

"Markets in the making
Alvin E. Roth
It is a pleasure to read Michel Callon’s completed book, after a lengthy pandemic correspondence, abridged in Callon and Roth (2021). Callon appreciates that markets are complex, dynamic, and an essential part of society, which itself is constantly changing, not least in response to changes in technology (such as computers and the internet). The book itself is testimony to the speed of change: speaking of gambling addicts, Callon writes “One day it will be possible to reach him at home through an app.” In the U.S. this has happened already, particularly for betting on sporting events while they are underway.

Much of what he says will be very agreeable to both sociologists and economists, although there is room to disagree about how some previous work is interpreted.

The book is not easy reading: the complexities that Callon considers prompt him to develop new words to describe them. He speaks of market “agencements” (which are constantly “reagencing,”) and, “passiva(c)tion” (which requires new punctuation and word formation, as markets help goods become “pass(act)ive”).

Callon also redefines familiar terms such as “competition” and “innovation.”

In market agencements, perfect competition … has nothing to do with that of neoclassical economics. Its only goal is to make bilateral transactions proliferate … 

and
Without innovation, there is no competition, and as a consequence, there is no market activity. … As we will see throughout this book, th[is] rule brooks no exceptions.

Rules that brook no exceptions worry me.


Notwithstanding these quibbles, Callon’s aim is to alert us to how markets, marketplaces, their participants, and the transactions they foster, all interact with one another and the larger economy in intricate ways that shape the society that also shapes them ... "

*********

Here is the beginning of Callon's response to all the remarks in the Symposium:

"Discussion and commentary
Michel Callon
What better way to express my gratitude to the colleagues invited by the JCE than to confess that, thanks to them and their demanding reading, I have a better understanding of what I was trying to do.

When you decide to write a book you have to start with a simple question and try, whatever happens, to take it (develop it) to the end. If you don't succeed, if difficulties and contradictions pile up along the way, it's because the question was badly formulated, or worse, it was uninteresting.

The question I began with is both fundamental and undeniably ambitious: What are the felicity conditions of a commercial transaction, understood as the exchange of property rights for monetary payment? This question, though simple in words, encompasses a vast and intricate world. It involves a specific environment where particular agents engage in relationships, where certain property rights are assigned to entities, where valuation mechanisms are in place, and where currencies circulate. This book focuses on the organization and architecture of this world.

Neologisms
It is difficult to grasp the peculiarities and characteristics of this world without making a detour into economic anthropology, which is one of the fields that studies it. I could have avoided the challenge, given the richness and complexity of this literature, but doing so would have meant abandoning the question. What kept me from giving up was a phrase from Nietzsche that Bruno Latour liked to quote: “For I approach deep problems such as I do cold baths: fast in, fast out.” (Nietzsche Citation2001, 231). Don't be afraid of the cold, but don't let it paralyze you! I tried to follow the advice as best I could, but maybe I didn’t get out of the bath quickly enough! The book is long—probably too long. But that’s not all. Not only does it lack illustrations (mea culpa), but it also introduces neologisms that are almost impossible to pronounce.

Take, for example, the notion of passivaction. When Koray Caliskan and I were looking for a word to describe the curious process that frames an entity's actions, whatever it may be, without limiting the entity’s ability to take unexpected actions, we first thought of “passivation.” We soon realized, however, that this term was quite rightly giving rise to complete misunderstandings. Few had read Antoine Hennion and Emilie Gomard's seminal article on people addicted to hard drugs, which showed that: a) becoming passive required complex and costly efforts, and b) passivity was a form of action in itself. To avoid creating new words, we settled on “pacifying.” While it was a better choice, it didn't fully capture the reality of the process.

When words are lacking, the only solution is to come up with new ones, in the hope that they will capture what we are trying to grasp. Whether we are talking about human beings, technical objects or non-human living beings and the services they provide, there is a balance to be struck between programmed behavior and the ability to deal with the unexpected. What would be the value of a worker with no sense of initiative? What would be the value of a technical object incapable of adapting (being adapted) to new circumstances? What would be the value of a draught horse that, through extreme domestication, had lost all ability to improvise?

No framing can completely stop overflows, and if it could, it would block any chance for adaptation and change. When a process is this universal, continuing to misname it would be a mistake. As Albert Camus said, “To misname things is to add to the misery of the world.” Passivaction may be a barbaric word, but it highlights the dual movement that transforms an entity into something that both acts and is acted on, both configured and configures, both passive, and thus active, or passivacted!"

 

#########

Earlier:

Thursday, January 6, 2022 The design and performation of markets: a discussion, by Michel Callon and Alvin Roth in the AMS Review

 

And if you are meeting Callon for the first time, here's an interview he gave last year:

From Innovation to Markets and Back. A Conversation with Michel Callon  by Alexandre Mallard — 

Here's a snippet from that interview:

"I can count on one hand the collaborations I’ve since had with economists: an edited volume on the concept of network with Patrick Cohendet, Dominique Foray, and François Eymard-Duvernay (Foray et al., 1999), and a recent article cosigned by Alvin Roth on the role of economics in formatting the economy (Callon & Roth, 2021). I enjoyed working with these colleagues because they were open and respectful, and I tried to be too. They understood my efforts to be in dialogue with their discipline. Their attitude was in stark contrast with the majority of their colleagues who were arrogant, bordering on dismissive. Every time I’ve had to share a flight with economists someone has snarked, “Michel, I hope the plane you’re boarding isn’t a social construction!” Economics is by no means a dismal science, but too often economists make it one.

...

"Through these encounters, so filled with incomprehension, it hit me that the very definition of economics was in play. There were so many things to question that went beyond pounding on homo oeconomicus, his unrealism or his vices and virtues. For instance, in contrast to evolutionary economics, mainstream economics was entirely based on an unrealistic definition of goods that was strikingly limited when applied to scientific knowledge. In asserting that scientific knowledge was intrinsically (by nature) non-rival and non-excludable, mainstream economists implicitly recognized that they were completely uninterested in the associated milieu of goods, that is to say in everything that gives them the capacity to be useful and consequently to be used. Economists did not realize that without an associated milieu a good is not a good. A scientific statement airlifted over the Gobi desert has no other fate than to dissipate into the sands because it is deprived of the socio-technical environment that gives it meaning and utility. Likewise, without the infrastructure that allows it to take off, navigate, and land, without the fuel supply contracts, control towers, and air traffic controllers, without the insurance companies, international regulations, and the legal agreements, an Airbus 380 remains grounded. A Nespresso capsule in the palm of George Clooney’s hand, without its dedicated machine or a supply of running water, is as useless as a car on an uninhabited island lost in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. A thing is not born a good, it becomes one; a thing is not born a public good, it must become one too."