A very worthwhile piece in today’s NY Times business section here.
Money quote:
Give a few V.C.’s access to the technology deals. Let them raise some capital and invest it shrewdly. The V.C.’s become rich. And if the deals are done correctly, the schools share handsomely in the riches.
I checked in with colleagues in Japan today and was relieved to hear so far OK. Our condolences go out to the victims of the quake and Tsunami. And of course, we watch with concern a nuclear power plant in distress.
Here‘s a fascinating account of what the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is like these days. There are two interesting interacting “dependent variables”: the removal of human beings and the radiation. Both are interacting.
The first daffodils are out here in the Washington DC area, their shape always reminds me of dentate gyrus granule cells, which in rodents, at least, are born throughout the individual’s lifetime, sprouting up anew, just like the jonquil.
There are many hints, but no overall deep understanding of what’s going on with neurogenesis in the rodent hippocampus. Somehow, the new cells have to integrate themselves into the existing tri-synaptic network without screwing things up. Or at least, that’s what it seems that they do.
Further, there are tantalizing clues that what goes on in rodents may also take place in our human brains. And that human neurogenesis in hippocampus might correlate with stress.
I’m always amazed at how the daffodils when they emerge from the winter mud, do so in a somewhat orderly way, so that when they are all in full bloom, you can view the seas of yellow blooms along the Rock Creek Parkway, previewing the tulips which will follow.
It’s The Great Stagnation and the Amazon link is here. The basic thesis is that during the 19th and 20th century we (meaning the US) plucked virtually all of the “low hanging fruit” that would increase GDP and we’re just stuck until some serious innovation takes place–innovation that can actually produce revenue and get people jobs (the Net doesn’t do particularly well at either of those).
I’m still reading the book, but couldn’t help a blogpost about one of his prescriptions for fixing things: increasing the status of scientists. Tyler knows full well that I’m biased on this point, but I couldn’t agree more.
I believe that if we’re to see innovations that will make a difference, they are going to come from our investments in basic and applied science. And, to some extent, they will be serendipitous. But, like electricity and railroads, they will get us on the move again.
My top guesses:
The Washington DC area is an odd duck in some ways. Incredibly dynamic, well-educated, well-to-do, and….split over multiple governmental jurisdictions as well as the Potomac River. Although one could certainly argue that New York’s metropolitan area does share some similar traits (it’s often called the Tri-State area), I’d argue that the history of the two places combined with their core businesses make for apples and oranges comparisons.
Part of the history of the Washington DC area (if we exclude Baltimore) is that the historically older institutions of higher education are 1) small (relative to say the big Ivy League schools) and 2) private.
The two state publics, University of Maryland at College Park and George Mason, are quite large, but relative to the other major public research universities, not yet dominating the city’s culture the way University of Texas or Ohio State do for Austin and Columbus respectively.
Thus, unlike many other major US cities, DC isn’t dominated by a single institution (or even two) the way for example Boston, Chicago and San Francisco are.
Another way of putting this notion is that, projecting into the future, the DC area is still up for grabs.
Thinking this way, I see two key points: first, the derivative of growth (writ large) is more important than size. Second, past-decisions put real constraints on the future.
Anyone who has visited Mason over the last several years can’t help but notice how rapid the growth has been. It’s singular frankly.
But more important is that Mason is still young enough, that key decisions (and opportunities) remain for the future. In other words, Mason isn’t constrained for its future growth and has the opportunity to become what UofM is to Ann Arbor, what UCSD is to San Diego.
That’s an exciting future, especially in the Nation’s Capital.
In The New Statesman here. Enjoy the comments as well.
The piece is a review of two new neuroscientific interpretations, one by Damasio the other by Nicholas Humphrey. I haven’t read either yet, but they’ll be cued up on my Kindle for the trip to Berlin in April.
The Chronicle has an interesting piece here–Apparently a study conducted by the Ciber group at University College, London. The humanities and social sciences appear to be in the vanguard. Peer review is questioned and the article raises the implicit question of what journals have to offer.
As a journal editor, I’d say quite a lot. There is enormous value-added in quality control (peer review). The curation of articles with their data provides an organized way to evaluate scientific theories as they come into “fashion”.
That said, the new tools of the Net, are no doubt facilitating the informal, collaborative process of science. And I’d add to that science training.
A professor can reach out to a student over Facebook about an assignment in a way that’s fairly difficult to ignore.
The site is here. Really exciting tracks in neuropolicy and complexity models in the context of policy decisions.
If you’re a federal or private sector executive and want to learn more about these key areas fast from some of the top scientific researchers in an intelligent lay-person (think Scientific American) format, this is the week-long event for you.
I’ve been interested in the intersection of neuroscience and policy decisions for some time–particularly consequential decisions. So I’ve been thinking about a book of historical case studies where there is some clear evidence for alterations in normative brain function producing significant consequential change.
It seems to me the key is for such a book to be evidence-based and not speculative. So probably no chapters devoted to Alexander or even Napoleon.
So here’s a bleg, which historical figures would you like to read about?
Discoverers and Discoveries 