Mason and the National Capital Area

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.

Academics use of social networking tools

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.

Krasnow Institute Symposia June 19-24 2011

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.

Book idea

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?

Watson

So, as with Chess, the IBM artifact can now beat humans at the famous TV game Jeopardy. John Markoff’s story in the NY Times is here. Computer supremacy in Chess didn’t change the world and neither will this “triumph”. What we’re seeing is a natural evolution in machine learning algorithms and a manifestation of Moore’s Law.

Kurweil believes that this is a progression to what he calls “The Singularity”–where things become sharply non-linear and our machines may (if all doesn’t go well) decide to consume us.

The more I learn about neuroscience, and about how different our human brain architecture is from that of a digital computer, the more skeptical I become of that perspective.

Brooks on Cowen: Valuing wealth

David Brooks NY Times column on my colleague Tyler Cowen’s new e-book, The Great Stagnation, seems spot on–here.

The questions are twofold:
1) What is our brain’s definition of wealth–and does it change over time or between individuals?
2) How does our brain value wealth against other things (e.g. health, knowledge, richness of experience etc.)?

These questions are central to the new field of neuroeconomics.

Science budget battles

The relevant interactive chart is here. My take home is that the NIH budget is relatively preserved even under the House plans for a continuing resolution (CR). NSF also seems to emerge from the President’s blueprint relatively OK.

That said, I am much more pessimistic about the longer term picture. Science R&D is the part of the budget termed discretionary by Congress–and until there’s a serious plan (that includes so-called mandatory spending–i.e. like Medicaid and Medicare) then discretionary spending is going to have to take the big hits in order to produce any significant results in the deficit.