My Dad sampled quite a few universities and colleges before settling on Amherst College–among them the University of Wisconsin and St. Johns College in Annapolis. By the time he had finished his training he had added Harvard and McGill to the list. And then after that he was at UCLA, Michigan and Caltech. So quite a smorgasbord.

I’ve also been around the block including some of the same schools. For my Dad, the question of what higher education should offer was a constant question with evolving answers. As I look out at the waterfront of places these days, it seems to me that the question still is out there–as central as ever to our collective work–and still evolving, albeit not in the directions that I might have hoped several decades ago when the Internet was new and full of promise.

This week, we hear of a new place in Austin that is attempting to reframe both the question and the answer. Several folks I know are associated with the effort. I wish them good luck. We used to answer the sub-question of “what is liberal arts” with the pithy: it’s learning how to learn. But of course, learning is one of the shared experiences for many human beings from the earliest age. We mostly all know how to learn.

So I can’t even answer the sub-question on liberal arts–although (like the duck), I know it when I see it. But I do think that the big question is still important. Increasingly the job of the college president is to manage crises. So there’s less time for the big question and maybe it should be more of a focus on high.

Map to the atoms of knowledge. Link here. The idea is to take the corpus of all published papers and extract n-grams (lots of them) with pointers to the DOI or its equivalent. Interesting new approach I think.

First, I’m glad to see serious consideration for the financialization of the global response to climate disruption. I still think Kim Stanley Robinson’s idea of a Central Banks-backed Stable Coin that can be mined (as in bitcoin) by carbon sequestration is the best approach. Second, I think these conferences are useful in that they create frameworks that can offer a scaffold for a multitude of separate actions–that in spite of the “no teeth” complaints. I feel the same way about the Hague Court and the UN. Finally, it seems to me that some actors (national and others) will eventually try to geoengineer and it would be useful to think about what that will mean in terms of the scaffolding.

My economist colleagues continue to argue in terms of GDP loss. In that GDP doesn’t value ecosystem services, I think that’s a big problem.

…Had it’s kickoff Ideas Lab meeting today, the link is here. I’m a part of this effort as a mentor and I must say I’m really impressed with the group of diverse scientists that have been selected for the program after a very serious competition.

What’s always fun about these types of meetings is the unexpected–today I learned about some modeling simulations going on at NCAR that I hadn’t heard about: if I heard correctly, the involve the in silico simulation of actual NEON sensor towers from specific domain sites of the Observatory. The idea is that the simulation can be tested against the actual data product time series across the ~200 data products. Neat!

Professor Naoru Koizumi and I will be co-directing a new center at the Schar School here at George Mason University. It was officially chartered today. Stay tuned for a lot more about this new venture…

I am quite frustrated with the downward spiral in collaborative science between US and Chinese researchers. Here is a rare and productive idea for creating “safe spaces” for such science to continue under the current dismal geopolitical circumstances. Having lived through the First Cold War –barely considering the Cuban Missile Crisis and other near misses– it’s clear that a continuing bridge between scientists on both sides was instrumental in keeping a rational conversation going.

CNN has the lead here. I can’t say I’m surprised. Francis has done a great job leading the Agency, but he’s been there a very long time. It’s early in the handicapping for who President Biden will nominate to succeeed him, but it’s a good bet the Lander and Faucci will have a big say. What is important is that NIH figure out a distinct mission for its intramural program–I would suggest focusing on high risk, high payoff science. I also think that a new NIH director should do something to reform the creaky NIH peer-review culture (Study Sections).

I’m on the team that submitted this preprint to MedrXiv. I’d say the conclusions are quite compelling. We’re also finishing our project on the National Science Board and moving on to Space Law (as in the future Rules of Life for SpaceX). We’re also getting ready to submit a new proposal on cell traffiking of proteins in neurons and another major push in AI at the edge. So busy.

Just a progress report for folks who have been following my project to take a policy look at the National Science Board through the lens of NSF’s science mission. We’re in the process of finishing up a manuscript for submission. My undergraduate honors student has been spectacular in moving the project forward during the pandemic–he will be first author!

From this week’s New Yorker, here: featuring my colleague Tyler Cowen. Well written and quite entertaining.

Note: I consider the scientific method (which I subscribe to in my own thinking) as being somewhat distinct from Bayesian reasoning which is pushed in the piece. A scientist needs to be imaginative in addition to being rigorous in her thinking. The imaginative component is absent from the article.