Assorted links

by on February 25, 2014 at 12:56 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. Todd Kashdan reconsiders some of his own work.

2. Are small companies the future of medical innovation?

3. “The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.

4. Axolotl found.

5. New report on financial crisis in Ukraine.

6. Roger Farmer’s quiz for Keynesians.

ummm February 25, 2014 at 1:43 pm

Not too surprising those fake papers have ties to china

this is hilarious.. made my own paper
http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/345/scimakelatex.44033.ummm.html

stock market keeps going up.

chuck martel February 25, 2014 at 2:13 pm

The article’s a fake. That’s not even the real “Nature” website. Can’t trust anybody anymore.

Ray Lopez February 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm

@#2 – “Gene therapy. Immunotherapy. Nanomedicine. This is what the next few decades of medicine will look like. But it isn’t coming from big pharma. It’s coming from the little guys – Read more: Small Science, Big Diseases | TIME.com http://ideas.time.com/2014/02/24/small-science-big-diseases/#ixzz2uMdfFLNM

Easy answer: over-regulation means the only companies that will take risks are small companies that don’t care about legal restrictions on gene therapy (‘patients genes mutated to cancer?’ oops!) and immunotherapy (‘just use Mexicans as test patients’), or nanomedicine (‘gray goo? No problem it will wash away’).

It’s the same reason big companies use “consultants” if they need to bribe some official in the Third World. It’s a layer of insulation from potential legal problems.

john personna February 25, 2014 at 7:09 pm

If research is internationally fungible (and I think it is, or close) why would any single country’s restrictions matter?

(I am pretty sure the “gray goo” thing breaks on energy balance. It takes a lot to tear things down, which is why it takes so long for a tree to go away in the forest.)

Marie February 26, 2014 at 8:24 pm

I’m not sure if this applies, but I know with medical devices if they are developed and used outside the U.S. they might still never make it to the U.S. market. I would guess that would be the same for anything that gets sold, the research breakthroughs would be there for all to see but if it’s attached to a product, the product has to get through U.S. regulation even if it’s used elsewhere?

Marie February 26, 2014 at 8:27 pm

I may not be following, but would that be about regulation? Or lawsuits?

What I’ve seen in my narrow experience has been that small companies have a hard time affording jumping the FDA etc. hurdles, so a lot of small innovation may not happen because what’s the point of developing a therapy you can’t afford to bring to market.

That means that a lot of products previously developed by a couple guys in a borrowed lab (first insulins) are now developed through “Big Pharma” (new insulins) — they cost a ton more, as an aside.

ummm February 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-25/the-housing-market-s-wild-ride

..not so wild in the Bay Area where prices for the past few decades resemble a gentle slope with a dip in 2007-09 when everyone thought the world would end.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-25/whatsapp-and-the-new-meaning-of-work

For the Americans who are unable to cut it in the smartist era, maybe they should be subsidized to engage in passive consumption, such as uploading pictures to facebook, clicking google ads, streaming netflix movies, or using whatsapp. These activities may create more value for the economy than a traditional job. Maybe 5 cents per uploaded photo, 1 cent a tweet, 75 cents per facebook account. This is like a basic income, but with much less risk for abuse and a lower cost.

When the left (and occasionally the right) say America is in decline or capitalism is dying, I just remind them of the success of facebook snapchatp, whatsapp. Only in America, and more specifically, only in a meritocracy is this possible. That’s why we need programs that allow talented, smart, hard-working people from all over the world to create wealth and prosperity -not only for themselves and shareholders, but maybe so that some of that prosperity can benefit everyone else, too.

msgkings February 25, 2014 at 4:27 pm

OK I’m getting confused, is there a troll merger happening with this guy and JaMRC?
Or perhaps JaMRC is just specifically aping this yutz?
I think I might prefer the angry PUA types and that’s saying something.

Finch February 25, 2014 at 5:04 pm

I think MR allows sock-puppeting, so they could be the same person.

Just another MR Commentor February 25, 2014 at 4:40 pm

+1000000 Couldn’t have said it any better

msgkings February 25, 2014 at 4:48 pm

See?

Brian Donohue February 25, 2014 at 5:22 pm

At first I thought that ummm’s posts were the chief motivation for conjuring JaMRC into existence.

Now I think maybe ummm is just a deeper or more subtle troll.

Just another MR Commentor February 25, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Actually the joke is on you since neither of us are trolls

msgkings February 25, 2014 at 5:41 pm

He’s got you there, Brian

prior_approval February 26, 2014 at 3:21 am

And anti-ummm makes three? Pending FDA approval, of course.

bmcburney February 25, 2014 at 5:17 pm

Regarding number 3, (1) Does a lack of innovation (perhaps produced by some mysterious stagnating force) provide empty space which the Journals must fill with something, even if it is giberish? or (2) Has our excessive deference to “science” produced an inability to think critically about the things which men in white coats tell us? In other words, does stagnation produce giberish or does a lack of intellectual rigor produce giberish (which then produces stagnation).

My money would be on the latter. Presumably, various experts in these subjects reviewed the computer-generated nonsense and decided it was worthy of publication. After publication, other experts reviewed the papers and determined that, even if they were nonsense, they were not much worse than the human-written giberish which is normally published.

zbicyclist February 25, 2014 at 6:51 pm

“Presumably, various experts in these subjects reviewed”

I suspect the peer review was mostly aimed as insuring (a) the paper existed, (b) it was in the expected language, and (c) the title seemed related to the topic.

John Mansfield February 26, 2014 at 5:59 am

It sounds like these fake “papers” are nothing more than abstracts of upcoming conference talks. Not much more at issue than printing a fake classified ad.

nike air max 95 March 13, 2014 at 4:24 am

Liu was one of the 31 migrant workers elected to the National People’s Congress last year. She is a foot masseuse in southeast China’s Xiamen City. A native of south China’s Anhui Province, Liu was a school dropout at the age of 14 and worked to support the schooling of her siblings.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: