Peter Thiel on the funding of science

At a keynote address at the Precision Medicine World Conference, Thiel argued for enabling riskier research grant-making via institutions such as the NIH, as well as abandoning the scientific staple of the double-blind trial and encouraging the U.S. FDA to further accelerate its regulatory evaluations. He said that these deficiencies are inhibiting the ability of scientists to make major advances, despite the current environment that is flooded with capital and research talent.

Make science great again?

“There’s a story we can tell about what happened historically in how processes became bureaucratized. Early science funding was very informal – DARPA’s a little bit different – but in the 1950s and 1960s, it was very generative,” said Thiel. “You just had one person [who] knew the 20 top scientists and gave them grants – there was no up-front application process. Then gradually, as things scaled, they became formalized.

“One question is always how things scale,” he continued. “There are certain types of businesses where they work better and better at bigger and bigger scales,” he said, pointing to big tech.. “And, if big tech is an ambiguous term, I wonder whether big science is simply an oxymoron.”

He then cited the success of major scientific programs – such as the development of the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project, the Apollo space program and Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA – that hinged on having “preexisting, idiosyncratic, quirky, decentralized scientific culture[s]” and were accelerated rapidly by a major infusion of cash.


When I invest in biotech, I have a sort of a model for the type of person I’m looking to invest in,” said Thiel. “There’s sort of a bimodal distribution of scientists. You basically have people who are extremely conventional and will do experiments that will succeed but will not mean anything. These will not actually translate into anything significant, and you can tell that it is just a very incremental experiment. Then you have your various people who are crazy and want to do things that are [going to] make a very big difference. They’re, generally speaking, too crazy for anything to ever work.”

“You want to … find the people who are roughly halfway in between. There are fewer of those people because of … these institutional structures and whatnot, but I don’t think they’re nonexistent,” he continued. “My challenge to biotech venture capitalists is to find some of those people who are crazy enough to try something bold, but not so crazy that it’s going to be this mutation where they do 100 things differently.”

Here is the full story, via Bonnie Kavoussi.


As is usual for Thiel discussing scientific progress, he doesn't address the fact that in physical science, most of the low-hanging fruit was picked in the heyday that he would like to return to.

That presupposes Great Stagnation, which is not a given. Another way of phrasing this question: how many viruses are there in the world? If you use conventional tools the number is quite low...

Great stagnation is happening, the argument is about why. It's convenient to ignore the low-hanging fruit hypothesis if you want to argue against regulations, like Thiel.


"Everything that can be invented has been invented." Commissioner of US patent office, 1899.

The federal government should not be giving away tax money for any grants. End all grants.

Seems like one of the few useful things they could spend it on. Assuming they are funding important research. I am aware that is not always the case, so make better grants, don't end them.

First I don't think it is possible for a government organization to make the right decisions. Second, they should not spend/give away tax money. It should only be spent for a very small set of things and this is true of governments at all levels.

Then there will be little or no pure science and therefore little new on which to base the applied science everyone looks to for advances.

Meh. In big areas, like nuclear science and rocketry, progress has been stifled for mostly political reasons.

A week or two ago someone was asking what unique economic advantage a Mars colony might have. The ability to experiment with new nuclear technologies without the constraints of Earth might be one of those advantages. They’d rapidly have vastly more energy per person and vastly lower power costs, even if they just rationally exploited fission and didn’t do anything really new. Standard of living lines up nicely with energy use.

ROI is a calculation involving both Return and Investment. A hand-wavy idea that we can run unshielded nukes on Mars is not an ROI argument.

Sure, obviously the return (to a freer hand in nuclear technology enabled by doing it outside the biosphere) is massive, but the required investment is still somewhat uncertain.

Like in many other respects, the analogy with European colonization efforts seems apt.

Besides, the ROI doesn't rest on something we can do there that we can't do here, anymore than New York's ROI rests on it having decent harbors. It's just that unique advantages can help in the early days, and that's what the person was asking about.

He seems to be more concerned with bio/medical science, for practical purposes, in which case progress is still very much bumping up against regulatory, political, and cultural barriers. It’s not just the state unfortunately. I’m astounded at how many scientists dislike CRISPR research that could one day eliminate some severe genetic disorders because “rich people would benefit most from the technology at first.”

This is based on what? NPR podcasts?

> abandoning the scientific staple of the double-blind trial and encouraging the U.S. FDA to further accelerate its regulatory evaluations

Does he have a list of drug candidates which at the margin are not currently being approved which would be under an "accelerated" pathway?

The number of approved drugs is trending strongly upward year on year already. Those in the know argue that standards have already been relaxed, and some companies are winning massive windfalls on poor efficacy and even poor safety evidence. e.g. see Derek Lowe's blog from this morning at

Put more crudely - can we assume that drug companies are already working as hard as they can to find new targets and therapies? If so, relaxing standards will only serve to license the marginal agent which can't prove efficacy or even safety. Remind me again why we would want to do that?

@P - "Remind me again why we would want to do that?" - patient choice? Recall Steve McQueen gave millions away in a desperate attempt to fight his cancer. His choice.

Bonus trivia: Steve McQueen married a Filipina, who was the maternal grandmother of Latin pop star Enrique Iglesias.

An alternate view also in support of eliminating double blind trials: they’re hugely inefficient, given the vast amounts of pre-existing data.

We collectively know really well what the likely outcome is of (for example) a Stage IV renal cell carcinoma patient yet literally half the cost of most clinical trials is the control arm (testing the status quo.)

I’ve raised this with scientists and regulators and the only answer back is “double blind is the gold standard. You want these trials to be built the most rigorous way possible.”

But say you endorse single arm trials and 1 in 20 drugs are erroneously approved because it turns out the drug isn’t as effective. (All meds are proven safe in Phase I (at least theoretically), so there’s no safety issue.) Even an erroneous approval you’re only wasting the cash cost of the “bad” medicine while enabling much greater R&D efficiency, enabling more drugs.

I also think it’s inhumane or at least placing greater emphasis on scientific fetish than human outcomes.

The need for placebo controls in even situations like Stage IV renal cell is that there is a strong placebo effect to exclude, and relying on historical mortality data is perilous since there are often changes in either ancillary care or the demographics under study (i.e., maybe the stage IV patients from studies 10-20 years ago smoked more, had different co-morbidities etc)...all these seeming minor factors might improve outcome a bit on their own, and can therefore muddy the waters, especially in oncology where a 10-30% improvement in outcome is really good news for a new drug...approving a drug that does not work is not just an otherwise acceptable 'cash cost', but many have substantial side effects that are only worth it if you are actually getting a benefit in survival or life quality

1) Don’t you think that various BIg Data technologies could control for long term variances, such as smoking in the population?

2) aren’t you ignoring that disease stage is a noisy, fluid signal? The main difference in cancer Stage 3 vs 4 is metastasis, which is inexact, and could have changed between trial intake and first dose.

3) How comparable are 2 arms anyway? Trials don’t really generate uniform patient populations. Imagine if you did 2 arms of a trial in a diverse place like NYC. Would both arms have identical numbers of the same ethnicities, ages, sexes, and disease progression.

4) Again, there’s a fetish here valuing perfect trial design over all else, including the opportunity to double the clinical studies for the same cost by halving the arms.* Where the accounting for compassion? Cost efficiency?

(*Simplifying the argument and ignoring that sponsors might just pocket the savings.)

I don’t think he needs such a list to have a point. In cancer research, for most diseases there’s a regular pattern: every so often a new drug gets discovered that shows promise in the lab. Then years are spent pushing it through clinical trials, getting it to market, and accumulating enough data to discover what we invariably discover: it works for some patients but not others, and most for whom it does work ultimately relapse; and then they look for yet another new drug for the unaffected/refractory patients. I don’t need to know what the next big drug is to know that, if regulations didn’t hold up the process as much, the cycle would probably go faster and the rate at which new drugs are developed would increase.

Peter Thiel is my favorite surveillance capitalist. Facebook, Palantir, Anduril, buddies with Trump and MBS. At least old Ben Franklin never said those who give up liberty for profit deserve neither.

Hopefully, after the Bezos fiasco, Thiel is now smart enough not to use whatsapp with anyone from the House of Saud.

It is not just surveillance capitalists that know how to use technology to reach their targets.

There are a lot of strange loops between our billionaires, their oligarchs, and our elected officials (non-elected in the case of Kushner).

Enough to make me uncomfortable.


Not exactly starting at the top.

Top Presidential contender with very likely provable corruption? You want to chase conspiracy theories while low hanging fruit is available to you.

"Thiel argued for enabling riskier {government} research grant-making..."

oh right, the private sector and private investment have always done poorly at research & development -- it's those brilliant Potomac politicians & bureaucrats who know the optimum economic use if money seized from other people.

Thiel is ignorant of how government actually functions in the real world... and wrongly thinks it's the key engine of progress (with proper tweaking, of course7).
Bernie & Pocahontas think exactly the same way.

Liberals really do believe that anything is attainable if they spend enough of other people's money. It's their First Commandment.

If you disagree, then You're Just Cynical.

They said, on the internet.

separate state and science

Whenever someone mixes talk of the Manhattan Project or Apollo with biotech research, it is a clear sign that they do not remotely understand the difference between engineering problems and biology. If Oppenheimer had to develop the A-bomb with the scientific tools/understanding of Archimedes, then it would be an apt comparison. But the basic problems of isotopes/fission/packaging were all solved prior to WW2. The money went into building massive (and inefficient) cyclotrons, refining implosion explosives/fuses, and other math/construction/logistics problems.

And chipping away at rigorous medical trial design should always be a last resort (fatal/hopeless disease, small patient populations, etc). Rushing into a field with a half-baked idea and endangering people for minimal clinical benefit (a la Thiel's adventure with funding fake herpes vaccines) is not ethical or "bold" science.

Plenty of was to fix funding of science without making it a BS marketing contest by tourist wannabe investors.

Yes, I think we need a lot of basic research in biology. Drug companies will only do research in areas where drugs , preferably those that you take for the rest of your life, are a solution. In other areas, e.g. obesity and dementia we need basic research. That might find that environmental issues (diet, pollution, chemicals) are the root cause. I can't see anybody other than the government funding the needed research.

The ‘root cause’ of most chronic disease is aging. You’re going to need drugs for those. There’s no ‘environmental’ intervention that will stop dementia from occurring, arteries from hardening, and cells from accruing carcinogenic mutations. As the population gets older, chronic, often life long treatments will become more important in medicine, and one-time treatments less relevant, and this isn’t a conspiracy by pharma companies; aging is just a permanent condition I’m afraid.

"There’s no ‘environmental’ intervention that will stop dementia from occurring, arteries from hardening, and cells from accruing carcinogenic mutations."

Eh? Exercise and quitting smoking accomplish the last two. Dementia is admittedly a big unknown as far as its causes are concerned -- which is a reason why basic research is needed.

Sure, continued improvement in drugs is also needed. But nobody disagrees with that.

Exercise and quitting smoking STOP arteries from hardening and cells from going cancerous? So exercising non-smokers suffer neither from cancer nor from atherosclerosis? Are you serious?

Those two environmental inverventions POSTPONE the problems by a decade or two, not more. In fact, smoking looks very much like accelerated aging.

He doesn't mention the replication crisis. Much of what purports to be science today is either fraud or a combination of good luck and bad statistics. I'm not surprised he wants the opportunity to charge governments and insurance companies high prices for chemicals that don't do anything which he has a monopoly on (a patent), but it's not intellectually interesting. Teachers think a good way to help kids is to hire teachers and raise their salaries.

I dislike the comparison of today's research with, say, the Manhattan project. Obviously it is easy to find things out when you're just starting on a field. Why not go back further? The most physics ever accomplished was by Newton, a single man with no real budget.

If it weren't for the gov't in cahoots with corporations thwarting progress, we'd've had the carburetors that give Buicks 100 mpg. And magnets!

This sounds exactly like the sort of problem Emergent Ventures was set up to handle.

Very far sighted thinking, and not only when thinking about vaccines.

I like to use the words "fully subscribed" to describe a situation where a problem is understood, has a good pool of people working on it, and they have adequate resources. When a research area is fully subscribed, I think progress will be the best it can be, regardless of the public/private mix, or specific management details. Many minds, many ideas.

The human genome project, virtual reality, hybrid and electric vehicles all suffered when they had insufficient attention, but once fully subscribed we got "the answer." That's not always great, as in the case of VR, but it is what it is.

So I am not enthused by the idea above that methods of testing matter all that much. It matters much more that lots of people are working on interesting problems, the problems of the moment.

If "the current environment that is flooded with capital and research talent" I'd think most interesting areas are in fact fully subscribed. So relax. Maybe at the margin look for niches without much attention ..

Note that when Musk founded Tesla he was jumping into a niche which was not fully subscribed. People had abondoned electric cars in a prior technology cycle. This made it ripe again to be "the next big thing." And with new battery technology, it was.

The question is whether there are bad sides to an area being fully subscribed--for example, if everyone in the field chases the same results because thats how you get funding, or if entry into the field becomes very narrow and selects out people who
might have made big contributions but couldn't make it through the filters or couldn't function within the existing institutions. I think that's where Thiel's question about scaling goes--we clearly gain by having lots of funding and institutional
support for research into some area, but there are probably also ways we lose something, and it's worth trying to understand and maybe repair that loss.

It's a big world. The really interesting problems have Chinese, Japanese, US, German and French teams on them. Should I believe that "all" could fall to the same modes of thinking?

That's a good point. I think it could still happen, but the way science is spread across so many countries and cultures probably makes it a lot less

I recall a few years ago Timothy Taylor (conversable economist) had a series of blog posts about technological/scientific innovation in which he cited various studies that made the point that the best and most productive innovation is at the margin (improvements to existing technology or science), not some blockbuster breakthrough. I suppose my issue with Thiel is that he is looking for the blockbuster breakthrough, given his personal experience with Facebook and PayPal, even though neither Facebook nor PayPal was a technological or scientific breakthrough (the former using social media to capture a large segment of digital advertising, the latter a payment processing business for internet commerce).

Here's an instance of technological innovation at the margin: Boeing's 737 Max. Boeing adapted an old aircraft design (introduced in 1967) and adapted it to accommodate today's more efficient but much larger jet engines by shifting the engines forward on the low slung wings of the 737 and installing sensors that would make the aircraft self-driving if the the relocation of the engines caused the nose of the aircraft to pitch up and risk stall. Granted, Boeing's innovation hasn't turned out as well as the innovations at Facebook and PayPal, but maybe that's because the Boeing engineers didn't read Timothy Taylor's blog. Or this blog: progress comes at the margin.

Sorry if my sarcasm detector is off, but why did you use the creation of the Boeing 737 Max to support your argument as a positive example of a marginal contribution? It's as if you sought to deliberately undermine yourself, and I'm not sure if that's what you intended to do.

For You have said to mark in iniquity—a songbird lost in plasticity. Whence could such a living creature derive its being but from You, O lord? Could anyone be the source of his own being? Does there exist any channel, by which bein and life can flow into us, that can derive fom any other source than You Who Created US, O Lord? In You being and life are identical, because Supreme Being and Supreme Life are (not) the same. You are most high, and you do not change.

"Granted, Boeing's innovation hasn't turned out as well as the innovations at Facebook and PayPal, but maybe that's because the Boeing engineers didn't read Timothy Taylor's blog. Or this blog: progress comes at the margin." Pay attention to the margin, that's the lesson from the 737 Max fiasco.

I understand what you're saying, but I recommend that you read more about what led to the disaster. Boeing's choice to undertake a marginal change, in itself, was what led to the deaths of 346 people. A principle takeaway in the study of strategy is that there's no one trump card that will help you in all situations. You must always analyze your circumstances holistically. Sometimes marginal change will turn a caterpillar into a butterfly, sometimes marginal change will turn a star into a red giant, swallowing and burning everything in its path. Careful analysis of current and past fact patterns can help you determine which it will be, and whether it's better to create something new.

Boeing should have dumped the low slung wing design for one that would accommodate the larger, more efficient engines. Boeing didn't because it would have been vastly more expensive and would have taken vastly more time, the latter giving Airbus the time to beat Boeing to market. Boeing sacrificed a better aircraft for profits. My suggestion? Don't fly in the 737 Max. Duh.

We're basically on the same page then, it's just that you have a different size threshold for what you consider marginal. I don't think a new wing/engine design, and all the other changes that would entail, would be marginal at all.

I would love, just once, to hear someone talking about science funding without focusing on 1) computers, 2) physics, or 3) biotech. Where's the discussion of geology funding? Or astronomy funding? There's a lot of exciting stuff coming out of anthropology these days--where's the discussion of funding in that field?

The reality is that these folks aren't interested in funding science. They're interested in funding inventors. The two are closely akin, but NOT the same thing.

I also note the disparaging way Thiel talks about gathering data. That's an immediate red flag to me. In order to have paradigm shifting ideas, one must have a tremendous amount of data--and that means doing a huge amount of methodical, routine, frankly boring tests. Take, for example, recent tests of microvertebrate bone abrasion patterns. A guy had an idea, and tested it. He came up with interesting results. Now we paleontologists have to verify that his tests reflect reality, and explore the boundaries of this test's capacity to inform us about reality. We can't just take one study and run with it, because that study is too narrow; it's a starting point, but a LOT of work needs to go into expanding upon it and making that test useful.

I suppose that from an economics standpoint this article makes sense. From a scientific one? Not so much.

"In order to have paradigm shifting ideas, one must have a tremendous amount of data"

Que? Einstein and Bose on line 1 for you. Something about ultraviolet catastrophes and gedanken experiments, whatever the hell those are.

(Data's great, I depend on it myself, but the notion that that's the only driver of "paradigm shifting ideas" is ahistorical. You're on solider ground when you note that people really want to fund investors, but that's the way of the world, right? People want, as a result of putting in their cash, to get stuff that makes their lives better. C'est la vie.)

Did I say it's "the only driver of "paradigm shifting ideas""? No. I said having a lot of background data is a requirement--but the idea that it's the only requirement is a straw man of my position.

Regardless, the disparaging way the author treats what amounts to 90%+ of science is, to a working scientist, disheartening. He clearly doesn't understand how science works in terms of actual work. Fair enough, he's an investor, not a scientist--but what would he say to an investor who made basic errors about how a company works, yet was proposing an investment scheme for improving the company? I can't imagine he'd respond positively.

"In order to have paradigm shifting ideas, one must have a tremendous amount of data...A guy had an idea, and tested it....Now we paleontologists have to verify that his tests reflect reality...explore the boundaries of this test's capacity...expanding upon it and making that test useful. "

IDK. From your doesn't sound like the pile of data is involved *having* the paradigm shifting idea. Instead, the pile of data is used for "verifying" the big idea, spinning additional papers off it ("explore the boundaries" and "expanding upon it"), and engineering it ("making that test useful").

Those follow-on activities are all important, but it sounds like Thiel's position is that we're underweighting investment in the first part of the chain. See also great stagnation.

You honestly think paradigm shifts come first, and then you generate data? That's not the way it works.

Let's take biology as a case study. We didn't first come up with some grand theory, then collect data about it; folks collected data first, in the form of naming and describing species. Only after we had a fair amount of data (certainly not all of it, the process continues to this day) were biologists able to start coming up with theories and testing them. Once they were able to come up with theories, they were able to target research to discover the limits of those theories. This exposed false theories and exposed weaknesses in the true theories, which lead to new theories--and therefore new targeted data acquisition.

It all started, however, with the acquisition of raw data. You cannot--CANNOT--have a paradigm, much less a paradigm shift, until you have data.

To give another example: Plate tectonics. A lot of the evidence for this was discovered by accident--submarine warfare required extensive use of radar, which allowed us to map the ocean floor in ways we had never been able to before. Once that data was available, scientists had to figure out what on earth to make of it. They didn't start with the paradigm, then "spin...additional papers off it" or ""; they had to make sense of it. After they made some sense of it they were able to make testable predictions and refine their understanding.

Paradigm shifting ideas are the middle of the chain, in other words. A key component, sure, but not the most important by any means.

I also think Thiel and you are wrong about undervaluing paradigm-shifting ideas. Look at the language you use to describe basic research--"verifying the big idea", "spinning additional papers", and the like. You both disparage basic research. Look at our movies, TV, books--they celebrate those who radically shift science, the Darwins and the Newtons. You rarely see situations where basic, fundamental data-gathering is praised. And you can't get it funded. Funding requires you to present your potential findings as world-shaking. Our culture--including investments in science--are all about paradigm shifts, with little attention and no respect paid to the necessary data collection.

> And you can't get it funded. Funding requires you to present your potential findings as world-shaking.

We'll have to agree to disagree there... my general feeling (and I think there is pretty solid social science evidence backing me up e.g., age profile of grant recipients) that most of the money goes to relatively safe bets.

Different perspectives on the same thing.

NO ONE is going to fund a grant for research that has a reasonable chance of failure. You've got to present your results as absolute certainties to get funding.

But at the same time, no one's going to fund mundane, workaday research, such as identifying new species in a formation or mapping quadrangles (I'm most familiar with geology/paleontology, if you can't tell). The only people doing solid basic research on subsurface geology these days are environmental geologists, and try getting their boring logs sometime.

What we're left with is researchers attempting to show that their research is an absolutely safe bet, and paradigm-shifting at the same time.

I think my basis is a tad stronger than yours here. You're looking at social science evidence. I'm basing my opinion off experiences with funding and conversations with people looking for funding.

Democrats Stabbed at the Bernie by Prominent Party Member

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has officially declared that no one likes her former rival and current presidential hopeful, socialist Senator Sanders. She refused to say if she will ever support Mr. Sanders if he is nominated candidate. Her behaviour has been negatively compared with Mr. Sanders, who supported wholeheartedly Mrs. Clinton when, after a heated competition, she was chosen her party's candidate in 2016.

Mrs. Clinton's acrimonious declarations have sent powerful shockwaves through America's political system and revealed deep divisions in the once thought to be monolithic Democratic Party.

Obviously, this story is still developing, but it seems clear the former First Lady's veto hurts Mr. Sander's presidential prospects. Mrs. Warren and Mr. Biden, however, have been hurt, too, because their role as Mr. Sander's bitterest rivals for the nomination make them look as if they were pawns of the powerful and ressented in some quarters Clinton political machine.

According to experts, dynamical politicians with a reputation for being outsiders have had their chances favored by the recent news. Some speculate that Representative Gabbardi or Senator Klobuchar may be chosen as a "tertius", that is, a compromise candidate capable of unifying the many Democratic Party wings and preventing President Trump's re-election. It might not be an easy task though: according to historians, no Republican President who lost the popular vote has failed to get re-elected since 1892 when Grover Cleveland's sucessor became his predecessor.

Completely irrelevant to the post.

He needs serious help.

One can wonder just how long this irrelevance will last in the larger scheme of things.

The clock keeps ticking as CWTeam goes about its rounds.

I do not think so. That is the most important American election since 1932. Will America support Democrats' extreme leftism? Will America support Trump-like fascism? Is there a third way able ro save America's democracy?

I ask here because I have NEVER seen it referenced at MR:

how many of today's Tech Tyrants have EVER read Science in a Free Society by (the late) Paul Feyerabend?

Now that tech ubiquity has overtaken us all in the quarter-century since Feyerabend's death, and now that the threats posed by Technogenic Climate Change begin to threaten real-world economics and politics, widespread reappraisals of Feyerabend's stern critiques of science and applied tech merit being at least as welcome in contemporary discourse as the corrupt and corrupting "tech cheerleading" and unabashed technophilia (necrophilia?) our corrupt and corrupting Tech Sector is ever eager to push.

Feyerabend was my teacher and friend. People should definitely read him.

I've no good idea of how Feyerabend's legacy persists in the fraternity of contemporary philosophers of science, but his work certainly continues to inspire fiction in the contemporary form of "science satire", e. g.:

He would love that.

"Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA": oh no they didn't.

Making more money for Peter Thiel is not a reason to do anything. In particular, the idea that the Manhattan Project was praiseworthy is suicidal on a human-race basis - not that these people understand "race" in the same way I'm using it.

So, he wants more money from taxpayers?

What would happen if we treated anything that passes a Phase I clinical trial as a supplement?

Free to manufacture and sell, but still illegal to make therapeutic claims until Phase II/III is complete. Insurance/payers can establish different efficacy criteria for coverage. Those who are suffering can choose to take a risk on an unproven yet demonstrably safe candidate and companies can support trial costs with sales of the "supplements". Anyone who finds it distasteful can stick to Phase III FDA-approved drugs and eschew unproven drugs.

With respect to all the comments above & their potential for changing our lives in the future. But how 'bout replacing every coal/nat. gas power plant on the planet w/fusion technology. Then replace every fission based power plant.
Maybe take a few moments & reflect on just how much this could improve our life on the planet. Think of how long we've known about this potential & have preferred alternates that ultimately could prove to be the demise of everything we take for granted.
Could we possibly see this within 10 -25 yrs.???
No - then why not.....

Post your blueprint for a fusion reactor and we can get started!

Obviously, this is not my blueprint but merely a suggested starting point for those who are interested, follow the link...


That line about the bimodal distribution of scientists is just the most laughable bullshit. Were it not for the rather obvious financial incentive, I would rather wonder why Tyler thinks anything thiel said is worth remarking upon. It’s the usual insight free tech vc nonsense, but dressed up in a layer of gnomic sophistry.

Reminder that Thiel is a dangerous opportunist:

I want to quickly drop this vital information here for those who are infected with Herpes, being infected with herpes its not the end as there its cure to it with natural root and herbs. I was also infected with herpes couple months ago i felt it was the end for me, my thought change immediately and i did research for the cure to the virus till i found about Dr Obela Herbal Medicine which help to eradicate the virus totally from my system. If you wish to find a cure to your herpes virus or other kinds of disease do not hesitate

I want to let anyone who can read my comment know that he/she can cure Herpes, this is a virus that spread from my mom to myself for over 5 years now.  My mom started experiencing sores on her lips and breakages so I had to come online for help. I saw some comments on help and also saw someone who said Dr. Koka helped cured his herpes and daughter’s diebetes so I cantacted @kokaherbs and I got to believe he can help because he showed me proves, he sent herbs in two cans for each which we took for over a week and then my mom’s  doctor came having a test on us.  We had to thank Koka again for helping us and few days after the sores on my mother’s lips dried up with the breakages. He made understand that the herbs has no side effects and it’s natural, I got to believe so I want anyone to contact if he wants to get cure on his or her illness. WhatsApp:+2348063059580. @kokaherbs Or email him

Accusations of favouritism in science funding have been thrown around for years, and are unlikely to fade away.

Comments for this post are closed