Another Nobel laurate in the White House

Senate Confirms Final White House Science Policy Nominee
[Via ScienceNOW]

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate confirmed Carl Wieman as associate director for science at the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Nobel physics laureate is expected to spearhead the Administration’s push to improve science education, drawing upon his pioneering work at the University of Colorado, Boulder, to strengthen the undergraduate training of science and math teachers.

[More]

We need better education in science and math. I hope he can begin to accomplish this.

The right mix in a social network is more important than anything else for driving innovation

[Crossposted at SpreadingScience]

by Stig Nygaard

Is Narcissism Good for Business?
[Via ScienceNOW]

Narcissists, new experiments show, are great at convincing others that their ideas are creative even though they’re just average. Still, groups with a handful of narcissists come up with better ideas than those with none, suggesting that self-love contributes to real-world success.

[More]

The narcissists – a term I think may be misused here – are more likely to draw from the disrupter or mediator side of a network. They deviate from the normal flow of things in a network.

I hate the term ‘innovators’ applied to the earliest adopters in a network. Anyone can be innovative. WHat we are looking for here are those that most rapidly adopt changes and then are the most able to convince the community to adopt them

These experiments showed that a passionate pitcher could get people to adopt their idea, even when the idea was rated average by reading about it. The personal interactions were needed to pitch even an average idea.

But what was really interesting in the work was that teams of only disruptors (called narcissists) or only doers (no narcissists) were very poor at coming up with great ideas and innovations.

There are 5 steps everyone goes through when presented with a new idea and when deciding whether to adopt it. A key one is evaluation. I would suspect that teams with only disruptors race through this step so fast – that is why they are the earliest to change – that they really do not arrive at much that is worthwhile. Every idea seems as good as any other.

On the other hand, doers usually get stuck at the evaluation stage, only slowly taking the leap to adoption.the slowness to adopt change. So a team of doers would not get much done because they could never decide, getting stuck at evaluation.

But a well mixed team, one with both disruptors and doers, was the best one. This makes absolute sense. Because the doers slowed down the disruptors, forcing them to explain and rationalize all those novel ideas. The doers are also forced to make a decision because of the pressure from the disruptors.

By mixing both types, the ideas get much better evaluation, making it more likely that the best ideas will be adopted by the group. Each type overcomes the blind spots of the other – preventing the disruptors from moving too many ideas too rapidly through evaluation, while forcing the doers to pick the best ideas to adopt.

I can hardly wait for this paper to come out. It demonstrates that the best communities has the right mix of traits and that a community that is overbalanced in any one sector will be very slow to create and adopt innovative ideas.

The truth does eventually come out

Mount Sinai Says Misconduct by Postdocs Led to Retraction of Gene Therapy Papers
[Via ScienceNOW]

Earlier this week, the blog Retraction Watch called attention to four recent paper retractions by noted gene therapy researcher Savio Woo of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Today, the school said in a statement that two of Woo’s postdoctoral fellows have been fired for research misconduct and that an internal investigation has cleared Woo of any wrongdoing.

[More]

Science is done by human beings, human beings that can, and sometimes do, game the system. But, especially in something of real importance, it is very hard to fake it for long.

Someone else will try and repeat it, or use it for their own research. Then they will discover some problems and contact the authors. If it is important work, more and more people will start seeing discrepancies and start asking questions.

Most times it is easy to discover fraud when an investigation is done. Often big labs do not do this before every publication. It would take a lot of effort for really little benefit. We rightly trust the authors.

Because trust is a huge part of doing science. We have to trust that others are doing it right. If that trust is lost, it may never be regained. And there are usually huge career penalties for being untrustworthy.

Savio Woo may not have been shown to have done anything wrong but all of his papers will be well scrutinized from now on. It may make it much harder to get grants and good post-docs, who might want to stay away from a ‘tainted’ lab. I have to wonder what sorts of pressures were going on in the lab if someone took the egregious tactic of falsifying data. His lab’s work will have to be exemplary to remove this blot. Other labs have done this because even great scientists can be duped but it really complicates the normal pressures of a large lab.

This is all part of the vetting process of science, as we try and construct models that do the best job of describing the world around us. Because most of us know the career implications of taking shortcuts, we do not do it.

And when someone is caught, the longterm effects can be severe. But in the end, we do get a much stronger model, even one built by frail human beings.

Making $455,000 a year and out of touch

by U-g-g-B-o-y-(-Photograph-World-Sense-)

In Which Mr. Deling Responds to Someone Who Might Be Professor Todd Henderson
[Via Grasping Reality with Both Hands]

I had published a link and a long excerpt from Michael O’Hare’s rant after reading University of Chicago Law Professor Todd Henderson.

And now somebody purporting to be University of Chicago Professor Todd Henderson writes:

I’m shocked and saddened at the personal nature of these attacks. Wow.

As for Mr. Deling’ attacks…

I would like to note for the record that I have not made any attacks, or indeed comments at all–that all I did was to republish pieces of Michael O’Hare’s attack. And I was thinking if I had any comments worth reading or any time to write them down, and deciding that I did not.

But being called “Deling” makes me think I have no choice.

So here is the rest of the comment by Professor Henderson (or the guy purporting to be him):

let me make just two observations. First, according to several tax sites, my taxes will go up by thousands, not down. I’m not a tax lawyer, so I’m not sure why.

Second, his [i.e., Michael O'Hare's] attempted budget leaves out a large category–education and daycare. This year, they will come close to $60,000, which is about $165 per day. Subtract this from the crude budget and that leaves $80 per day for five people.

But all this avoids the question of why we think the government will better allocate some part of whatever my income is.

So here is what I have to say:

Back in 2000, the U.S. government’s long-term budget was out of balance–although not by all that much. The government had, you see, made promises–very popular promises–for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without proposing sufficient funding streams to pay for those promises. So back in 2000, looking forward, we had a choice: raise taxes, or “bend the curve” by cutting the growth of spending.

Instead of doing either of these, we elected George W. Bush. Two wars. A big (and ill-advised) defense buildup that is very unsuited to protecting us from Al Qaeda and company. A huge unfunded expansion of Medicare. Plans for the unfunded expansion of Social Security that came to nothing. However, instead of raising taxes George W. Bush reduced them.

This simply does not work. As Milton Friedman liked to say, to spend is to tax. If the government spends somebody will pay for it. And if you don’t levy the taxes to pay for it now all that means is that the person who owes the taxes does not know it yet.

So unless Professor Henderson (or whoever) has plans for serious cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and National Defense–and I see none on offer–his last point about government allocation is simply moot. George W. Bush has already allocated it with his defense buildup and Medicare Part D. Taxes are going up over the next decade–barring cuts of 1/3 to Medicare, etc. They can either go up smartly or we can pretend they don’t have to go up, in which case they go up stupidly. The argument for small government was lost long ago, and was lost again and anew in the past decade with Medicare Part D and the wars of George W. Bush. I believe Todd Henderson was a deserter in that war–a supporter of George W. Bush, and of his unfunded Medicare Part D expansion, and of his wars of choice. So I don’t think he has standing to make the small government argument–some people do, but he does not.

But Mr. Henderson’s (or whoever’s) comment and his post were, overwhelmingly, not an argument for a small government.

They were an argument that whatever taxes were paid, he should not have to pay more than he is currently paying because it is unfair: he is not “rich”.

As best as Michael O’Hare could determine (and Professor Henderson or whoever it is does not challenge him), the Henderson annual family budget is this:

$455,000 a year of income, of which:

• $60,000 in student loan payments
• $40,000 is employer contributions to 401(k) and similar retirement savings vehicles
• $15,000 is employer contributions to health insurance
• $60,000 is untaxed employee contributions to tax-favored retirement savings vehicles
• $25,000 building equity in their house
• $80,000 in state and federal income taxes
• $15,000 in property taxes
• $10,000 for automobiles
• $55,000 in housing costs for a $1M house (three times the average price in the Hyde Park neighborhood
• $60,000 in private school costs for three children
• $35,000 in other living expenses

And of this budget, Professor Henderson (or whoever) writes:

Like most working Americans, insurance, doctors’ bills, utilities, two cars, daycare, groceries, gasoline, cell phones, and cable TV (no movie channels) round out our monthly expenses. We also have someone who cuts our grass, cleans our house, and watches our new baby…. [W]e have less than a few hundred dollars per month of discretionary income. We occasionally eat out but with a baby sitter, these nights take a toll on our budget. Life in America is wonderful, but expensive. If our taxes rise significantly… the (legal) immigrant from Mexico who owns the lawn service we employ will suffer, as will the (legal) immigrant from Poland who cleans our house a few times a month. We can cancel our cell phones and some cable channels, as well as take our daughter from her art class at the community art center…

[More]

His family has an income greater than 99% of all Americans. He contributes more to retirement savings than most Americans make in a year. His mortgage is more than the median income for Americans. Same with how much he spends on private education for his children. He has $100,000 a year going for retirement!

He makes choices about where to spend his money that are at levels simply beyond the reach of almost every other American.

His family’s discretionary income ($80 a day) is greater than the poverty level for a family of five, with 3 children under 18 (which is $25,603 according to the latest figures – PDF, page 55).

Think about that. The amount of money his family can spend on whatever they want each day – dinner out, new shoes, a movie, etc. – is greater than the total amount of money a similar family in poverty has to spend on everything they need – food, clothing, housing, utilities, etc.

And over 14% of all Americans are below the poverty level. One in seven in America must make do on less each day for necessities than this family has to spend on frivolities.

Yet, instead of being happy, he is sad. OMG, he might have to cancel their cell phones. How about just putting a little less away in retirement savings, like maybe only $50,000 a year?

My family never came close to his income but it was still pretty high, perhaps putting us in the top 10%. We worked really hard for that money, just like this guy. And I was glad every day for the fact that I had money left over for retirement, to go out to dinner, to not have to worry about a roof over my head.

Because I knew I was doing better than most people.

After paying for his million dollar house, socking away huge amounts for retirement , paying for his cars and paying for private school, he only has $35,000 or so for personal expenses. Here is someone in the top 1% and he is complaining about paying the baby sitter.

Sounds like an ass to me. Just an example of how having a education does not necessarily make one smart. Being able to think rationally does not seem to be a requirement for a law degree.

I guess the rich really are different than the rest of us.

No property rights for consumers

by XaYaNa

Intel + DRM: a crippled processor that you have to pay extra to unlock
[Via Boing Boing]

Intel’s latest business-model takes a page out of Hollywood’s playbook: they’re selling processors that have had some of their capabilities crippled (some of the cache and the hyperthreading support are switched off). For $50, they’ll sell you a code that will unlock these capabilities. Conceptually, this is similar to the DRM notion that I can sell you a movie that you can watch on one screen for $5 today, and if you want to unlock your receiver’s wireless output so you can watch it upstairs, it’ll be another $5.

I remember the first time someone from the studios put this position to me. It was a rep from the MPAA at a DRM standards meeting, and that was just the example he used. He said: “When you buy a movie to watch in your living room, we’re only selling you the right to see it in your living room. Sending the same show upstairs to watch in your bedroom has value, and if it has value, we should be able to charge money for it.”

This idea, which Siva Vaidhyanathan calls “If value, then right,” sounds reasonable on its face. But it’s a principle that flies in the face of the entire human history of innovation. By this reasoning, the company that makes big tins of juice should be able to charge you extra for the right to use the empty cans to store lugnuts; the company that makes your living room TV should be able to charge more when you retire it to the cottage; the company that makes your coat-hanger should be able to charge more when you unbend it to fish something out from under the dryer.

[More]

In this nice business model, we never actually own any property – the companies do. And they get to decide exactly what we are allowed to do with ‘their’ property. If we figure out something else to do that has value, the companies get that value not us.

How about this analogy – a home builder could sell you a house. But if you want to paint it – adding value to the house – you have to give them a fee. Put up a picture on the wall – pay a fee. Remodel the bathroom – pay a fee. We would not actually own the property but simply be a tenant for the real owner.

And if you added value with paying the fee – they could take you to court,

In this model, Intel could assert the right to prevent us from using their chips for anything that Intel has not approved. And it they approve it, then we owe them money.

And it could be a federal crime to do it ourselves. As Cory states:

Moreover, it’s an idea that is fundamentally anti-private-property. Under the “If value, then right” theory, you don’t own anything you buy. You are a mere licensor, entitled to extract only the value that your vendor has deigned to provide you with. The matchbook is to light birthday candles, not to fix a wobbly table. The toilet roll is to hold the paper, not to use in a craft project. “If value, then right,” is a business model that relies on all the innovation taking place in large corporate labs, with none of it happening at the lab in your kitchen, or in your skull. It’s a business model that says only companies can have the absolute right of property, and the rest of us are mere tenants.

If Intel sells us a physical object, than they should have no say in what we decide to do with it, what code we decide to run or not run on it. They should not get to control our physical access to the chip in perpetuity.

Razors and razor blades – a great story of how conventional wisdom can be wrong

by scottfeldstein

The Myth Of Razors And Razor Blades
[Via Techdirt]

The story of Gillette and the famous “razors and razor blades” business model is legendary at this point. The story goes that King Gillette revolutionized business by coming up with the strategy of selling razors cheaply, but then locking people in to expensive disposable razors, where the margin existed. This strategy has become so well-known that it’s mentioned all the time and seen in lots of other industries as well, especially the technology industry. It’s seen as the basis for console video games (consoles cheap, games expensive), printers (printers cheap, ink expensive), mobile phone service (phones cheap, service expensive), etc.

Of course, various business strategists who discuss the razor-razor blade business model suggest that there are some key rules to making this work: for example, many feel that there needs to be some level of lock-in, that prevents competitors from entering the high margin part of the market. That is, if someone else can just sell the high margin razorblades, then why would Gillette make the low margin (or negative margin) razors, since customers might just go elsewhere for the blades?

Well, it turns out that an awful lot of both the history and the theory turn out to be totally wrong when it comes to Gillette and the razor/razor blade market. Felix Salmon points us to Randy Picker’s latest paper, which explores the myths of the razors-and-blades story as it applies to Gillette — and the counterintuitive reality of what actually happened. I don’t think the real story is quite as surprising or confusing as Picker makes it out to be — other than the surprising fact that the common “story” we’ve all heard turns out to be wrong.

[More]

As long as he had patent protection he kept the prices high; when he lost patent protection he lowered prices.

And increased sales and profits.

The ‘sell the razor cheap and make money on the razors’ model is really not true at all but has become a standard narrative. Truth is not as important as the narrative, it seems. we do like our stories.