data_acquired

+1 on the point about movie-star and athlete unions. And as you said, the descriptions of unions are pretty cartoonish and portrayed as universally undemocratically accountable to their members.

What I find even more remarkable about the "too much self-interest to form an effective union" based argument is that highly competitive companies in every sector routinely find common cause and form lobbies to influence policy to benefit all competing members within the lobby. Somehow, this phenomenon does not seem as mysterious to the public as scientific labor finding common cause to form a collective of any sort. So even the idea that self-interest in general precludes solidarity is untrue. As for points of specific tactics, different unions have tactics other than strikes. I mistakenly assumed this point is self-evident to folks but perhaps it is not. And the assumption that HN commenters are unaware that scientific work also goes on in other countries independent of any union intervention in the US is...incredible.

The point raised about being scooped while on strike (or that one's career will suffer while others continue to work) is identical to one of the explicit anti-union campaign talking points raised by U Penn a couple of years ago. I was pretty surprised to see such an identical point show up on here.

No incentive for other countries to join a strike in the US. Odd to expect them to. And the solution for dealing with poor working conditions in the now is...what? Post-docs write their congressman to better pay postdocs at the NIH? Postdocs taking time out of work for social media campaigns or other such campaigns that do not have the same legal fiat as a union?

So, naturally, the solution here is that folks continue being underpaid? I'm yet to see a case here that research-based institutes will have a worse union or one that cannot take action because of a bizarre self-interest argument about being scooped by someone in another institute (or country, as I was expecting someone to bring up eventually)? I'm still awaiting the non-union solution here, which is what exactly?

The frequent (incredibly petty) fights I've seen over publication authorship order demonstrate otherwise.

The frequent acts of collaboration despite people having witnessed other fights (virtually no paper is authored by a single lab any more), the lending and replacing of reagents, the frequent informal discussions around a project between peers without an expectation of significant co-authorship, informal mentorship ,etc., argue that people continue to work as a community because it lends greater success to grants and publications. The individualistic argument really does not hold water, sorry.

Scabs in a scientific union strike? I’ve routinely see it take months for a new joinee to get up to speed on someone else’s project. And hiring is strictly controlled, and no one has a budget to suddenly hire new workers out of the blue to break a strike. This is a fanciful view of scientific labor. Even if not hiring new labor, asking another existing worker to take over an existing project runs into the same issues.

See my other replies to your comments. The risk of being scooped pales in contrast to actual working condition issues. If being scooped was the only concern of every postdoc, there would be no need for a union.

Finally, you deeply underestimate the amount of community involvement within an institute in any scientific paper. “Science is individualistic” in a very limited intellectual sense but not in a meaningful day to day basis.

People’s careers are being involuntarily set back already for reasons more physical and real than the risk of being scooped.

I’ve been scooped. It sucks. The scooped paper doesn’t land in a big journal. It certainly knocked down the impact factor of the publication and my profile. The fraction of cases where a lack of a high impact paper held back a faculty applicant is likely low (see https://elifesciences.org/articles/54097 and similar surveys). I’ve absolutely seen folks land faculty positions without a crazy impact factor publication. And as you say, it’s really hard to tell if the lack of a high impact factor paper holds a particular applicant back (see other factors I listed) in a particular case. So the link between high impact publication and faculty position is tenuous, and thus the link between being scooped leading to no faculty position is questionable, which means the risk of being scooped isn’t as much of an issue compared to work conditions.

The point you raise about practically and effectiveness of a strike presupposes that a union exists. And it seems that your claim that a research institute cannot generate as much solidarity as a university is a matter of belief rather than evidence seen elsewhere that research institutes have less successful unions than universities. Unless you know of many examples of this kind.

Fair point about how the funding actually works. The UC strike did allow for a good increase to the post-doctoral stipend, and the institutes likely had to move money around in order to make the increases possible.

What's also interesting to me in the concerns raised in the article about how budgets (either from grants or universities) will cover pay increases is that this concern never comes up when research consumable costs increase. I had a friend at a major embedded systems supplier for researchers who spoke of the 90% mark-up they charged labs. This gets into a messy issue of course about pricing power and monopoly in scientific supplies, but its telling that as much of a concern is not raised in the public domain about these sorts of cost increases?

The assumption is that the movement has built enough support for everyone to strike together.

But a strike walk-out is one of all kinds of bizarre reasons one ends up getting scooped. Mice get sick, chemical stocks go bad, collaborators leave for personal reasons, etc. etc. Yes, there's a marginal increase in the odds that one gets scooped during a strike. Truth is, when it comes to transitioning to a faculty position (which is the point of a post-doc position), being scooped is really not that much of a deal. Having the big-ass discovery to one's name can help, yes, but what determines one's chances on the faculty market are a panoply of other factors too --- is the university looking for someone with your research profile? Did they have a funding cut? Is your advisor a famous person known to the hiring committee? etc. Fellows on strikes are acutely aware of the risk of getting scooped every minute that is spent away from the bench, but in the balance, its really not foremost on many folks' minds beyond a point.

So, worst case, people get scooped in the short run. In the longer run, better pay + insurance means far more talent even considering a post-doc position and academia at all. As for whether unions are the way to do it, one-time mobilizations or strikes or nebulous pressure from the public are not reliable and repeatable interventions as and when new issues arise over time. Like, imagine a scenario where a one-time strike gets media attention, gets people more pay but only for a different administration later to roll things back later when the issue is gone. Unions in the US have legal fiat for ensuring lasting changes to labor contracts and can be a pretty effective intervention for these issues.

Although NIH wages aren’t inherently tied to those training grants, if wages increased significantly for NIH fellows, universities might “raise holy hell”, Wiest says, because it could incentivize researchers to apply for NIH positions instead of those at universities.

This is a pretty weak point. There's hundreds of research areas and problems not worked on at the NIH that are explored in the hundreds of universities in the US. I don't see anyone switching research areas for better pay --- your skill sets are often tied to a certain class of problems. Sure, yes, there may be such effects in certain research areas. But what fraction of university budgets even go towards post-doctoral fellow stipends (when weighed against every other expenditure in a university budget)?

Researcher here. I agree with your assessment of the way credit is given to authors, and there's a possibility of being scooped because folks are on strike.

I think you're forgetting that there's work-related conditions arising from not having a union that can cause you to get scooped. What about being scooped because you have terrible insurance that requires you to spend time away from a lab or because you have terrible pay and can't afford a decent day-care for your child? Or if, as a post-doc, you have a great idea but your professor is a harasser and a bully who faces little consequences for their actions? Remember, this isn't industry where you can walk over to a different job with better work conditions. Re-starting a project from scratch is months if not years.

And scooping is a physically survivable event. Poor insurance can some times literally not be a survivable event, and poor working conditions are a mental and physical health disaster.

I'm fascinated by the discussions around creativity and remote work both on this forum and elsewhere.

What is the fraction of open source code [by which I mean community-maintained and built rather than through a company] that ends up being collaborated on remotely? Aren't projects like Linux and others largely managed through remote means (although there are conferences and such from time to time)? Do we really have a strong case that these projects suffer due to the lack of a single office for people to gather everyday? I'm sure my questions can be split into sub-cases and exceptions.

due to mutations during your lifespan, genetic diversity within your body increases, which increases the prevalence of genes that cause individual cells and tissues to compete with one another rather than cooperating; in the extreme, we call this 'cancer'

This is a good summary. Only thing to keep in mind is that an increase in genetic diversity need not imply a unidirectional march towards cancer, but an increase in risk. One of the most interesting paradoxes of cancer initiation research currently is the presence of "cancer-causing" mutations in phenotypically normal cells for decades prior to the appearance of the first cancer cell (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27059373/ for instance).

What's remarkable to me about this aging study and others like it is that they are able to reverse some aspect of aging despite the accumulation of genetic diversity with age as you point out. Perhaps what they're reversing was never really dependent on mutation accumulation with age, or that the presence of mutations does not fully explain the age-related degeneration they're interested in reversing.

One of Atul Gawande's books (Complications) mentions that amongst deaths where an autopsy is done, the cause of death was misdiagnosed by the doctor about 40% of the time. Quote from book [Page 197, Chapter name : "Final Cut"] ---

"How often do autopsies turn up a major misdiagnosis in the cause of death? I would have guessed this happened rarely, in 1 or 2 percent of cases at most. According to three studies done in 1998 and 1999, however, the figure is about 40 percent."

They did test against antibodies from human sera samples (Figure 2E), but as parent commenter noted, this doesn't test for T-cell mediated responses.

Yeah, its not clear if preventing symptomatic infection is as crucial an end-point in contrast to preventing hospitalization, the latter of which is indeed mediated by T-cell immunity rather than antibody titers. The following detail is worth noting though ---

"Vaccine sera were collected from sixteen vaccinees four weeks after the second vaccination with mRNA-1273 (Moderna)"

So it seems like they haven't tested against sera from people who got three doses? Response to BA.1 was better with three doses than two, but I think if the data from Israel was to go by, the impact of the third dose on antibody titers also waned over time (although T-cell mediated immunity stayed the same in terms of % hospitalized).

Medical experts have had a worse-off time than, say, physicists or chemists though? And strains of economics experts are understandably not trusted depending on one's income class, but putting economics on par with physics, chemistry and biology is complicated in itself.

The most troublesome parts of expert mistrust was one scientific group going after anothe, as with scientists of one specialty turning into epidemiologists overnight and claiming that vaccines have contributed to thousands of deaths. As a statistician, I had to deal with junk statistics and regressions in just such a pre-print that caused a lot of panic in my little research community here.

Notable blurb from the report itself ---

"However, whilst this approach [content removal] may be effective and essential for illegal content (eg hate speech, terrorist content, child sexual abuse material) there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach for scientific misinformation, and approaches to addressing the amplification of misinformation may be more effective. In addition, demonstrating a causal link between online misinformation and offline harm is difficult to achieve [25, 26], and there is a risk that content removal may cause more harm than good by driving misinformation content (and people who may act upon it) towards harder-to-address corners of the internet27."

I'm happy that this point has been raised in this report. Lot of understandable hand-wringing and fear about online misinformation about over COVID, but it was never clear to me that online misinformation is a variable that explains differences in vaccination rates across countries, or to what extent it affects an individual's decision not to vaccinate. Turns out that this is hard to measure.

The CDC messaging was really bad and problematic on several counts right from the get go. Its not like the US is incapable of messaging about the link between individual behaviour and societal good in the long term (for instance, there were initial protracted battles, but we eventually agreed largely on condoms and HIV, or smoking and lung cancer risk) or in the short term (as in the lifestyle sacrifices that WWII engendered for wartime production). I wonder what went right in those situations (if they did go right) that went wrong in the messaging this time around.

Over and above the masking, some observations --

1. Transmission risk, I think, was never the primary end-point of vaccine development, but rather, to prevent hospitalization. But the messaging from CDC and others on the vaccine implied that transmission would keep declining with increasing vaccination rates, which turned out to be true only to a limited extent.

2. The early messaging was that this would be one wave of infections, and that one round of vaccination would end it all. This was tough to defend given what happened with the flu. I understand that telling people that "Well, the vaccine may not give long-lasting immunity and still leave you susceptible" is not going to promote vaccination, but perhaps emphasizing that vaccine-immunity is controlled and safe than an infection that might hit all organs, would have been a better way out?

+1 on this. Virtually all the sources interviewed are connected with the military or the government itself, which fits a propaganda model or at least a very one-sided view on the gravity of the threats. Not to say that the facts and incidents reported are false, but the framing of the narrative is problematic and missing key issues such as ---

1. To what extent are critical satellites already built to handle these threats?

2. How much of an offensive capability does the US already possess in terms of retaliation? [Edit : Seems like there are a ton of programs in existence already! How many more are actually needed?]

3. Are the views represented a minority or a majority view in the defense establishment?

4. Like [1], what do the JASONs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)) or other groups that do not stand to gain directly from a budgetary increase towards defending such attacks have to say on the opinions of the general quoted in the headline?

Worth pointing out the author of the piece, Stephen Bryen, is a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council (Source : https://www.usnews.com/topics/author/stephen-bryen ). This organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Foreign_Policy_Counci...) seems to have sided with some of the driving forces behind the US-led invasion/occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan. This doesn't invalidate the analysis necessarily, but it feels like this article is coming from someone in an organization that potentially falls in the particularly hawkish part of the policy spectrum.

I meant various strains of anti-war/Communist-leaning (specifically,Marx)/anti-imperial views across countries through the late 1800s to the late 20th century have been deplatformed (be it newspaper bans or other restrictions on speech). As for not mentioning this sentence in a macro-issue, my point is to rather look at it in a time-frame of a century or more, and argue that "deplatforming" has hit multiple shades of the political spectrum in the long run.

The anti-imperial, Communist-leaning, anti-war Left has been de-platformed a lot through the ages though. So its been biting that segment of the Left for a long long time.

I'm sure this has been asked on HN before, but is there something intrinsic to complex systems and the need for a reset? That is, as a given system gets more complex in design and purpose, is it inevitable that beyond a certain point of complexity, some kind of a power reset is needed to get things to work correctly? Any interesting writings on the subject?

Towards the extreme ends of the spectrum of complexity, humans need sleep. On the other end, my pocket calculator likely doesn't need to be switched off and on to ensure that numbers add correctly. I guess complex operating systems sit closer to humans than a calculator on this "spectrum". I do remember reading that the space shuttle's computer systems were close to perfect in design, but they're not operated as frequently as a 787.

Fair enough. It does sound like you fall/fell on the more advanced side of the grad student curve though. +1 on 90% of papers having nothing much to say.

I guessed that you're a biologist (or have some kind of bio fascination) given your account handle ;) I'm a molecular biologist myself (more on the comp. side) for the last decade. HIV is certainly a special case given it codes its own RT enzyme.

I get the sensitivity and the frustration --- the most minor, off-hand comment (such as the one I made) can potentially fuel all manner of conspiracy theory. I spent much of my morning dealing with a group of people on a shared group suddenly re-discovering the Plandemic documentary.

Wow, didn't know about this case.

Lovable HN snarkiness here. I didn't say that every virus does it. Geez.

Yes, happens a lot. HIV is a notable instance.

Yeah, this is a well-known controversial aspect of PNAS publishing. However, not all uses of this track of publication is necessarily nefarious. See this for instance -- https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-publishing-the-inside... . I was also told that use of this track is some times for very mundane reasons too --- like a professor trying to help a struggling grad student satisfy PhD requirements such as needing X number of papers to graduate. More often than not, good ideas do get held up in other journals for all kinds of non-scientific reasons. I've certainly not seen too many examples of overly-erroneous science in this track either, at least in genomics.

I do thoroughly understand your concerns and distaste here that this allows prominent academics to push their (possibly incorrect) views/results on something far outside their expertise. I would love if PNAS publishes the peer reviews for papers such as these that pertain to ongoing health crises (eLife makes peer reviews public, but keeps the reviewers' identity anonymous).

Yup, that's what Five Eyes is partly about. GCHQ can snoop on US citizens and share intel with the NSA, and vice versa with the NSA and UK citizens.

Oh good god :) Picking up writing from reading the average paper is likely injurious to the health of your future readers. Few papers are well-written and you're likely to unknowingly pick up bad habits from reading the average paper. If your advisor was actively training you in good writing and providing you critical feedback on sentence construction, paragraph organization, the flow of ideas from one section to the next, then sure, you wouldn't really require a class. But I doubt the average advisor has the bandwidth for such feedback, esp. in my field of biology.

In the context where I taught, most students coming into the PhD program had no training in writing whatsoever. The first round of essays that people turned in were typically very poorly written. Most folks really needed the training in my view.

Right, I would say that's just sloppy writing in general and not sloppy because of the use of active voice (and certainly an example where passive voice is better).

You're right in terms of what I meant by "clarify", which was more about writing that looking less "sloppy". The examples I think about aren't ones where the investigators are referring to themselves by "We" but where you're writing a paper about molecules interacting with each other. So something like "A activates B, which in turn inactivates C" reads more smoothly than any of its passive-voice counterparts.