[Politics] Bouncing back: Any other examples of trying to think positively about the change to come?

[albionalba]

https://open.substack.com/pub/alexw...ncy?r=17hyx3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

I've started to see a few optimists trying to make sense of a post-Trump2 world and I thought this was interesting. I've always admired Alex Washburne's scientific rigour on the lab-leak theory (and you'll see here he manages to get a few plugs for his views into this). But this post isn't here to open that can of worms - it's really to say that there are those who didn't vote for Trump who are trying to imagine how the wholesale establishment clearances to come might create positive opportunities for good. Perhaps it's a kind of therapy or defence mechanism to do this? What other examples are out there? Will they survive to eventually overthrow the very change that created the opportunity for them to be radical? I hope so. What would the UK example of this be? What do the NSCientists think about this? (both professional and amateur of course!)

 

[BiffyBoy]

"What would the UK example of this be?" That the international break is almost over.

 

[Napper]

https://open.substack.com/pub/alexw...ncy?r=17hyx3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

I've started to see a few optimists trying to make sense of a post-Trump2 world and I thought this was interesting. I've always admired Alex Washburne's scientific rigour on the lab-leak theory (and you'll see here he manages to get a few plugs for his views into this). But this post isn't here to open that can of worms - it's really to say that there are those who didn't vote for Trump who are trying to imagine how the wholesale establishment clearances to come might create positive opportunities for good. Perhaps it's a kind of therapy or defence mechanism to do this? What other examples are out there? Will they survive to eventually overthrow the very change that created the opportunity for them to be radical? I hope so. What would the UK example of this be? What do the NSCientists think about this? (both professional and amateur of course!)

Trump won. Life will go on, not much will impact anyone . Circle of life

Move on

 

[WhingForPresident]

I recommend this:

 

[jcdenton08]

I recommend this:

View attachment 192479

Needless to say, I had the last laugh.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

https://open.substack.com/pub/alexw...ncy?r=17hyx3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

I've started to see a few optimists trying to make sense of a post-Trump2 world and I thought this was interesting. I've always admired Alex Washburne's scientific rigour on the lab-leak theory (and you'll see here he manages to get a few plugs for his views into this). But this post isn't here to open that can of worms - it's really to say that there are those who didn't vote for Trump who are trying to imagine how the wholesale establishment clearances to come might create positive opportunities for good. Perhaps it's a kind of therapy or defence mechanism to do this? What other examples are out there? Will they survive to eventually overthrow the very change that created the opportunity for them to be radical? I hope so. What would the UK example of this be? What do the NSCientists think about this? (both professional and amateur of course!)

Interesting.

I am a scientist, whose research is focused on drug discovery. But.... the academic and industrial landscape for drug discovery is rather like old school politics. People doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Incredible amounts of waste. Massively successful careers based entirely on hot air. People retiring on nice pensions having left behind absolutely nothing in terms of legacy.

It has seemed to me for years that in Industry, once the dwindling numbers of multinationals have bought out all the new start ups, we will be left with 2 or 3 massive companies making money mostly via over the counter meds. There has been a 'dry pipeline' in drug discovery for decades and acquisitions and mergers has been the only game in town. We don't know how to invent drugs any more. Jim Black who invented propranolol and cimetidine would never be funded these days because he (rightly) couldn't be arsed to dress up his ideas in gobblydegook in order to raise grant funding, and did his work in Industry before Industry knew how to shape and mould their employees into unthinking robots they now are.

(I interviewed for a Pharma job 30 years ago but they didn't offer me a job because the psychometric tests revealed they would not be able to control me. nd yet the company wanted to collaborate with me in my position as a university academic....WTF?)

Meanwhile academia is a bit like North American school soccer, where the soccer mums award a prize to evert player. Most improved; best newcomer; top shot stopper etc. Pharmacologists in academia don't hunt drugs. They study 'mechanisms'. No question about a kinase is too trivial to seek a couple of million from the MRC to study.

So I have said for years that 90% of pharmacology departments could close without it affecting anyone other than those made redundant. Ironically the only 'useful' thing most of us do is teach medical students. And ironically they are taught precious little pharmacology because the medical hierarchy doesn't think it is necessary for doctors to know how drugs work.

So disruptive change would cost only jobs. And when I take a look around at the rest of the university system I see the same. Mediocre work done without checks and balances, careers based on grant income and papers published. Grant income is essentially money spent. What money? Your money, gifted to charity or taken in tax by HMG and directed to the MRC and related bodies.

And what papers published? You can get anything published somewhere. And the most prestigious journals have the highest retraction rates. That means work found to be wrong, false due to errors or cheating in the race to publish 'prestigiously'. Oh, the prestige.

Prestige does not make machines or drugs. It does not impart wisdom.

The academic system is amateuristically enthusiastic at best, and awash with charlatans who survive due to a lack of checks and balances at worst.

I have some ideas about solutions, but they come hand in hand with crude Trump-style slashing and burning, so none of it will ever happen.

So maybe Trump and his loons will smash up some things and unwittingly allow new better things to emerge. That's the optimistic take. And we can do nothing to stope whatever it will be so it is best to be hopeful.

 

[Anger]

Losing The Goldstone and going to play home games at Priestfield with a 150 mile round trip. At least the club was still alive was the optimistic mood in the face of that uncertain future and significant change at the time.

Interestingly, reading @Harry Wilson's tackle post above, I could apply much of this to my own company / industry (different sector) and especially the first paragraph. Many leaders chasing rainbows and lifting each other to the top (these days with partial assistance from “Monsieur LinkedIn“) whilst delivering very little return on the effort and investment. Intelligent strategy and streamlining would achieve much better output, but unfortunately any consideration of the right plans to back and how to operate more efficiently is still checked at the cloakroom on the way in.

 

[albionalba]

The academic system is amateuristically enthusiastic at best, and awash with charlatans who survive due to a lack of checks and balances at worst.

This is so true. There is massive scope for significant cuts and the notion (in most UK universities) that teaching is necessarily underpinned by research is a fallacy that was proven over and over again by the polytechnics. Look at most city local papers and you'll see local uni-generated stories of potential staff cuts because of underfunding but the reality is gross inefficiency and underwhelming performance in most cases. I managed to escape with my whole team ten years ago and set up an independent, not-for-profit entity that is still going. The reason for success is the absence of those charlatans - particularly the ones within that horrendous pool of snobbery and arrogance that claim that universities can only be managed by academics.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Interesting.

I am a scientist, whose research is focused on drug discovery. But.... the academic and industrial landscape for drug discovery is rather like old school politics. People doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Incredible amounts of waste. Massively successful careers based entirely on hot air. People retiring on nice pensions having left behind absolutely nothing in terms of legacy.

It has seemed to me for years that in Industry, once the dwindling numbers of multinationals have bought out all the new start ups, we will be left with 2 or 3 massive companies making money mostly via over the counter meds. There has been a 'dry pipeline' in drug discovery for decades and acquisitions and mergers has been the only game in town. We don't know how to invent drugs any more. Jim Black who invented propranolol and cimetidine would never be funded these days because he (rightly) couldn't be arsed to dress up his ideas in gobblydegook in order to raise grant funding, and did his work in Industry before Industry knew how to shape and mould their employees into unthinking robots they now are.

(I interviewed for a Pharma job 30 years ago but they didn't offer me a job because the psychometric tests revealed they would not be able to control me. nd yet the company wanted to collaborate with me in my position as a university academic....WTF?)

Meanwhile academia is a bit like North American school soccer, where the soccer mums award a prize to evert player. Most improved; best newcomer; top shot stopper etc. Pharmacologists in academia don't hunt drugs. They study 'mechanisms'. No question about a kinase is too trivial to seek a couple of million from the MRC to study.

So I have said for years that 90% of pharmacology departments could close without it affecting anyone other than those made redundant. Ironically the only 'useful' thing most of us do is teach medical students. And ironically they are taught precious little pharmacology because the medical hierarchy doesn't think it is necessary for doctors to know how drugs work.

So disruptive change would cost only jobs. And when I take a look around at the rest of the university system I see the same. Mediocre work done without checks and balances, careers based on grant income and papers published. Grant income is essentially money spent. What money? Your money, gifted to charity or taken in tax by HMG and directed to the MRC and related bodies.

And what papers published? You can get anything published somewhere. And the most prestigious journals have the highest retraction rates. That means work found to be wrong, false due to errors or cheating in the race to publish 'prestigiously'. Oh, the prestige.

Prestige does not make machines or drugs. It does not impart wisdom.

The academic system is amateuristically enthusiastic at best, and awash with charlatans who survive due to a lack of checks and balances at worst.

I have some ideas about solutions, but they come hand in hand with crude Trump-style slashing and burning, so none of it will ever happen.

So maybe Trump and his loons will smash up some things and unwittingly allow new better things to emerge. That's the optimistic take. And we can do nothing to stope whatever it will be so it is best to be hopeful.

A near neighbour has a PhD in Biochemistry and Cell Biology but has decided to become a multi award winning Magic Circle Magician. I’m guessing that change doesn’t get much more radical than this.

 

[albionalba]

a multi award winning Magic Circle Magician.

.....though much of UK metro-city academia is generally founded on smoke and mirrors.....