One big-picture lesson of the cascade of failures from the CDC, FDA, and the great COVID test debacle is that American science badly needs a scientific revolution of its own.

Our 20th-century institutions aren't enough to guide 21st-century progress.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
This is a piece about Fast Grants—an Operation Warp Speed for scientific funding, from @tylercowen and @patrickc—but it's also about how Fast Grant's success is an important indictment of a big, broken scientific funding system.
I've spent a lot of time the last few months thinking about the problems in the way we fund scientific discovery.

And I think one summary of that reporting is that American science suffers from 3 big paradoxes—of trust, expertise, and experimentation.
1. The trust paradox

People in professional circles like saying that we “believe the science." But the current grant funding apparatus doesn't really actually the best scientists in the world to pursue the research agendas that they themselves think are best.
2. The specialization paradox I

The U.S. education system takes great pains to train scientists to be monkish specialists—but professional scientists are typically forced to spent 25-40% of their time not doing science, but rather begging for money.
2 (cont). The specialization paradox II

This era of specialization has very likely coincided with a measured slowdown in scientific productivity.
3. The experimentation paradox

The first scientific revolution was, in large part, a revolution of experimentation. But the current scientific funding system is the opposite of experimental. It is the bureaucratic extension of a post-WWII hypothesis about how science should work
The pandemic was a reminder that much of human welfare is downstream of scientific progress.

We shouldn’t have to depend on 20th-century institutions to guide 21st-century progress. The lesson of Fast Grants is that we don’t have to.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Derek Thompson

Derek Thompson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DKThomp

27 Oct
The gap between the "real" vs "observed" economy is an interesting recent theme

2017: Democratic econ confidence dips (but things are fine!)
Late 2020: GOP confidence dips (but things are getting better!)
Today: Consumer sentiment in the dumps (but the economy's kinda booming!)
I don't want to overplay the boominess of the economy. Gas prices are up, the supply chain's a mess, buying a car is a nightmare, etc.

What's interesting, however, is that personal finances are in good shape, while consumers expectations are at *decade lows*
"... a complete rout of net favorable views of buying conditions: household durables fell to the lowest level since 1980, vehicles fell to the lowest level since 1974, and homes to the lowest level since 1982 ... all due to complaints about high prices"

data.sca.isr.umich.edu/fetchdoc.php?d…
Read 4 tweets
23 Oct
Between the 1970s and 1990s, the share of sequels in Hollywood didn't change.

Since 1999, it's basically been more sequels, remakes, and adaptations every year.

WHAT HAPPENED IN 1999?
1. Probably the smartest version of the "in the long run, everything is downstream of technology" argument

2. The rise of prestige TV

The 1990s happened to be when cable TV neared its financial apex, drew in big-time showrunners whose hits had a flywheel effect that, over time, sucked original stories to the smaller screen

Read 5 tweets
15 Oct
I wrote about the great acceleration of the Great Resignation—and why it matters.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

Crises leave unpredictable marks on history. We may look back at the pandemic as a long-term, fundamental shift in Americans’ attitudes toward work.
Americans have a weird relationship with "quitting."

It sounds like something for losers and loafers. But it's an expression of optimism.

The mid-20th century—which we imagine as some golden age of company men with 40-year careers—had more quitting!

Great Resignation is one of several Great R-words shaping the economy.

- Great Reset = ppl reducing the role of work in their life

- Great Reshuffling = more migration + business creation

- Great Rudeness = customers behaving like little shits, motivating leisure-sector quits
Read 5 tweets
9 Oct
Fascinating article on why the working class might not be as enthusiastic about universal benefits as elite policy ppl hope.

nytimes.com/2021/09/14/opi…

It's one article, based on one report, but it's churning some thoughts I just wanna submit for for public scrutiny.
When I wrote my workism essay, I defined it as a *disproportionately elite* notion that work ought to be the centerpiece of our identity, and life.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

Recently there's been a movement to fight workism with, eg, UBI, 4-day workweeks, anti-burnout policies
What if it's the ideology of the anti-workists that's the actually elite ideology?

What if the working class + MC immigrants are way more workist than we (or, I) assumed? And their resistance to universal programs stems from a deep belief that policy SHOULD revolve around work?
Read 5 tweets
1 Oct
This sounds like “TamiFlu for COVID, but it actually works.”

It would be an absolute game-changer.
So many replies like this. Ugh.

Look, millions of ppl aren't going to get vaxx'd, period, no matter how many articles and pods and tweets we all do about it.

They're gonna get COVID. And I don't want them to die. That's why it would be a game changer!

Read 5 tweets
30 Sep
There is a fandom faction within both parties that says a lot about their forking paths

Republicans idolize conspiratorial, institution-smashing outsiders, while many Democrats make bobbleheads from bureaucratic heroes, or within-the-system saviors

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
My point isn't that these distinct tastes for political heroes are equivalent, or equally rational.

But there is a difference here that clearly exists, which says something important, I think, about education polarization, trust in institutions, and baseline paranoia re: elites.
I don't think everything is downstream of education polarization, but the GOP Outsider Savior vs. Democratic Insider Hero dynamic definitely is.

If, at a gut level, you just trust advanced-degree leaders of traditional institutions, you're gonna fish in that pond for heroes.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(