This ain't undergrad, it's as real as it gets

From the 2009 MCB Follies comes this parody of the Lonely Island's "I'm on a Boat." What's your favorite lyric?

Why Boston

Excerpt from the ridiculously long NIH postdoc fellowship application I'm writing (this is a case where government has definitely gotten too large):

The _________ lab is the perfect environment for me, for several reasons. Translating basic research knowledge into societal well-being and progress is important to me. Having gained much already from the ivory tower, I now seek a lab that will expose me to medical doctors and clinical environments and human patients. I am very interested in stem cells and regenerative medicine, and the _________ lab is leading the fore in this field and part of the __________ Stem Cell Institute, the top regenerative medicine body in the field. I am interested in kidney tissue biology as it relates to several fields – polycystic kidney disease, epithelial-mesenchymal transitions, aging, differentiation, etc. – and the ________ Unit at ______________ has a tremendously high concentration of high-caliber nephrology researchers. The surrounding city of Boston will be a completely new academic network to connect to and learn from, and features powerful potential collaborators within a few blocks of our lab. These reasons convinced me to pull up stakes from my very comfortable and congenial surroundings in Berkeley and move to what I see as the most exciting place to be in research today.

I know, I know. Can't end a phrase with a preposition. I know.

Revenge is sweet

About 6 months ago, I commented on a medical blog that possibly - just possibly - we were overtreating for breast cancer. After all, it was possible that some tumors came and went without us even knowing about it. I suggested that we needed some negative controls for breast cancer, and that it wasn't a bad idea to let some patients opt out of masectomies and see what happens.

I was laughed off the blog. My scientific credentials and ethical values were challenged. The comments were very reactionary, not very scientific.

Six months later, and my how things have changed. The phenomenon I predicted was borne out in major studies. I heard doctors talking about it on NPR. Now, in recognition of these new findings, it looks like the recommended age for mammography may soon change from 40 to 50.

A lot of bloggers call themselves "skeptics" because they dare to mock other peoples' beliefs. But that's not what science is about. Science is about creativity and challenge, not biology-textbook dogma. It's about thinking outside of the box. From that perspective, I daresay some of these science bloggers could learn a thing or two from the people they are mocking.

Talkin' politics

Hi [Samurai],

Being that you are one of the most politically liberal people I'm in contact with, and I believe you to be intellectually honest, I'm curious how you would respond to this: Warmongers or Peacemakers: Who will scorch the earth?

Granted it's from a conservative source, but it seems to raise some very convincing points.

Also: WIKI - Prisoner's_dilemma Prisoner's dilemma & Obama

The arguments raised by the above cause the current approaches to relations with other countries, both by the US and Israel, to trouble me greatly.

(If you aren't yet interested in a political discussion, ignore this...)

----------------

Hey [Friend in Israel], thanks for the e-mail, I appreciate your genuine interest. I do try to be intellectually honest.

So far, I've listened only to the first video (about Hitler, WWII). I think these arguments do hold some water. In particular, I agree with the speaker's central thesis - that diplomacy frequently fails to bring peace. However, I think the speaker is not sufficiently critical of war, which often fails as well (often at tremendous cost).

... The main problem with the video is that it only considers only two options: diplomacy (by politicians), or war. Neither option is very effective in my opinion. This is characteristic of Western thought these days - very polarized, not very creative.

There is a third option - one that has been largely forgotten even by the left. That option is non-violent resistance. It is the way of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, both of whom led tremendously successful social movements post-WW2. Non-violence does not mean non-action. It means active protest without resorting to violence. In theory, this helps you win the enemy's hearts and minds by getting them to think and respect you. If you are interested in learning how it works, I suggest you read two books:

1. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr., by Clayborne Carson
--this is a collection of MLK's writings and speeches, chronicling his civil rights days through his opposition to Vietnam

2. Ghandi: an Autobiography; the Story of My Experiments With Truth
--penned by Ghandi himself, it goes into depth about his early upbringing and his philosophies of non-violence and experimentation

A common denominator to these two fellows is that they were raised very religious, although in two different faiths, and both men drew from their faiths to arrive at the principle of non-violence. I can relate to this; when I memorized Pirkei Avot over ten years ago, the many sayings about peace, wisdom, and relationships planted the seeds of this philosophy in my mind, well before I read any of the above.

I think there are other ways to wage peace besides non-violent resistance, but you really have to get creative. This creativity is what's missing from our leaders these days. I do not trust them one lick - they are old fools, and one is worse than the next. I would not follow them into battle, or rely on them to make peace through diplomatic means.

Hope this gives you something to think about! Let me know if you have any specific responses to what I've said. Take care and always fun to talk politics with you.
Samurai

PS Have you ever seen Watchmen? Or read the graphic novel? It gets into a lot of these questions. You might like where it ends up.

How To Create 10,000,000 Jobs

President Obama, here's a little back-of-the-envelope calculation for you:

~1~ Monthly wage for a security guard = $2,000.

~2~ Cost/month of our wars in Iraq+Afghanistan =
$20,000,000,000. (Yes, that many zeroes.)

~3~ Number of security guards this could employ instead =
$20,000,000,000/$2,000 = 10,000,000.

Economy crisis, solved.