Eat and live

I’ve been a distracted mess lately, with all this PT stuff as well as a week of administrative malarkey, but I did notice a a provocative comment that I feel compelled to respond to.

Upon accepting the risk of dispensing an unpopular remark: One day, we shall have to set nature in order using genetical engineering.

No creature should devour any other.

Wow. That makes no sense. We humans are obligate heterotrophs — we must obtain certain vital molecules by consuming other organisms. For example, we cannot synthesize valine, isoleucine, leucine, methionine, phenylalanine, tryptophan, threonine, histidine, or lysine, so we have to consume other organisms that contain those substances, or we die. I guess we can define “creature” to escape the problem, which is the vegetarian solution. We don’t eat meat from animals by making the decision that plants don’t count. It’s very convenient to say that killing carrots or yeast or lettuce is ethically OK, but if you think about it all deeply, even a carrot is a product of processes that kill insects with pesticides. Do insects count? What about protists? The lines are all arbitrary and we each draw our own lines.

Is our solution to genetically modify humans so they can synthesize every molecule we need? Or are we going to build factories to create all these essential substances as supplements?

But deeper still, the planetary biome is built on dependencies contingent on death and consumption, in every food web that exists. For example, sea otters eat sea urchins; sea urchins eat kelp; when sea otters are eliminated, the kelp forests die. How do we genetically engineer “devouring” out of the system without necessarily deleting entire ecologies? The only way any of this can happen is by magic.

Nature is already in order, reordering it to your preferences is silly.

Shouldn’t a president be mildly aware of the world around him?

Here we go again. Trump’s idea of diplomacy is a sane person’s idea of bullying.

Donald Trump has threatened to “blow up” Oman if it fails to “behave” in a casual aside during a cabinet meeting, as the US scrambles to reopen the strait of Hormuz.

I had two students from Oman this past semester. One of the things I, a mere college professor, do is look up my students’ backgrounds to avoid saying something stupid and insensitive, like “we should blow up your home”. If only our president were a tenth as aware.

SHUT THE FUCK UP, DONNY.

I choose not to be optimistic

I see a lot of online commentary anticipating that Democrats will flip the house and maybe the senate. They’ve been encouraged by the nomination of Ken Paxton, a totally repulsive corrupt sleazeball, to run against James Talarico — the idea is that that is going to weaken the Republican vote in Texas, along with other visible factors.

Over the last several days, I traveled 550 miles through trump country in Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota. I have reliable information that this route was once replete with Trump shrines, but on this trip, there was one (and it was a doozy, near Effigy Mounds, Iowa). All the others had vanished some time over the winter. This isn’t Texas, but it is a very MAGA landscape, and thus a good an indicator. In at least one case, the former Trump Shrine had over the years displayed anti-abortion and various jingoistic symbology. All that stuff was still up, but the name Trump had been taken down. The point is: right wingers, even hard MAGA level right wingers, are erasing Trump from their rhetoric. Assuming that this is a national phenomenon, it matters in Texas.

And now, with the odious Paxton being put in place of the more mainstream Republcian Cornyn to run for Senate in Texas, owing to Trump loyalists following his endorsement, most observers who know Texas are saying that this seat is in play. According to The Hill, “The nonpartisan election handicapper Cook Political Report shifted its rating of the Texas Senate race toward Democrats on Tuesday from “likely Republican” to “lean Republican,” after state Attorney General Ken Paxton defeated Sen. John Cornyn in the marquee race’s GOP runoff.” Read that carefully. They are not projecting a Democratic win, but they are saying the race is in play.

I’ve seen fewer Trump signs in my area, too, but I can’t help but note that a majority of those Texas Republicans voted for the Trump-endorsed candidate anyway. I have seen predictions of the ‘blue wave’ for years, and every time, I’ve been disappointed. I refuse to fall for it anymore. I predict minimal change as a consequence of the midterms.

Greg Laden is only slightly more optimistic than I am.

There are strong indications that many Republican-held House seats are likely to flip over to the D column. There are reasons to hope for a slim Democratic majority in the Senate. The chances that Republicans will hold trifecta power after the new crop of electeds is planted in January is about zero. Will Texas be part of that important, historic, and civilization changing moment?

To answer that question, I refer to fashion and style guru, Melania Trump. I’d love Texas to get on board, but we don’t really need texas, and Texas always disappoints. For mere self preservation,

I could be totally wrong, and I hope I am, but I expect the Republican party of Evil will cling to their death grip on American politics for a few more years, simply because the electorate have convinced me that they’re morons.

An epic humble brag

Liang Cheng is an oncologist a Brown University. I’d never heard of him before, but I am told that he is incredibly famous by Liang Cheng, as he announced himself on LinkedIn.

I am deeply humbled and grateful to learn that my H-index has now reached 140. I was also honored to see that I am currently ranked among the two most-cited researchers worldwide in the fields of Urologic Oncology and Urology on Google Scholar.

In addition, my i10-index has reached 1060; that is, one thousand and sixty publications each cited at least ten times. I was told that this may represent a world record – what an extraordinary honor!

Nonetheless, these numbers are far less important than the people, mentorship, friendships, and collaborations behind them. This milestone is truly a triumph of team science. I owe immense gratitude to my mentors, colleagues, collaborators, residents, fellows, medical students, and friends who have inspired and supported me throughout this journey over the past two decades.

Academic medicine is never an individual accomplishment. It is ultimately about advancing science and medicine, educating future generations, and improving patient care. If our work has contributed even in a small way toward those goals, then I feel extraordinarily fortunate and grateful.

Thank you for being part of this journey. The best is yet to come!

I hate to be the one to tear him down, but no one cares about your H-index and i10-index except, maybe and importantly, administrators and fellow H-index chasers. Anyone else remember that scene in American Psycho where Patrick Bateman and several of his cronies are comparing business cards, noting the quality of the stock and the embossing and the inks? Yeah, that’s what it’s like seeing someone brag about their indexes. Don’t care.

It’s also because those numbers are thoroughly gamed. I looked him up on PubMed, and it’s true, his name is on a lot of papers: papers that have 10 or 20 or more authors, and there he is, somewhere in the middle of a sea of names, rarely first or last. He really does owe a lot to his “mentors, colleagues, collaborators, residents, fellows, medical students, and friends” who have been tacking his name unto their papers! And further, his publication rate, that is, the rate at which his name gets plugged in to a long list, is approximately a paper every two days, which is insane. This is authorship by rubber stamp.

I think it is valid that many research endeavors nowadays require a large team, and he may have been an indispensable member of such a team, but then to use that cooperation to brag that he is #1 or #2 in his field is unseemly. It’s also dangerous, Dr Tall Poppy. He was spamming his ‘accomplishment’ on every social media site he could find, and on Xitter, Michael Eisen noticed.

The author’s Google scholar profile falsely lists multiple papers that he didn’t author, and therefore the citation count and h-index are inaccurate.

Whooops.

I do enjoy seeing a braggart taken down a peg, but Liang Cheng is a symptom of a greater problem: we’re drowning in artificial metrics, amplified by AI slop.

Over the last few decades, science has undergone a “citation revolution.” Scientific life used to be structured by personal reputation and mutual acquaintance; now it is defined by quantitative assessments derived from citations.

And this reward system has warped scientific life in dramatic ways. It has resulted in the obvious and widespread gaming of citation metrics; but, more insidiously, it has pushed scientists toward risk-averse, incremental, and above all unambitious research. The logic of institutional science has become increasingly divorced from actual knowledge and discovery. In a system governed by these perverse incentives, the inevitable endpoint is simply AI-generated slop at scale.

Now, with AI, we’ve built a remarkable new technology that opens up dramatic new horizons for scientific work. But we’re deploying that technology within an institutional structure that incentivizes, above all else, the maximization of metrics that don’t have much to do with real science. The underlying problem is not with AI, but with the institutions and incentives that define modern science.

That is an excellent article, everyone should read it. It actually ends on a promising note, regarding AI as a tool that could break us out of the dead-end, grasping competition for a magic ranking number, as exemplified by the case of Liang Cheng.

The citation index was designed in the 1950s and ‘60s as a solution to the information crisis engulfing scientific life. It ended up becoming much more than that: a regime that reshaped what science was, how it was rewarded, and what kind of science got done. Now that regime is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. I think it’s a fantastic opportunity to build something better.

No bread for you, only circuses

In June, the White House will host a UFC fighting event. They’ve already torn out the White House lawn, are building a giant fighting cage to hold all the lights and cameras, and will be placing the Octagon in the center.

It’s historic, don’t you know. Bulbous sweaty men kicking each other in the face is considered a dignified way to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States…and it’s not political, it just happens to be held on the president’s 80th birthday.

The president promises us it won’t cost the American taxpayer a thing (I’ve heard that somewhere before). It’s all paid for by special ticket prices — this is not a public event — and sponsorships from Paramount and a crypto company. I’ve never watched UFC, is it all scripted kayfabe bullshit? If so, that would be perfect.

Canadians, Europeans, everyone living in the civilized world outside our borders: are you laughing at us? Because I feel like hiding in shame for some reason.

First day of PT!

After a long session of flexing and extending my knee, my physical therapist plugged me into an ice machine that circulated cold water around the poor tired limb.

The end result: I’m told I’m healing up very well, the recommendation is that I just do one more PT session and continue exercises at home, but so far I’m ahead of the game. I also managed to walk the 3½ blocks between my house and the hospital without much difficulty.

I look forward to returning to my hobby of Cossack-style dancing next week.

I think the Ark is slowly sinking

It’s been afloat for about 10 years. When the notion was first proposed in a gambit to get state tax subsidies, Ken Ham & Co. said it would bring in 1.6 million tourists in the first year, and that that number would go up by about 4% each following years, with occasional surges by 10% as new planned exhibits were opened. By those 2015 estimates, they should be bringing in 2.5 million visitors this year. Are they?

  • Year 1(JY 2016-JE 2017): est. 800,000 (50% of projected attendance)
  • Year 2 (JY 2017-JE 2018): 865,761 (52% of projected attendance)
  • Year 3 (JY 2018-JE 2019): 875,882 (51% of projected attendance)
  • Year 4 (JY 2019-JE 2021): 841,772 (44% of projected attendance)
    Given the impact of COVID on Ark attendance, I left out March 2020-February 2021
  • Year 5 (JY 2021-JE 2022): 775,731 (39% of projected attendance)
  • Year 6 (JY 2022-JE 2023): 782,660 (36% of projected attendance)
  • Year 7 (JY 2023-JE 2024): 764,258 (34% of projected attendance)
  • Year 8 (JY 2024-JE 2025): 682,101 (27% of projected attendance)
  • Year 9 (JY 2025-JE 2026): 664, 813 (26% of projected attendance)

For May-June 2026 I used the attendance numbers from May-June 2025. If history is any guide, this may serve to overestimate Year 9 attendance.

They made the invalid assumption that, after the novelty had worn off in the first year, they would get sustained growth for some reason. I’ve been there. I feel no desire to repeat my visit, especially after the ridiculous parking and admission fees. There is nothing there in the big wooden box! Once you’ve read the numerous silly and static infographics pasted on the walls, what would be the point?

I am amused that they only got about half their projected numbers in the first year, and it’s been declining ever since. They’re probably not suffering much, though, since the costs to maintain a big empty wooden box are probably relatively low.

I went outside today

This was a triumph, although these photos are rather lackluster. I walked around my backyard without the aid of a cane, crutches, or walker! My knee is improving fast, although I can’t walk over rough ground very well, and I definitely can’t crouch. I saw a zebra:

Zebra Jumping Spider

And a wall jumper:

Asiatic Wall Jumping Spider

I didn’t fall down even once, although I was pushing it a bit.