American science is screwed

There was an interesting op-ed in the NY Times today (it’s been a long time since I could say that): We Are Watching a Scientific Superpower Destroy Itself, by Stephen Greenblatt. Can you guess which scientific superpower he’s writing about?

Here are some interesting data.

According to the latest annual Nature Index, which tracks research institutions by their contributions to leading science journals, the single remaining U.S. institution among the top 10 is Harvard, in second place, far behind the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The others are:
The University of Science and Technology of China
Zhejiang University
Peking University
The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Tsinghua University
Nanjing University
Germany’s Max Planck Society
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
A decade ago, C.A.S. was the only Chinese institution to figure in the top 10. Now eight of the 10 leaders are in China. If this does not constitute a Sputnik moment, it is hard to imagine what would.

Given Trump’s mantra of China, China, China to blame that country, it’s amusing and depressing that he has completely handed over leadership in science to China. OK, and Germany. He is responsible for the abrupt change in status.

The article also makes a strong comparison.

From the start, this government investment in education wasn’t free of ideological interest. It was fueled by fear — fear of the Russians, fear of the atomic bomb, fear of falling behind in the “space race” — and intended to influence curricula. Not, to be sure, in the catastrophic manner of the Soviet Union, where Trofim Lysenko’s theories of genetics set back Soviet biology for decades, but rather by strengthening science departments across the country.

And now, notwithstanding its triumphs, the whole enterprise is in serious trouble. The Trump administration began its assault by using the pro-Palestinian demonstrations on many campuses to charge elite universities with antisemitism. The rationale has largely shifted to complaints about affirmative action, diversity initiatives, liberal bias and the like. Scientific research has been curtailed; postdoctoral fellowships have been abruptly canceled; laboratories have been shuttered and visas denied. The damage to scientific enterprise extends beyond our borders, whether it’s from the cancellation of nearly $500 million in funding for mRNA research under the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a kind of Lysenko lite — or the purging of data on which climate researchers around the world depend. We will never know what diseases might have been cured or what advances in technology might have been invented had the lights not gone out in the labs.

“complaints about affirmative action, diversity initiatives, liberal bias and the like”…sure sounds like someone we know at the University of Chicago.

I don’t know if I’d agree that RFK jr. is a Lysenko lite — he hasn’t come to the full power of a Lysenko yet, but you know that if he could he’d start imprisoning and deporting everyone who supports vaccination, for instance. Give him time. Give him a little more power and he’ll root out the Vavilovs in modern America.

What can we do?

For the moment, American universities still have the enormous advantage of their resources and their autonomy, and their joyous imaginative freedom. I walk through Harvard Yard on my way to teach a freshman course on great books from Homer to Joyce, and I am continually astonished by what I see and whom I meet. There are students from all over the world — from Mongolia as well as my hometown, Newton, Mass., from Athens in Ohio and Athens in Greece — and there are colleagues who have been immersed in a wide range of pursuits, from creating the first image of a black hole in space to deciphering the words on a scrap of ancient papyrus. We need to get up from under our desks and persuade our fellow citizens that the institutions that they have helped create with their tax dollars are incredibly precious and important.

That’s nice and optimistic, but I think it’s harder to restore prestige than that, and also we’ve permanently changed our prospects for the future — who would want a career in a US university when all it takes is a single election to completely shred our scientific institutions? We’re going to be forever aware that we’re on shaky ground.

But will he pay it?

Trump went to court again, to claim that he should not have to pay the large sum he was expected to pay to E. Jean Carroll for sexual assault. He lost.

A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a civil jury’s finding that President Donald Trump must pay $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll for his repeated social media attacks and public statements against the longtime advice columnist after she accused him of sexual assault.

Does anyone believe he will ever pay that penalty, no matter how many courts and judges declare that he must? He’s just going to delay and delay and claim that no one is allowed to interfere with a US president, and wait out the judgement until he dies. That’s how the rich operate. If I had a legal claim of millions of dollars against me that I refused to pay, the sheriff would come to tow my car away, the city would start carving away my property, I’d be kicked out of my house and it would be auctioned off, and if I were really obstinate, I’d be hauled off to jail. But if you’re rich enough that you could pay the sum, they’ll respectfully watch you dither and scheme to get out of it.

One law for the wealthy, another law for the rest of us.

Epstein had some weird and creepy friends

The Epstein birthday book has been released, and you can read it all for yourself. The content is not very interesting, to be honest–lots of heavily redacted photos of Child Epstein, Epstein frolicking with women/girls, sloppy greetings from people who ought to have known better, all kinds of innuendo. Voidzilla summarizes it all.

One thing caught my eye: one of the birthday greeters was Stuart Pivar, the crackpot pseudoscientist who threatened to sue me for fifteen million dollars. All kinds of people were sucking up to Epstein, and I don’t quite understand why…it was the appeal of money and a guy who proudly flaunted his depravity, I guess.

The official cult mask

The MAGA or Mar-A-Lago face is the new costly signal for anyone who wants to be part of MAGA (or right-wing news), and it’s pretty darned creepy.

It has a signature look.

Defined by copious use of Botox, a Miami-bronze tan, puffy lips and silky smooth skin, plastic surgeons told DailyMail.com it was giving Trumpland an almost ‘plastic’ and ‘Real Housewives’ look.

We can thank Donald Trump for this weird habit.

I wouldn’t normally be snarky about someone’s looks but let’s be clear: nobody is born with Mar-a-Lago face. These are not human faces, they are luxury meat-masks meant to signal wealth and in-group belonging. People such as Laura Loomer, Kristi Noem, and Matt Gaetz can afford excellent surgeons and subtle cosmetic work but, unless they’ve all had botched procedures, it seems they deliberately chose to look like AI-generated caricatures. One can only surmise that they live in such weird little bubbles, where everyone is addicted to filler, that this sort of conspicuous consumption of cosmetic surgery has become desirable.

Having the right look is certainly desirable to optics-obsessed Donald Trump, whose chief concern for his underlings appears to be how they perform on TV. In 2017, an Axios report claimed that Trump wanted his female staff to “dress like women” and demanded that his male employees have a “certain look.” Over the years it seems the “certain look” has only become more extreme.

An obsession with traditional gender norms also seems to factor into today’s exaggerated aesthetics. Earlier this year a New York-based dermatologist told Politico that fashion often shifts to more traditional gender expression in culturally conservative times. “It’s ironic … that they’re so against trans-ness and gender-affirming care for trans people,” the dermatologist said of Trump’s inner orbit. “Because, you know, they’re all doing their own gender-affirming care.” The Zambian bum-stick chimps seem positively sophisticated in comparison.

You know, I’m not unhappy at all about this. Remember the end of Inglourious Basterds, in which Brad Pitt pulls out a big knife and carves a swastika into Christoph Walz’s face, before he follows orders and takes him to the US to reward him for betraying the Nazis? This is the same thing. If we ever overthrow our fascist regime, the people behind it will have all self-labeled themselves.

“Renowned scientists and scholars” who deserve shaming

There’s a new book out to defend science, titled uncreatively The War on Science, by Lawrence Krauss. The theme is nothing new: I’d recommend instead The War on Science by Shawn Otto, or The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, both of which are well-researched single-author works that more objectively examine the people and processes that are literally targeting the institutions of science for destruction.

Krauss’s book stands out because it is completely different. Most people discussing the war on science talk about the influence of dark money, or capitalist motivations to sacrifice long term investment for short term profit, or lobby groups that shape the government for personal gain, or the undermining of the educational system to generate an uninformed citizenry. They talk about specific initiatives by special interest groups that are counter to good science. They discuss the malignant influence of reactionary religious organizations.

Not Krauss!

He has gathered 39 contributors, calling them “renowned scientists and scholars,” who are instead petty, entitled whiners who have personal grievances against the social institutions that have alienated them from the mainstream. It’s written by sex pests, racists, bigots, and defenders of genocide. They don’t like the fact that senior scientists are told not to sexually abuse junior faculty and students. They don’t like the fact that people with different ethnic backgrounds hold protests on their campuses. They resent being expected to respect aboriginal peoples in their research. They are horrified that better informed people are rejecting their old bigotries and recognizing that gender is on a spectrum. They all think that Woke is the enemy of science, and that hordes of Leftists have been battering the Ivory Tower to bring it down.

They’re all idiots.

They also have very bad timing. This series of screeds against the evils of the Left was published this summer, after the Right took control of the government and began to literally wreck science in this country, revoking grants, punishing universities, giving control of the NIH and NSF and CDC and NASA to political hacks who began dictating new directions for science, telling libraries what books they’re allowed to stock, deporting scientists and students who weren’t sufficiently “American” for their taste, enabling more religious influence into government, and basically trashing the Constitution. So now we have this book on the shelves screaming about an apocalyptic threat from gay and transgender scientists at a time when far-right conservatives are flexing their muscles and sending troops to university campuses.

Hemant Mehta has summarized multiple reviews of this wrong-headed book, and the defenses of its authors. They recognize that their timing was ludicrously bad, and all of the authors make the same goddamn stupid argument.

We wrote it before Trump was elected again, and we had no idea the Republicans would do this.

Larry Krauss has been an embarrassment for a long time.

That’s no excuse, and if you’re so ignorant you couldn’t see the Right’s agenda, despite the fact that people have been writing about it for decades, then you are in no position to publish a book that so thoroughly misses the point. And they’re still arguing even now that the True Danger is Wokeness, as Trump tears their institutions down around them.

For an example of how pig-headedly idiotic the authors are, Hemant quotes Jerry Coyne.

The book was put together before Trump began his assault on universities by punishing science grantees and by appointing people like RFK Jr. to science positions. I expected that, after this unpredictable bout of executive-branch bullying, there would be some wokesters who adopted a “whataboutery stance,” saying, “This book largely comprises attacks on how the progressive Left wing is eroding science. But Trump is dong much more damage from the Right.” And right now that is indeed the case, but Trump will be gone in a bit over 3 years, and I expect that, when Democrats take over (fingers crossed), the government will cut back strongly on interfering in the funding and production.

The effect of the Right on science, then, will probably be more temporary. In contrast, that from the Left will last a lot longer, for progressive professors who believe in nonsense like a spectrum of sex in animals will teach this nonsense to their students, and thus it will pass among academic generations. We simply cannot sit by and let progressives distort science in the cause of ideology, regardless of what the Right is doing.

(I hope Jerry is enjoying the sight of the National Guard patrolling his campus, the fucking moron.)

Unbelievable.

Hemant has an excellent summary of this abomination of a book.

The War on Science isn’t a defense of reason. It’s a monument to intellectual cowardice. Its authors, armed with petty grievances about pronouns and diversity programs, aimed their intellectual firepower on paper cuts that exist only in their minds while everyone around them is being decapitated. They act like the biggest problems in science involve grad students asking for inclusive policies, professors acknowledging biological complexity, or institutions offering STEM scholarships to underrepresented groups.

To publish such a book now, in the face of deliberate and systemic sabotage from the highest levels of government, is not only ridiculous, it’s malpractice for any half-decent scientist or science communicator. Even Jordan Peterson should be embarrassed—and that’s saying something.

Every page wasted on performative outrage over “wokeness” is a page that could have been used to sound the alarm about the real, ongoing destruction of the scientific world. And given that many of these authors have spent the past few years appealing to right-wing bigots, that could have been extremely useful.

Instead, by pretending that the greatest threat to science comes from progressive inclusion rather than authoritarian arson, Krauss and his allies have given cover to those who would dismantle our research institutions. They’re compiling propaganda for those who want to bury science under the weight of their own ignorance. They are enablers who fiddle with culture war nonsense while the laboratories burn.

Meanwhile, like most of the professors I know, I’ll continue to teach that the development of sex is a complex, gradual process with multiple variations and that gender is a social and psychological process expressed as a continuum, not because of ideology, but because that’s what the evidence says. At least, I’ll do that until I hear the jackboots marching down my hallway and the Republicans shut down my liberal arts university.

For now, though, here is the list of authors of this terrible book, every one a disgrace. Remember them. They aren’t going anywhere, and we should be prepared to publicly shame them at every opportunity.

Dorian Abbot, John Armstrong, Peter Boghossian, Maarten Boudry, Alex Byrne, Nicholas Christakis, Roger Cohen, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Niall Ferguson, Janice Fiamengo, Solveig Gold, Moti Gorin, Karleen Gribble, Carole Hooven, Geoff Horsman, Joshua Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Lawrence M. Krauss, Anna Krylov, Luana Maroja, Christian Ott, Bruce Pardy, Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker, Richard Redding, Arthur Rousseau, Gad Saad, Sally Satel, Lauren Schwartz, Alan Sokal, Allesandro Strumia, Judith Suissa, Alice Sullivan, Jay Tanzman, Abigail Thompson, Amy Wax, Elizabeth Weiss, Frances Widdowson

An American president wants to declare war on the American people

Put this post by Donald Trump on Truth Social front and center when he’s tried for treason.

“I love the smell of deportations in the morning…”
Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR

He thinks it is amusing to threaten an American city of almost 3 million people with apocalyptic destruction. He’s a criminal despot.

His pretext is that crime is too high in Chicago. Unfortunately for that excuse, invading the city to deport a subset of people whose primary “crime” is being brown and speaking Spanish would not address that problem, the statistics show that crime has been declining already, and Chicago is not the most crime-ridden city in the country. That distinction belongs to cities in red states.

The four cities of populations larger than 100,000 with the highest murder rates in 2024 are in Republican states: Jackson, Mississippi (78.7 per 100,000 residents), Birmingham, Alabama (58.8), St Louis, Missouri (54.1) and Memphis, Tennessee (40.6).

…Chicago is bracing to be the next city targeted by the Trump administration. To date this year, 278 people have been killed in Chicago, 118 fewer people killed when compared with 2024. It is at pace for 412 deaths for the year, which would be a rate of about 15 per 100,000 residents. The rate is likely to be lower still than that, because homicide rates increase during summer months.

The Windy City ranked 37th in homicide rate in 2024 for cities larger than 50,000 residents in the United States. For cities with more than 100,000 residents, it placed 14th. This year, it is likely to slide farther down the list, even as violence falls to 60-year lows.

What are the National Guard going to do in Chicago, anyway? Stand around on street corners, eat deep dish pizza, guard the Bean in Millennium Park, visit the Field Museum? Trump is putting on a show, the same as renaming the Department of Defense the Department of War was an empty gesture.

Only the heterosexuals are safe

Wait, no, that’s not true — the Republicans are gunning for everyone who is tolerant of other people’s sexual orientation. The gays are just next in line.

This is reminding me of the 80s, when Ronald Reagan was leading an affable campaign of hatred. Rand Paul is a hardcore anti-gay crusader, always has been, but in the current political climate he’s more free to expose himself.

One of the people who resigned in opposition to the destruction of the CDC was Demetre Daskalakis, who Paul has decided was unfit for his position anyway.

Asked about the resignations on Tuesday (2 September), Sen. Paul said: “One of the guys that is the biggest proponent of doing all this is the guy who describes the risky behaviour that he and his lifestyle involve.

“A guy that is so far … out of the mainstream, I think most people in America would discount his opinion because of the things he said in the past. He does not represent the mainstream of anything in America,” he went on.

“He should have never had a position in government. He brags about his lifestyle, you know, this whole idea of bondage and, you know, multiple partners and all that stuff. He brags about that stuff, but he’s got no business being in government. It’s good riddance.”

Being out of the mainstream in one’s personal preferences and behavior has never (or should never) be a criterion in determining one’s expertise in doing science. I thought Paul was a Libertarian? To be honest, being a Libertarian should disqualify you from ever holding office, but fortunately I don’t have the power to make that decree.

Even worse, there is a candidate running to replace Dan Crenshaw, which normally I’d approve of — he’s poison. But the person running against him is Valentina Gomez, a woman who is upset that there are lesbians in the WNBA, who wants to take a flamethrower to books that “groom” children.

The video ends with an image of Gomez smiling into the camera, holding an AR-15 with an ammunition holder tied around her waist in front of a Tesla Cybertruck.

Charming. Fortunately, she has little hope of getting elected — she previously ran for the Secretary of State of Missouri, and came in 6th place with 8% of the vote. That’s more than she deserved, but it tells you about the power of being rabidly anti-gay.