Introduction
In today’s rapidly evolving landscape, innovative research endeavors face both opportunities and challenges. Companies are emerging to pursue groundbreaking sciences without traditional constraints. This article explores several prominent topics, including the promise of independent research, the crisis facing orca populations, cognitive instincts in humans, the downsides of video communication, the pitfalls of health insurance, and the lasting impact of influential thinkers like Christopher Lasch.
Part the First: No, This Is Not Another Bell Labs. Bell Labs has long been celebrated as a premier institution for high-level physics and engineering. It supported the groundbreaking work of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation—a remnant of the Big Bang. The success of Bell Labs can be attributed to its status as a regulated monopoly, which allowed it to dedicate resources to “blue sky” research.
Episteme boasts a promising name, but it seems that’s where the allure ends unless Cambridge University Press wishes to challenge its usage of the title:
Recently, yet another billionaire-funded Silicon Valley venture came to light. Tech journalist Ashlee Vance announced on Substack that Episteme has been established with undisclosed funding from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and Masayoshi Son, CEO of SoftBank. Currently, the company lacks products and a defined business line—only a fully equipped lab in San Francisco that accommodates 15 scientists pursuing their interests in fields ranging from artificial intelligence to biotechnology, free from the burdens of grant writing or academic publishing.
CEO Louis Andre believes this approach will lead to significant breakthroughs. He argues that revolutionary ideas can emerge from fundamental research, as long as scientists are liberated from bureaucratic hindrances. “Profit should be a byproduct,” he insists, drawing from his extensive experience in the startup ecosystem. He founded Episteme following numerous discussions with Altman, asserting that the primary aim should be impact. “When you conduct exceptional science, opportunities for commercialization will naturally arise,” he states.
Obtaining funds from public sources has long resembled a laborious trek through risk-averse bureaucracies. Episteme, modeled on legacy corporate labs like Bell Laboratories and Xerox PARC, offers an appealing alternative. Andre prioritizes selecting collaborators based on their “theory of change” rather than purely their scientific expertise. “If a project falters, that’s acceptable; researchers should have the freedom to pivot,” he notes. Episteme will evaluate intellectual property rights and ownership of resultant startups on a case-by-case basis.
Providing independent biomedical researchers—and others—the resources to follow their passions without dedicating two-thirds of their time to grant proposals would potentially lead to remarkable advancements. We know as much from existing evidence:
Studies indicate that publicly funded basic research often yields greater economic returns than private initiatives—not only in terms of gross domestic product but also regarding overall productivity. A 2013 study by economists from Stanford University and the London School of Economics discovered that the combined returns from public and private R&D funding were approximately 55%, while private funding alone generated only a 21% increase. A more recent study by Andrew Fieldhouse, an economist at Texas A&M University, found even larger effects, estimating the productivity returns from public, nondefense R&D funding at an impressive 140% to 210%.
The results from Andrew Fieldhouse likely represent a more accurate picture than the earlier findings. The notion of mixing “biotech” with fifteen labs at Episteme seems far-fetched. Take, for instance, labs funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). At one time, I had a friendly acquaintance who was a Howard Hughes Investigator. She received around a million dollars annually from HHMI, supplemented by NIH and NSF funding, enabling her groundbreaking work at one of the world’s top institutions for molecular cell biology. Such productivity arises from her association with a public university renowned for excellence. The idea that her lab could replicate such success in isolation at Episteme, regardless of budget, is implausible. The Roche Institute of Molecular Biology briefly served as a “Bell Labs” for biomedical science, but ultimately succumbed to internal pressures.
One might ask, “What does it all signify at this juncture?” We have entered a phase of Policy-Based Science rather than the reverse (not to imply that science solely dictates policy). This shift may be temporary, but its repercussions will endure. Previous times held their own challenges, yet rebuilding is always more complex than dismantling. My successors in unbiased biomedical research will face substantial hurdles ahead.
Part the Second: Orcas on the Brink. This subject strikes a personal chord. During the 1980s, I spent summers in the vicinity where the current members of this group of Orcas frequently travel. A friend owned a home situated on a bluff above Haro Strait, between San Juan Island and Victoria, British Columbia, where the whales would surface and delightfully engage with his excited Corgi. Observing these southern resident whales is a breathtaking experience, yet they are endangered due to human actions:
Pierre-Louis: What has caused their population decline?
Harper: In essence, we are to blame, especially Western colonizers in the Pacific Northwest. Upon settling, they regarded these killer whales as competitors for fish or a nuisance species that needed extermination, leading to extensive killings. The perspective shifted, however, as orcas were later recognized as gentle giants that could reside in aquariums and perform shows. The late ’60s and early ’70s witnessed a capture boom during which numerous orcas were caught from the Salish Sea and distributed to aquariums globally, many being southern residents due to their proximity to human activity.
Though the population initially rebounded, increasing from about 80 to nearly 100 by the 1990s, a sudden decline of approximately 20 percent occurred over just five to six years. Researchers began investigating this alarming trend. Over recent decades, scientists have identified three primary threats to this population: vessel noise, chemical pollution, and a lack of prey. The Salish Sea has transformed into one of North America’s busiest waterways, with metropolitan areas like Seattle and Vancouver flourishing along its coastlines, resulting in increased human activity, pollution, and competition for the salmon crucial to orca survival.
The main salmon species they rely upon, Chinook salmon, has drastically decreased since the 1980s due to habitat destruction, particularly from damming rivers where they spawn, overfishing, and similar pollution issues affecting both salmon and orcas. It’s a complex problem impacting the whales as they depend on these salmon and other fish for the majority of their diet.
The pivotal question remains: can we alter our behavior to safeguard these and other whale species like the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, which calves along the South Atlantic coast of North America? Adrienne Buller raises this inquiry in The Value of a Whale: On the Illusions of Green Capitalism. The “market” is unlikely to offer solutions; it rests on the shoulders of the citizens to address this issue.
Part the Third: We Are Born Knowing How to Count. An intriguing concept arises from an earlier article, revealing that humans possess an “innate number sense.” We inherently recognize quantities and shapes, a trait shared with various species. For instance, wolves understand that a larger group is necessary to successfully hunt an elk. The experiments that illustrate these findings are explained effectively at the provided link for those interested.
Part the Fourth: Zoom Is Not Always Your Friend. While the utility of Zoom, Teams, and WebEx in our disjointed world is generally acknowledged, it is essential to recognize their limitations. A recent Nature Research Briefing titled The hidden cost of video-call glitches highlights this issue. The underlying study outlines the problem clearly: Video-call glitches trigger uncanniness and harm consequential life outcomes. The key points from the Abstract are as follows:
As people increasingly rely on video calls for high-stakes interactions—ranging from medical consultations to job interviews— a new issue has arisen: minor glitches, or intermittent errors in audiovisual transmission. Through five experiments and three supplementary studies involving both live and recorded interactions, it was shown that these glitches negatively impact interpersonal judgments in critical domains (e.g., hiring decisions following virtual interviews or trust in healthcare providers post-telehealth visits). Additionally, two real-world datasets indicate that glitches correlate with reduced social connection and lower odds of being granted criminal parole. The findings suggest that these glitches compromise interpersonal assessments by disrupting the illusion of face-to-face interaction, evoking feelings of ‘uncanniness’—a strange or eerie sensation. As the perception of glitch increases, so does its detrimental effect on interpersonal judgments. Notably, glitches specifically hinder assessments in video calls simulating in-person interactions, revealing that their influence extends beyond simple disruptiveness and comprehension issues. These findings carry significant implications for digital equity, suggesting that while virtual communication appears to aid access, it may unintentionally perpetuate inequality. Disadvantaged groups often experience inferior internet connections, resulting in more frequent glitches and, consequently, worse outcomes in critical areas like health, employment, justice, and social connections.
One of the more bizarre facets of contemporary life is the notion that “virtual” teaching and learning, both synchronous and asynchronous, suffices for the task. This misguided belief will undoubtedly lead to unfavorable outcomes at all educational levels. My experience in medical education over the past five years demonstrates this reality. Despite my institution’s more effective approach, employing small tutorial groups, the transition to remote learning from March to May 2021 was still a significant challenge. Returning to in-person teaching in August has not eliminated “Zoom creep,” primarily driven by the mistaken perception that efficiency equates to effectiveness. They survive in entirely different domains.
Another issue emerges in the admission process for medical schools, where interviews increasingly utilize Zoom or similar platforms. While my institution has adapted better than anticipated by standardizing one-on-one interviews, a lingering concern remains: “What have we lost?” Whatever the answer might be, reversion to previous methods is unlikely, as no mechanism exists to reverse the current social, political, or economic shift.
Part the Fifth: Health Insurance. The ongoing confusion surrounding health insurance continues to create chaos. Insurance typically covers unpredictable losses, such as accidents or premature death. However, needing a doctor is not an infrequent occurrence for most. Professor Zack Cooper of Yale addressed this dilemma in a recent New York Times article titled “$27,000 a Year for Health Insurance. How Can We Afford That?” The blunt truth is, many individuals cannot afford it.
The deliberation regarding the extension of expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies has consumed lawmakers over the past two months, resulting in a government shutdown and sparking Republican unrest. Regrettably, it’s the wrong conversation.
While I advocate for extending the subsidies to assist families in covering insurance premiums, this approach will not resolve the fundamental issue: skyrocketing healthcare costs. This excessive expenditure is precisely why families require subsidies, and it’s financially crippling for low- and middle-income workers.
Throughout most of my working life, I have been fortunate to receive health insurance through my employer. Until recently, I was also fortunate to avoid needing expensive medical treatments. However, that luck diminished four years ago. My out-of-pocket expenses were “minimal,” but that was solely due to my financial means.
Professor Cooper is correct in stating that: “I wish there were a simple way to lower U.S. health spending. Imagining an ideal health system is straightforward, but the scale of our existing system—if the U.S. health system were a nation in terms of spending, it would rank as the third-largest economy—means that there are no easy solutions. Reforms will involve trade-offs. One person’s healthcare expenditure is another person’s healthcare income, providing jobs and paychecks for millions in the healthcare sector. While some increased spending leads to better care, it creates a complex political landscape. Slowing healthcare spending risks creating winners and losers, complicating efforts for reform.
Cooper’s economic recommendations may be predictable and unlikely to yield significant results until we cease conflating consumer rights with those of citizens and patients. This confusion underscores fundamental flaws within the current neoliberal framework. Viable strategies exist, but we must cultivate the wisdom to pursue them. Fortunately, the primary care physicians-in-training at my institution—representing about 80% of our student body—are aware of these issues, particularly within a large and affluent state that still ranks poorly in maternal and child health. This consciousness sparks some hope.
Part the Sixth: An Appreciation of Christopher Lasch. Choosing one’s mentors wisely is crucial for navigating our world with purpose—this principle pertains to individuals across the ideological spectrum. Christopher Lasch has served as one of these guiding figures for me since I encountered The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics upon its release in 1991. Although I was late to its reception, I eventually explored Haven in a Heartless World, The Culture of Narcissism, and other notable works. In his posthumous book, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, Lasch forcefully critiques modern liberalism and sheds light on our contemporary dilemmas.
This perspective resonated deeply with some conservatives and serious individuals on an authentic left. Paul Baumann discusses this in Commonweal, noting: The Real Christopher Lasch: What his conservative champions are missing.
In analyzing Donald Trump’s political appeal, conservatives have recently celebrated Christopher Lasch’s work. Lasch championed populism’s advocacy for traditional morality, family-centered economics, patriotism, and democratic self-governance while denouncing managerialism, income inequality, and the “therapeutic society.” His critical stance towards feminism and opposition to abortion alienated many liberals, as he believed Americans were misled by the seductive promises of sexual liberation espoused by elites and marketers, leading them to neglect the wisdom of inherited culture and religion in organizing their personal lives. “American capitalism has rejected priestly and monarchical hegemony, replacing it with the dominance of business corporations and professional classes,” he asserted. The outcome was a citizenry easily manipulated by both right and left political actors due to their fragile identities and detachment from community.
In a recent Atlantic piece (“The Rising,” November), New York Times columnist David Brooks links Trump’s appeal to the narrative that a permanent educational elite has undermined democracy. While Brooks acknowledges Lasch’s critique of liberal elitism, he seems to downplay the depth of Lasch’s criticism of corporate capitalism and consumerism. Brooks writes, “The traditional American story is built on hope and possibility,” whereas Lasch criticized such clichés as naïve, asserting that modern capitalism’s pursuit of wealth and material progress is ultimately deceptive.
Lasch was a trailblazer in highlighting environmental issues, viewing the “creative destruction” demanded by the economy as a threat to traditional values and democratic fairness. Brooks emphasizes that Trump’s approach fails to address the critical challenges facing his working-class supporters, such as poor health and educational outcomes. Yet, while Brooks advocates for a shift in values to elicit societal transformation, Lasch contended that a change in how we live is necessary to inspire new economic and political perceptions.
Indeed, while David Brooks continues to offer his perspectives, the local Applebee’s still lacks a salad bar. Delving deeper into Lasch’s legacy, Baumann references an article Lasch published in the New York Review of Books in 1988, Reagan’s Victims (archived version), which remains relevant today:
Despite his proclamations defending “traditional values,” Reagan’s policies have continued to undermine those very values. There exists an inherent contradiction between Reagan’s rhetorical endorsement of “family and neighborhood” and his support of unregulated enterprises, which have supplanted neighborhoods with shopping malls and highways. A society controlled by free-market principles, where the “American dream” equates to monetary success, provides little room for “family values.”
Christopher Lasch is merely one of many vital teachers who the Right has attempted to co-opt; Wendell Berry remains another, along with numerous others dating back to the Nashville Agrarians of a century ago. However, those explorations can wait for another time.
Conclusion
As we look toward the future, the issues highlighted here—the challenges in research funding, the plight of endangered species, the implications of modern communication, healthcare conundrums, and the lessons imparted by great thinkers—are interconnected. Navigating these complexities requires awareness, engagement, and a willingness to rethink established norms. We can strive for a more equitable and sustainable future by approaching these problems with open minds and collaborative spirits. Thank you for taking the time to reflect on these pressing matters.
