Author: Art Diamond

Do Graeber’s “Bullshit Jobs” Thrive in Innovative Dynamism?

Last week I participated in a panel on “Freedom and Abundance” with Bri Wolf at an I.H.S. Symposium on “The Future of Liberalism.” As a small part of my presentation (and also in my Openness book), I claim that innovative dynamism creates more jobs than it destroys, and that the new jobs are generally better jobs than the old jobs.

After the panel Bri asked me how I respond to David Graeber’s book Bullshit Jobs. I vaguely remembered hearing of the book, and told her I would look into it. What follows is my brief, quick, edited response.

Graeber claimed that a large number of jobs in the for-profit sector are purposeless, demoralizing “bullshit” jobs. I do think that there are some bullshit jobs, but think that they are much more common in the government and non-profit sectors than in the for-profit sector. There are some in the for-profit sector, but I would argue that the number is diminishing, and many of them are due to labor unions and government regulations, that protect bullshit jobs from being eliminated.

Where innovative dynamism is allowed to function unbound, the trend is toward more meaningful jobs. Two of the important technological innovations of the last several decades have been computers and the internet. Erik Brynjolfsson and co-authors wrote a few papers showing that an important effect has been to flatten the hierarchy at a great many firms. This eliminates much of the middle management that Graeber identifies as one main location of bullshit jobs.

I also looked the book up on Wikipedia and noticed that a couple of empirical papers have been written that raise doubts about some of the claims in the book.

The book seems to have gotten enough attention to justify a longer more serious critique than I am giving it in this blog entry. But I humor myself that I have bigger fish to fry, namely my mission to see if I can help nudge the healthcare mess more toward being a system of innovative dynamism.

Some of Erik Brynjolfsson’s relevant co-authored articles, alluded to above, are:

Bresnahan, Timothy F., Erik Brynjolfsson, and Lorin M. Hitt. “Information Technology, Workplace Organization and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117, no. 1 (2002): 339-76.

Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Lorin M. Hitt. “Beyond Computation: Information Technology, Organizational Transformation and Business Performance.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 4 (Fall 2000): 23-48.

Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Lorin M. Hitt. “Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence.” Review of Economics and Statistics 85, no. 4 (Nov. 2003): 793-808.

David Graeber’s book is:

Graeber, David. Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018.

My book is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

If Universities Disbanded Would Learning and Discovery Cease?

The university is a medieval institution that in many ways in recent decades has become less efficient and less supportive of diversity of ideas. some analysts are calling for fundamental change in universities, maybe even the defunding of universities and the creation of alternative institutions to carry out the legitimate functions of universities. See Richard Vedder’s recent book Let Colleges Fail.

What are those functions? The two most important are 1) educate and 2) create new knowledge. Some, e.g., Christensen and Eyring in The Innovative University, identify a third function as providing a memorable and enjoyable early-adulthood experience of peer-camaraderie.

If universities were disbanded, could these functions be well-done by other institutions? Philip Hamburger in a passage quoted below points out that a huge store of diverse knowledge is now available on through the internet. Some of it is especially designed to help teach a variety of subjects at a variety of levels. With a basic knowledge of reading and of how to access the internet, the dedicated autodidact is not limited in what he can learn.

If universities were disbanded, could the creation of new knowledge continue? Here there is even greater uncertainty, but we have some proofs of concept of how alternative institutions and activities might fill the gap. In the early days of the Royal Society many of the members were not associated with any university. Many members pursued science in their spare time, with their own funds.

New forms of peer review could be tried that might allow anyone the chance to participate as citizen scientists. The new Journal of the Academy of Public Health will publish peer review comments along with the original article. Many scholars and citizen scientists are finding Substack a fruitful platform for publishing their ideas. Substack calls itself “a new economic engine for culture.”

Much science has been done, and can still be done, in entrepreneurial ventures and in industry. Terence Kealey documented the history and made the case. More science would be done by those seeking practical applications, and less by those seeking useless, but pretty, theory. Milton Friedman condemned NSF funding of economics, because it made economics too mathematical.

Science would be more highly valued and would produce more value.

(p. A15) Academic institutions think they have a problem and that its name is Donald Trump. But he’s only the beginning of their problems. The difficulties are systemic, not only legal or political, and that means it’s time to reconsider what higher education should look like.

. . .

. . ., although today the immediate threat comes from the Trump administration, academic institutions are fragile because knowledge is now available through the internet and artificial intelligence. For balanced inquiry, even academics increasingly look outside their universities.

For the full commentary see:

Philip Hamburger. “Don’t Just Fix Higher Education, Reconstitute It.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., June 3, 2025): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 2, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

The sources mentioned in my comments are:

Christensen, Clayton M., and Henry J. Eyring. The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the inside Out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Friedman, Milton. “An Open Letter on Grants” Newsweek, May 18, 1981, 99.

Kealey, Terence. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.

Vedder, Richard. Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 2025.

Kennedy Defends Patients’ Freedom to Try “Experimental Therapies”

I agree with Kennedy that people with diseases or conditions that cannot be cured by mainstream medicine have the right try experimental therapies, and should be allowed what some are calling “health freedom.” For those who want certification of safety, private labels would emerge if the government exited from its role of allowing or banning. In the unregulated supplement business, multiple such organizations exist, e.g., the United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP).

If the public decides the Kennedy/Diamond position is too radical, a step in the right direction would be for the government to provide informational certification of therapies or providers, but not to mandate that patients use only those therapies and providers.

(p. A1) Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently declared that he wanted to expand access to experimental therapies but conceded that they could be risky or fraudulent.

In a podcast with Gary Brecka, who describes himself as a longevity expert, Mr. Kennedy vowed to end what he called the Food and Drug Administration’s war with alternative medicine. He said that would include stem cells, vitamins, peptides and chelation therapy, which involves removing heavy metals from the blood.

“If you want to take an experimental drug — you can do that, you ought to be able to do that,” Mr. Kennedy said.

“And of course you’re going to get a lot of charlatans, and you’re going to get people who have bad results,” he added. “And ultimately, you can’t prevent that either way. Leaving the whole thing in the hands of pharma is not working for us.”

Mr. Kennedy cited his own experience at a clinic in Antigua, where he said he received a stem cell treatment that “enormously” eased his neurological condition, spasmodic dysphonia, which affects his voice and has few treatment options.

. . .

(p. A11) Neither Mr. Kennedy nor the F.D.A. has released a formal plan to change agency standards for stem cell treatments, which have typically been reviewed by the agency as individual therapies to treat a specific disease.

Widening overall access could also happen informally if the agency decided to relax enforcement, an approach the F.D.A. used in the past to indicate that it wouldn’t crack down on unauthorized products. During the pandemic, for example, the agency allowed providers to retrofit infusion pumps and ventilators to treat hordes of sick patients.

. . .

Dr. Moreno and his colleagues found that the trials with funding from the red meat industry were nearly four times as likely to report favorable or neutral cardiovascular results after eating unprocessed red meat when compared with the studies with no such links.

. . .

“We don’t want to have the Wild West,” Mr. Kennedy said. “We want to make sure that information is out there. But we also want to respect the intelligence of the American people — the capacity of people who explore the outcomes that are going to benefit them the most.”

. . .

The field of stem cell treatments is so complex that the Harvard Medical School created a free course to help doctors navigate patient questions, said Insoo Hyun, the director of life sciences at the Museum of Science in Boston.

. . .

Some providers sidestep the costly, yearslong process of careful work that can lead to an F.D.A. approval. Among them is Dr. Chadwick Prodromos, a Chicago doctor who offers stem cell treatments in Antigua. Mr. Kennedy welcomed him warmly at the March meeting, Dr. Raizman recalled. Reached for comment, Dr. Prodromos’s office said that he was in Antigua doing treatments and was not available.

. . .

A website for Dr. Prodromos’s clinic says that he and colleagues offer injections in Antigua into the joints, back, neck, scalp, penis and pelvic floor for an array of conditions including autism, thinning hair and lupus. He uses AlloRX cells, which are derived from the umbilical cord, in a manner that in the United States would require an F.D.A.-cleared clinical trial.

People can seek out unregulated treatments using their own cells that are processed, purified and amplified in different ways. They can also find treatments using others’ cells that vary widely in quality and sterility.

Some low-quality clinics process cells in a back room, which is the opposite of a clinical-grade cell processing site. Dr. Hyun said he recently toured one in the Netherlands that used specialized air filtering, layers of gowns and a ban on bacteria-laden cellphones in their sterile area. “It’s kind of like you’re entering a space station,” he said.

For the full story see:

Christina Jewett. “‘Charlatans’ No Reason to Curb Untested Drugs, Kennedy Says.” The New York Times (Fri., June 6, 2025): A1 & A11.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 5, 2025, and has the title “Kennedy Says ‘Charlatans’ Are No Reason to Block Unproven Stem Cell Treatments.”)

Computer Chip Industrial Policy Subsidies Are an Unfair Waste of Taxpayer Funds

An “industrial policy” occurs when the federal government attempts to pick a technology that will be important in the future, and then subsidize it. T.J. Rodgers is an insider in the computer chip industry and has written a credible op-ed analyzing two attempts at industrial policy in his industry, the Sematech consortium in 1987, and the Chips and Science Act in 2022.

He makes a compelling case that Sematech did not work and that the Chips and Science Act is not working either.

Rodgers gives us more evidence that Secretary of the Treasury and Harvard President Larry Summers was right when he wrote “the government is a crappy venture capitalist.”

If the feds’ industrial policy on computer chips has failed, why do we think its industrial policy on cancer cures will succeed? (Nixon and Biden’s cancer “moonshots” amounted to picking, and then subsidizing, what they hoped would be cancer cures.)

By the way, when Rodgers stood up against welfare to his industry, he appears to have been an exemplar of Robert Nozick’s ideal CEO: maximizing profits subject to ethical side-constraints.

(p. A15) My mother was a fifth-grade teacher in Oshkosh, Wis. She earned $25,000 a year. Why should chip companies, some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, take money from her and other ordinary citizens? Today’s massive $280 billion Chips and Science Act of 2022, the latest semiconductor welfare program, is even less justified than Sematech was.

. . .

To my knowledge, Sematech contributed nothing of note to U.S. semiconductor technology. Its Final Report in 1997 served up platitudes about “catching up with Japan” and fostering “industry cooperation.”

Decades later, the Semiconductor Industry Association—now a group of lobbyists in Washington—began “saving” the chip industry again. This time the target is China, despite the fact that its best wafer foundry is SMIC, an also-ran in the foundry business. China is less a competitive threat today than Japan was in 1987.

. . .

Today, 100 high-performance computers can be put on one chip. The companies that know how to design 100-billion-transistor chips for a critical function such as artificial intelligence are much more valuable than the companies that carve commodity chips out of silicon wafers, like those in China. While the biggest chip-manufacturing company in China is worth $54 billion, a single U.S. chip company, Nvidia, is worth $3.4 trillion—58 times as much—and it doesn’t even make its own chips. Why are we doing this again?

For the full commentary see:

T.J. Rodgers. “Semiconductor Subsidies? Tried and Failed.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., June 4, 2025): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 3, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

Robert Nozick discusses ethical side constraints in:

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1974.

The Chicago School of Economics Was Once Uniquely Focused on Real World Problems

The Chicago School of Economics, most associated with Milton Friedman and George Stigler, saw itself as different from all the other top graduate programs in economics. At Chicago, the priority was solving applied problems, and only as much mathematics and theory should be used as was necessary to solve them. The other schools prioritized mathematical puzzle-solving and mathematical rigor and sophistication.

For those who might suspect Chicago was full of itself, the non-Chicago economists Arjo Klamar and David Colander dispelled the suspicion in their The Making of an Economist. After thorough interviewing and surveying of graduate students at the five or six top graduate programs, they concluded that graduate students at all but Chicago were cynically discouraged to realize that they were being trained to solve mathematical puzzles, while only those at Chicago still felt that they were being trained to matter in the real world.

I noticed that a recent obituary for the economist Stanley Fischer quotes Fischer as stating some diplomatic confirmation of the Klamar and Colander conclusion:

After earning his Ph.D. at M.I.T. in 1969, Mr. Fischer moved to the University of Chicago as a postdoctoral researcher and assistant professor. “At M.I.T. you did the mathematical work,” he told The New York Times in 1998, “and at Chicago you asked the question of how this applies to the real world” (Hagerty 2025, p. A17).

Alas, I fear that what was once true, is true no longer. I fear that if Klamar and Colander were to repeat their study today, they would find that Chicago has joined the other top programs in prioritizing mathematical puzzle-solving and mathematical rigor and sophistication.

The obituary of Stanley Fischer, quoted above, is:

James R. Hagerty. “Stanley Fischer, 81, Economist Who Helped Defuse Crises, Dies.” The New York Times (Mon., June 2, 2025): A17.

(Note: the online version of the Steve Lohr article was updated June 10, 2025, and has the title “Stanley Fischer, Who Helped Defuse Financial Crises, Dies at 81.”)

The Klamar and Colander book mentioned above is:

Klamer, Arjo, and David Colander. The Making of an Economist. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990.

“Gold Standard” RCT Studies Do Not Always Agree on Broad Issues

Randomized double-blind clinical trials (RCTs) are usually labeled the “gold standard” of medical evidence. But any given clinical trial can be done in an infinite number of ways. The length and duration of the RCT can vary. The eligibility requirements can vary. The definition of the placebo or comparison treatment can vary.

So on the broad issue of whether red meat is good for the heart, an RCT that compares the heart effects of red meat versus the heart effects of chicken, can yield different results than an RCT that compares the heart effects of red meat versus the heart effects of a plant-based diet.

Both RCTs might be competently done, involving no dishonesty or fraud.

We tend to overgeneralize the results of an RCT, for instance saying “red meat is heart healthy,” or “red meat is not heart healthy.” Whereas all we are justified in saying is “red meat is equally heart healthy as chicken” and “read meat is less heart healthy than a plant-based diet.”

Since RCTs are expensive and time-consuming, physicians and patients will often have to choose between treatments where no RCT has been done where the researchers made the choices that are most relevant to the patient’s situation.

And in an environment where RCT costs are high and funding is scarce, are researchers to be condemned if among the myriad varying ways of setting up the RCT, they choose the ways most likely to yield the results that will be appealing to their funder?

The article quoted below, in passages I did not quote, assumes this is only an issue with industry-funded research. But government funding review panels also have preferred outcomes. For example, Charles Piller in Doctored has recently documented that government funders have been more likely to fund RCTs that support the amyloid hypothesis of the cause of Alzheimer’s.

So is there hope for those who want to take effective action against dire disease? Yes, we can recognize that not all sound actionable evidence comes from RCTs. We can stop mandating Phase 3 trials, so that a more diverse assortment of plausible therapies can be explored. We can encourage diverse, decentralized funding sources.

(p. D6) In a review published last week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, scientists came to a concerning conclusion. Red meat appeared healthier in studies that were funded by the red meat industry.

. . .

Past research funded by the sugar industry, for instance, has downplayed the relationship between sugar and health conditions like obesity and heart disease. And studies funded by the alcohol industry have suggested that moderate drinking could be part of a healthy diet.

Miguel López Moreno, a researcher at Francisco de Vitoria University in Spain who led the new analysis, said in an email that he wanted to know if similar issues were happening with the research on unprocessed red meat.

. . .

Dr. Moreno and his colleagues found that the trials with funding from the red meat industry were nearly four times as likely to report favorable or neutral cardiovascular results after eating unprocessed red meat when compared with the studies with no such links.

. . .

These differing results may have stemmed from how the studies were set up in the first place, Dr. Tobias wrote in an editorial for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that accompanied the new study.

Individual nutrition studies can be good at showing how the health effects of certain foods compare with those of other specific foods. But to demonstrate whether a particular food, or food group like red meat, is good or bad for health in general, scientists must look at the results from many different studies that compare it to all possible food groups and diets.

The new review showed that, on the whole, the industry-funded red meat studies neglected to compare red meat to the full range of foods people might eat — including food we know to be good for the heart like whole grains or plant-based protein sources such as tofu, nuts or legumes. Instead, many of the studies compared unprocessed red meat to other types of animal protein like chicken or fish, or to carbohydrates like bagels, pasta or rice.

The independently funded studies, on the other hand, compared red meat to “the full spectrum” of different diets — including other types of meat, whole grains and heart-healthy plant foods like soy products, nuts and beans — Dr. Tobias said. This more comprehensive look offers a fuller picture of red meat’s risks or benefits, she said.

. . .

A spokeswoman for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said in an email that “beef farmers and ranchers support gold standard scientific research,” and that both animal and plant sources of protein can be part of a heart-healthy diet.

For the full story see:

Caroline Hopkins Legaspi. “Eyes on the Outcomes Of Red Meat Research.” The New York Times (Tues., May 27, 2025): D6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 20, 2025, and has the title “Is Red Meat Bad for Your Heart? It May Depend on Who Funded the Study.”)

The academic article co-authored by Moreno and mentioned above is:

López-Moreno, Miguel, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, and Alberto Roldán-Ruiz. “Industry Study Sponsorship and Conflicts of Interest on the Effect of Unprocessed Red Meat on Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 121, no. 6 (June 2025): 1246-57.

Some other articles discussing cases where industry funding is alleged to have funded biased research are:

Anahad O’Connor. “Sugar Backers Paid to Shift Blame to Fat.” The New York Times (Tues., Sept. 13, 2016): A1 & ?.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Sept. 12, 2016, and has the title “How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat.”)

Alice Callahan. “Is Fake Meat Superior to the Real Thing?” The New York Times (Tues., Feb. 18, 2025): D7.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Feb. 17, 2025, and has the title “Is Fake Meat Better for You Than Real Meat?”)

Roni Caryn Rabin. “U.S. Wooed Alcohol Industry for a Drinking Study.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., March 18, 2018): 1 & ??.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 17, 2018, and has the title “Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking.”)

The Newest A.I. “Reasoning Models Actually Hallucinate More Than Their Predecessors”

I attended an I.H.S. Symposium last week where one of my minor discoveries was that a wide range of intellectuals, regardless of location on the political spectrum, share a concern for the allegedly damaging labor market effects of A.I.  As in much else I am an outlier–I am not concerned about A.I.

But since so many are concerned, and believe A.I. undermines my case for a better labor market under innovative dynamism, I will continue to occasionally highlight articles that present the evidence and arguments that reassure me.

(p. B1) “Humanity is close to building digital superintelligence,” Altman declared in an essay this week, and this will lead to “whole classes of jobs going away” as well as “a new social contract.” Both will be consequences of AI-powered chatbots taking over all our white-collar jobs, while AI-powered robots assume the physical ones.

Before you get nervous about all the times you were rude to Alexa, know this: A growing cohort of researchers who build, study and use modern AI aren’t buying all that talk.

The title of a fresh paper from Apple says it all: “The Illusion of Thinking.” In it, a half-dozen top researchers probed reasoning models—large language models that “think” about problems longer, across many steps—from the leading AI labs, including OpenAI, DeepSeek and Anthropic. They found little evidence that these are capable of reasoning anywhere close to the level their makers claim.

. . .

(p. B4) Apple’s researchers found “fundamental limitations” in the models. When taking on tasks beyond a certain level of complexity, these AIs suffered “complete accuracy collapse.” Similarly, engineers at Salesforce AI Research concluded that their results “underscore a significant gap between current LLM capabilities and real-world enterprise demands.”

Importantly, the problems these state-of-the-art AIs couldn’t handle are logic puzzles that even a precocious child could solve, with a little instruction. What’s more, when you give these AIs that same kind of instruction, they can’t follow it.

. . .

Gary Marcus, a cognitive scientist who sold an AI startup to Uber in 2016, argued in an essay that Apple’s paper, along with related work, exposes flaws in today’s reasoning models, suggesting they’re not the dawn of human-level ability but rather a dead end. “Part of the reason the Apple study landed so strongly is that Apple did it,” he says. “And I think they did it at a moment in time when people have finally started to understand this for themselves.”

In areas other than coding and mathematics, the latest models aren’t getting better at the rate that they once did. And the newest reasoning models actually hallucinate more than their predecessors.

For the full commentary see:

Christopher Mims. “Keywords: Apple Calls Today’s AI ‘The Illusion of Thinking’.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., June 14, 2025): B1 & B4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 13, 2025, and has the title “Keywords: Why Superintelligent AI Isn’t Taking Over Anytime Soon.” In the original print and online versions, the word “more” appears in italics for emphasis.)

Sam Altman’s blog essay mentioned above is:

Altman, Sam. “The Gentle Singularity.” In Sam Altman blog, June 10, 2025, URL: https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity.

The Apple research article briefly summarized in a passage quoted above is:

Shojaee, Parshin, Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Maxwell Horton, Samy Bengio, Mehrdad Farajtabar. “The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models Via the Lens of Problem Complexity.” Apple Machine Learning Research, June 2025, URL: https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking.

Puzzling Studies Claim Economic Downturns Encourage Innovation

A recent paper co-authored by Talay joins several other studies (e.g., Anthony 2009 and Field 2011) in claiming that economic downturns encourage economic innovation.

I have always found these studies deeply puzzling. When I acquire infinite time, I plan to hunker down and try to figure out what is going on.

My initial hypothesis is that downturns do not actually help innovators, but that those entrepreneurs who persist in bringing new goods to market during a downturn either have higher levels of perseverance or else have better new goods.

In other words the puzzling results are due to a selection issue–other things are not equal, and downturns do not encourage innovation.

The WSJ article that summarizes the recent paper is:

Lisa Ward. “When a Recession Helps Product Launch.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., June 17, 2025): B6.

(Note: the online version of the WSJ article has the date June 12, 2025, and has the title “Yes or No: It’s Smart to Launch a New Product in a Recession.”)

The recent academic published paper co-authored by Talay and summarized in The Wall Street Journal article mentioned and cited above is:

Talay, M. Berk, Koen Pauwels, and Steven H. Seggie. “Why and When to Launch New Products During a Recession: An Empirical Investigation of the U.K. FMCG Industry and the U.S. Automobile Industry.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 52, no. 2 (March 2024): 576-98.

The two books cited above that support the claim that downturns encourage innovation are:

Anthony, Scott D. The Silver Lining: An Innovation Playbook for Uncertain Times. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2009.

Field, Alexander J. A Great Leap Forward: 1930s Depression and U.S. Economic Growth, Yale Series in Economic and Financial History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.

Avoiding a Market Test Reduces Efficiency and Innovation in Higher Education

Deirdre McCloskey argues that to flourish we need market-tested innovation. Ivy League universities are increasingly funded through semi-automatic government funding, avoiding a market test, and allowing the growth of administrative bloat, the monopolization of faculties by the ideological left, and the canceling of any surviving voices that are insufficiently politically correct and woke.

(p. A15) A social-media post last month from the Trump administration triggered fainting spells throughout the academy. The National Institutes of Health, which funds biomedical research, announced that it is reducing the amount of money the government pays grant recipients for overhead costs.

. . .

The labor economist Richard Vedder thinks this is exactly the shock to the system that higher education needs. “Of course the universities with heavy research grants are going crazy over this,” he told me. “But if you talk to anyone at a university, you know that those overhead costs are vastly inflated compared with the true marginal cost, or extra cost, to the university doing the research.” He added that many schools collect so much overhead money that they give some of it back to researchers as an incentive to apply for more research grants. “It’s kind of a con game, all based on false assumptions and faulty economics,” Mr. Vedder says. A nonnegotiable uniform rate would be far more efficient.

In a . . . book, “Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education,” Mr. Vedder argues that one of the biggest problems with higher ed today is that colleges aren’t sufficiently disciplined by market forces. The result is too much administrative bloat subsidized by the government. His subtitle is a reference to the free-market economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), who described capitalism as a process of “creative destruction” whereby markets reallocate resources from unproductive to productive uses. “It’s worked pretty well for American business,” Mr. Vedder said. “Why don’t we have it for higher ed?”

One problem, the book explains, is that universities are essentially wards of the state. “Colleges and universities are dominated by people operating outside of the normal profit-oriented private market economy,” Mr. Vedder writes. By his calculations, the productivity of university employees over the past 50 years has declined not only in comparison with the average U.S. worker but also in absolute terms. It took more faculty and staff to educate a college student in 2021 than it did in 1972.

For the full commentary see:

Jason L. Riley. “How Trump Plans to Shake Up Higher Education.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, March 5, 2025): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date March 4, 2025, and has the title “Trump Plans to Shake Up Higher Education.”)

The Vedder book discussed by Riley is:

Macedo, Stephen, and Frances Lee. In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2025.

McCloskey discusses market-tested innovation in:

McCloskey, Deirdre N. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital, Transformed the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Citizen Scientist Tim Friede Is Now “Director of Herpetology” at Centivax Startup

An earlier blog entry told the story, quoting The New York Times, of citizen scientist Tim Friede who injected himself with venom from multiple snakes, and allowed many to bite him, in order to develop antibodies that would protect him from all snake bites, and allow scientist Jacob Glanville to create a universal snakebite antivenom.

Now The Wall Street Journal has run a similar story, but adds a minor satisfying twist. The scientist Jacob Glanville has co-founded a startup called Centivax to develop the universal antivenom, and Friede is Centivax’s “director of herpetology.”

The Wall Street Journal article is:

Nidhi Subbaraman. “A Universal Antivenom, From a Man Bitten by Snakes 200 Times.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., June 14, 2025): C5.

(Note: the online version of the WSJ article has the date June 10, 2025, and has the title “A Man Let Snakes Bite Him 200 Times. His Blood Inspired a Universal Antivenom.”)

“Flaws in the Peer Review System”

The flaws in the scientific journal peer review system undermine the argument that the freedom of individual patients should be subordinated to the judgements of “science.” A substantial, and not only recent, literature exposes a variety of flaws of the system. A recent impactful example is the failure of major medical journals to act in a timely manner to retract many Alzheimer’s studies where fraudulent images have been documented.

This impactful example is documented in painful detail in Charles Piller’s Doctored. The impact is that approaches to Alzheimer’s besides the mainstream’s amyloid hypothesis, have been suppressed, which may have slowed alternative effective therapies against the dread disease.

(p. C4) Suspicion of science journals was supercharged during the Covid pandemic, when most of them broadly supported mandates and lockdowns. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, now the head of the National Institutes of Health, was among the most prominent critics of such policies. He gained attention as a co-author of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated letting Covid spread, conferring “herd immunity” on the population, only to see his work shunned by the major science journals.

. . .

The peer review system, in which a paper must go through scrutiny from experts, is intended as a form of quality control. But critics suggest that editors tilt the process toward papers that reflect their own favored results. In a May [2025] interview at the Hoover Institution, Bhattacharya said, “Folks think that if it is published in a top peer-reviewed journal, therefore it must be true, and that’s actually inaccurate.” In reality, he argued, “If I’m lucky the journal editor will send it out to two or three peer review editors, chosen by the editor. If they’re friendly with the editor, they’ll send it to friendly peer reviewers.”

Marty Makary, now the head of the Food and Drug Administration, was another prominent critic of science and medical journals during the pandemic. He said that some journals are captured by industry and others by groupthink. At NEJM and JAMA, “it’s clear that it was a group of like-minded friends, many of whom trained together or worked in the same hospital system,” Makary said. “Why should a small group of people be the gatekeepers of which research is read by most doctors in America?”

A 2023 paper in the journal PNAS on “scientific censorship by scientists” found flaws in the peer review system. A journal editor can quietly kill a submitted paper by sending it to hostile reviewers, who amplify minor methodological issues in order to reject a paper they disapprove of. “Many criteria that influence scientific decision-making, including novelty, interest, ‘fit,’ and even quality, are often ambiguous and subjective, which enables scholars to exaggerate flaws or make unreasonable demands to justify rejection of unpalatable findings,” the PNAS study found.

Often, part of what makes a paper “unpalatable” is its perceived politics. Science journals, like academia in general, have drawn increasing criticism for progressive bias. For example, in 2022 the journal Nature Human Behavior published an editorial stating that “considerations of harm can occasionally supersede the goal of seeking or sharing new knowledge,” including research that “may—inadvertently—stigmatize individuals or human groups” or be “discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic.”

“If anything gets published that doesn’t reflect the expected political view, then there is a public campaign to retract the paper,” said Luana Maroja, a professor of biology at Williams College. “Many times, they are successful.”

“I’ve received an anonymous peer review that said, ‘I’m afraid of what these findings will do for the laudable progressive moral agenda,’” said Cory Clark, a behavioral scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and lead author of the PNAS paper. Many researchers, she found, don’t bother asking questions that might lead to “wrong” answers, and if they do, they often don’t try to publish because they’ll only face resistance and blowback. Clark is now doing a study of journal editors, most of whom, she said, fear getting attacked or ostracized themselves.

. . .

Donald Trump’s campaign for president in 2016 spurred some science journals to make political endorsements for the first time. Nature, a U.K.-based journal, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Editorials in the Lancet referred to the first Trump administration as “anti-scientific” and called the 2020 election “a fight for the health of the nation.” In a pre-election editorial in 2020, the NEJM called the Trump administration “dangerously incompetent,” writing: “We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs.”

For the full story see:

Pamela Paul. “How Scientific Journals Became MAGA’s Latest Target.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., June 14, 2025): C1 & C4.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 13, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

The PNAS article briefly summarized in a passage quoted above is:

Clark, Cory J., Lee Jussim, Komi Frey, Sean T. Stevens, Musa al-Gharbi, Karl Aquino, J. Michael Bailey, Nicole Barbaro, Roy F. Baumeister, April Bleske-Rechek, David Buss, Stephen Ceci, Marco Del Giudice, Peter H. Ditto, Joseph P. Forgas, David C. Geary, Glenn Geher, Sarah Haider, Nathan Honeycutt, Hrishikesh Joshi, Anna I. Krylov, Elizabeth Loftus, Glenn Loury, Louise Lu, Michael Macy, Chris C. Martin, John McWhorter, Geoffrey Miller, Pamela Paresky, Steven Pinker, Wilfred Reilly, Catherine Salmon, Steve Stewart-Williams, Philip E. Tetlock, Wendy M. Williams, Anne E. Wilson, Bo M. Winegard, George Yancey, and William von Hippel. “Prosocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, no. 48 (Nov. 20, 2023): e2301642120.

Piller’s Doctored book that I mention in my introductory comments is:

Piller, Charles. Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s. New York: Atria/One Signal Publishers, 2025.