Reminds me of @siouxsiew.bsky.social’s brilliant TedX on bioluminescence and future of the fight against infectious disease 🦠 🔦 youtu.be/TzuPDBOKPYQ?...

I see. I also see a general, growing imbalance between the public funds going to actual science, and those going to university administration, despite the
posturing against bureaucratic bloat.

One problem is the admin overheads are real. About 4, quite senior, administrators had to be involved in a grant application for NZ$50k! And one question is why didn’t DOGE or ACT go for the administrators vs. the grant funded junior scientists, who are comparatively outstanding value for money?

🙄

I’m thinking also something like BMI (the main non self-report measure) is hard to shift in short term through a small injection of cash. Esp in a trail when transfers not widespread enough to change local supply, e.g. of nutritious food (supply response was crucial in the LatAm UTCs and CCTs)

Yes, I think they found a small, lime 5% incr on child spending. But also have to look at transfers as % of income, probably not much more.

Yes, UK child-related tax credit expansions (partially refundable) showed up in consumption data - more fruit and vegetables, kids activities

You’d better :) JAMA also ran a good, open-minded editorial on it that’s worth a read jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

This is also true. I keep thinking about this strange quote from one of the academics *who designed the RCT*: “Anyone who tries to tell you they know what the data mean is just speculating”.

But young women do not earn more than in the previous generation. As mothers, they may be, but they are also spending a lot more and more reliant on work outsourced in public and private sectors, and partners’ pay has stagnated. Young women now are also less likely to be mothers.

This point is actually key to understanding psychiatric power- over psychologizing, even socializing, the biological as well as vice versa! see Nikolas Rose in Neuro