I recently angered some people by saying that if I had any choice in the matter, I wouldn’t want my taxes to pay for research on the description of smell in the English literature. Some have taken that to mean that I want to defund all of academia. So let’s talk about it. Should we defund academia?
I appreciate all experts in English literature; it’s part of our cultural heritage, like many other things worth preserving. Acknowledging my own limitations, I avoid commenting on topics like English literature or dark matter, as they are beyond my expertise. So why doesn’t SH recognize hers? Continue reading The new poster girl of the technocrats→
Pubmed is again down today following some cryptic messages last week.
Pubmed not accessible. I don’t believe in any geo block. Maybe a DDOS attack?
Medpage has a longer article discussing the fate of the database given the fact that the Trump administration has signaled its hostility to the NIH and research in general.
1.Make it inaccessible. …This one is straightforward: lay off everyone involved in maintaining PubMed and take it offline.
2. Stop updating it. Similar to the first one … stop adding new publications to the database…
3. Change the indexing system for journals. This could be weaponized to punish journals… [for] research on certain health policies and populations, and so on.
4. Strip the indexing system for journals. .. This would be the “flood the zone” method. … This would remove the limited safeguards we have in place so no quality checks would exist at all.
5. Remake it. Delete what you don’t like…
I think this is an emergency call for the EU to fund future Pubmed indexing.
With the help of chatGPT, the log files at zonemaster.net and hacker news, the most likely scenario is now a misconfigured firewall upfront of the 3 NIH name server.
Can also confirm that the search for “transgender” at nih.gov is redirected to the search page.
This is quote from Gelman and King in the Chronicle
The publication process in social science is broken. Articles in prestigious journals use flawed data, employ questionable research practices, and reach illogical conclusions. Sometimes doubts over research become public, such as in the case of honesty scholar Francesca Gino, but most of the time research malpractice goes unacknowledged and uncorrected. Yet scholars know it is there, hiding below the surface, leading to frustration and cynicism. Research “has become a game of publication and not science,” as one professor wrote in response to a survey on research practices.
They want a “replay review” like in professional sports.
Once a publication receives a specified number of citations, it would receive an independent review. These reviews would then be published in full, along with author responses, so that readers have additional guidance on how to interpret the initial publication.
It is an interesting idea – basically a mandatory PubPeer review…
A new paper in JAMA, distributed by Reuters and discussed at Bluesky has sparked a lot of interest showing a higher than expected infant mortality in states after adoption of abortion bans with observed 6.26 vs expected 5.93 per 1000 live births.
The reasons are not fully clear while methodological artifacts can be largely excluded
The results are consistent with clinician and media reports documenting denial of terminations for non viable pregnancies … The increase in infant mortality rate due to non congenital causes is less straight forward and warrants further investigation. One possibility is that these increases may result from the disproportionate impact of abortion bans on already disadvantaged populations, who are at higher risk of infant mortality, or from delays in receiving timely medical interventions.
The online discussion includes
– political and racial Implications as many users argue that this outcome was a foreseeable consequence of the Dobbs decision, with some claiming it aligns with systemic racial discrimination.
– criticism of “Pro-Life” sance. Many commenters criticize the anti-abortion movement, stating that its real goal was not to protect life but to exert control over marginalized populations.
– There are concerns about women’s healthcare: Some responses emphasize that these bans exacerbate existing disparities in maternal and infant health, particularly for Black women.
_ Responses range from outrage and frustration to calls for political action against policymakers responsible for the bans.
Not mentioned in the paper: Maternal death rate according to sepsis increased in Texas( Texas provided most observations in the new JAMA paper).
Source 23/2/25 https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-maternal-mortality-analysis In the two earlier years, there were 79 maternal hospital deaths. In the two most recent, there were 120.
When I tell friends outside medicine that many papers published in medical journals are misleading because of methodological weaknesses they are rightly shocked. Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation. Errors are so varied that a whole book on the topic,7 valuable as it is, is not comprehensive
In 2025 we are talking not about one but dozen books. You can now find a peer-reviewed article to support almost any opinion, effectively proving it to be “true” in your view—whether you are a climate change denier, an anti-vaxxer or an advocate for tobacco smoke.
This phenomenon mirrors the way people interpret religious texts, such as the Bible, to justify vastly different beliefs. Just as proponents of the prosperity gospel find scriptural backing for wealth accumulation, Franciscans draw upon the same text to support their vow of poverty. Or the recently disputed ordo amoris (family is important but migrants can be deported) which is stark contrast to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Back to science and The Atlantic article by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky from where the ocean metaphor originates
… While stating truthfully that the work originated in a peer-reviewed, academic publication, reveals an awkward fact: The scientific literature is an essential ocean of knowledge, in which floats an alarming amount of junk. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but the trash cannot be identified without special knowledge and equipment. And although this problem is long-standing, until the past decade or so, no one with both the necessary expertise and the power to intervene has been inclined to help.
Da haben sich zwar Ausschussmitglieder wie Thomas Jarzombek nochmal dafür stark gemacht, alle Unterlagen zu bekommen. Leider war aber auch das Interesse des Ersatzministers Özdemir nicht allzu hoch, Licht in das Dunkel zu bringen. Das war’s dann, so Jan-Martin Wiarda. Die Ministerin hat sich in die Bedeutungslosigkeit verabschiedet, der Ausschussvorsitzenden Kai Gehring scheidet aus dem Bundestag aus.
Das allgemeine Wissenschaftsklima hat sich in Deutschland gedreht, was nicht zuletzt durch die umstrittenen Antisemitismus Resolution des Bundestages verursacht wurde, die “nicht mit dem Grundrecht auf Meinungsfreiheit zu vereinbaren und daher verfassungswidrig” ist, so das Rechtsgutachten des Bundestages. So sagte auch Walter Rosenthal, Präsident der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz
Die Resolution enthält Forderungen, die auch bei besten Absichten als Einfallstor für Einschränkungen und Bevormundung etwa in der Forschungsförderung verstanden werden könnten.
Nun steht die Wissenschaftsfreiheit also auch nur noch im Grundgesetz aber wird offiziell von den Teilen des BMBF und einigen Parteien im Bundestag als (bitte ankreuzen)
So how can LLMs of all kind now make money of copyrighted text and images bypassing all rules? The Guardian about OpenAI
The developer OpenAI has said it would be impossible to create tools like its groundbreaking chatbot ChatGPT without access to copyrighted material, as pressure grows on artificial intelligence firms over the content used to train their products.
But after the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, he thought harder about what the company was doing. He came to the conclusion that OpenAI’s use of copyrighted data violated the law and that technologies like ChatGPT were damaging the internet. In August, he left OpenAI because he no longer wanted to contribute to technologies that he believed would bring society more harm than benefit.
Are there still copyright rules in place?
Probably. Getty Images is now suing Stable Diffusion, Facebook is using LibGen although they had to pay recently 30m penalties. Universal Music filed a lawsuit against Anthropic and NYT against OpenAI. At least a dozen of court cases are ongoing.
But I haven’t heard so far of any action of a major medical publishers against any AI company (including the company who sued Elbakayan). They must have a different strategy – instead of suing they just sell their content even behind the back of the authors. This is what Christa Dutton found out.
One of those tech companies, Microsoft, paid Informa, the parent company of Taylor & Francis, an initial fee of $10 million to make use of its content “to help improve relevance and performance of AI systems,” according to a report released in May… Another publisher, Wiley, also recently agreed to sell academic content to a tech company for training AI models. The publisher completed a “GenAI content rights project” with an undisclosed “large tech company,” according to a quarterly earnings report released at the end of June
But can publishers just do this without asking authors? authorsalliance.org has an answer.
In a lot of cases, yes, publishers can license AI training rights without asking authors first. Many publishing contracts include a full and broad grant of rights–sometimes even a full transfer of copyright to the publisher for them to exploit those rights and to license the rights to third parties.
Meta employees acknowledged in their internal communications that training Llama on LibGen presented a “medium-high legal risk,” and discussed a variety of “mitigations” to mask their activity.
leading to the paradoxical situation
LibGen and other such pirated libraries make information more accessible, allowing people to read original work without paying for it. Yet generative-AI companies such as Meta have gone a step further: Their goal is to absorb the work into profitable technology products that compete with the originals.
Ein hervorragender Artikel in der ZEIT vom 2.2.2025 von Johannes Böhme erklärt “warum die Welt nach rechts rückt”. Zusammengefasst zunächst
Historische Parallelen. Soziale und wirtschaftliche Umbrüche haben in der Geschichte immer wieder Revolten und populistische Bewegungen hervorgebracht. Die Mechanismen sind oft dieselben: Verdrängung, Angst vor sozialem Abstieg und die Suche nach Schuldigen.
Der gesellschaftliche Bildungsgraben. Der massive Anstieg von Hochschulabsolventen hat eine neue Konfliktlinie geschaffen: Gebildete tendieren eher zu progressiven, kosmopolitischen Werten, während diejenigen ohne akademischen Abschluss sich wirtschaftlich und gesellschaftlich abgehängt fühlen, und den Nährboden für rechtspopulistische Strömungen bilden,
Die Angst vor sozialem Abstieg. Die Globalisierung, Automatisierung und der Strukturwandel in der Arbeitswelt haben viele traditionelle Arbeitsplätze bedroht oder zerstört. Besonders die untere Mittelschicht, die noch viel zu verlieren hat, fühlt sich existenziell bedroht und wendet sich rechten Parteien zu, die einfache Lösungen versprechen. Es ist weniger die Unterschicht, die nichts mehr zu verlieren hat.
Soziale Ungleichheit und relativer Statusverlust. Menschen vergleichen sich vor allem mit ihrem unmittelbaren Umfeld. Wenn die Unterschiede zwischen „oben“ und „unten“ wachsen, entsteht Frustration – besonders, wenn der Aufstieg immer schwieriger wird. Diese Frustration führt zur Suche nach den Ursachen mit Sündenböcken und der Distanzierung von der Gesellschaft.
Die Rolle der sozialen Medien. Rechtspopulistische Parteien konnten durch soziale Netzwerke enorm an Reichweite gewinnen. Es ist der Brandbeschleuniger ohne den der Rechtspopulismus nie die Reichweite und ein “Wir”-Gefühl hätte entwicklen können. Algorithmen verstärken Empörung, Ängste und Verschwörungserzählungen.
Migrationsängste als politisches Mobilisierungsthema. Migranten werden zum zentralen Feindbild erklärt, um gesellschaftliche Ängste zu bündeln. Menschen, die direkten Kontakt zu Migranten haben, sind dabei weniger anfällig für rechte Propaganda sind – die stärkste Ablehnung kommt von denen, die Migration nur aus rechten Medien oder sozialen Netzwerken kennen.
Die Lust an der Zerstörung des politischen Establishments. Viele Wähler rechtspopulistischer Parteien wählen bewusst destruktiv, um das bestehende politische System abzustrafen. Die Hoffnung besteht, dass ein Umbruch ihre eigene gesellschaftliche Position verbessert oder zumindest die Eliten bestraft werden. Dass sie sich dabei selbst viel mehr in das eigene Fleisch schneiden, wird verdrängt.
Das Fehlen politischer Repräsentation. Die Politik ist zunehmend von Akademikern geprägt, während Nicht-Akademiker kaum noch vertreten sind. Das führt zu einem Gefühl der Ohnmacht und des „Nicht-Gehört-Werdens“, das rechtspopulistische Parteien ausnutzen.
Die Schwäche der etablierten Parteien. Traditionelle Parteien haben es versäumt, die Sorgen und Ängste der unteren Mittelschicht ernst zu nehmen. Statt konkrete Antworten auf Globalisierung und soziale Unsicherheit zu bieten, setzen sie oft auf symbolische Politik oder moralische Appelle, die viele Menschen nicht erreichen.
Die Notwendigkeit von Reformen. Die einzige nachhaltige Lösung gegen den wachsenden Rechtspopulismus liegt in weit reichenden Reformen, die soziale Ungleichheit abbauen, wirtschaftliche Sicherheit bieten und den politischen Einfluss breiterer Gesellschaftsschichten wiederherstellen. Eine höhere politische Teilhabe und vor allem wirtschaftliche Sicherheit könnte die Dynamik bremsen.
Daß der Rechtsruck kein isoliertes Phänomen ist, sondern aus der allgemeinen gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung folgt, ist offensichtlich. Und es scheint so, daß dies weltweit sehr ähnliche Prozesse sind. Wenn der Rechtspopulismus in der Tat den Nachschub aus der unteren Mittelschicht und Arbeiterschicht bezieht, dann hat er mit 30% nun fast schon seine maximale Kapazität erreicht. Wierklich gefährlich wird es, wenn die Bewegung nun auch noch auf die weitere Mittelschicht übergreift. Mit der Bundestagsabstimmung am letzten Mittwoch bei der die CDU/CSU zusammen mit der AfD in der Migrationsfrage abstimmte, ist dies nun auch immer wahrscheinlicher (“werden es nach der Wahl wieder machen“).
Zurück zur historischen Parallele: Auch Franz von Papen glaubte. den Rechtspopulismus kontrollieren zu können, was nicht einmal ein halbes Jahr gelang. Die NSDAP erzielte bei der Reichstagswahl 1930 erstmals 18%. Viele der Wähler kamen von der DNVP, wobei die NSDAP zudem von der Agrarkrise profitierte und zunehmend das bürgerliche Lager anzog. Nicht zuletzt die Weltwirtschaftskrise trieb viele Bürger in radikalere politische Bahnen. So erreichte die NSDAP bei den Wahlen 1932 dann auch 37,3%, ihr letzte Wahlergebnis vor dem Ermächtigungsgesetz 1933.
In addition to some programming questions, I have prompted several LLMs for a summary of my longstanding research question “vitamin D supplementation in the newborn period and later allergy”. Here is the elicit response:
Research on vitamin D supplementation in infancy and its relationship to later allergy development has yielded mixed results. Some studies suggest that higher vitamin D intake during the first year of life may increase the risk of atopic conditions later in childhood (Bäck et al., 2009; Hyppönen et al., 2004). These findings are supported by animal studies and epidemiological surveys linking early vitamin D supplementation to allergy development (Wjst, 2006). However, a randomized controlled trial found that high-dose vitamin D supplementation did not prevent allergic sensitization or diseases in infants compared to standard dosage, except for an increased risk of milk allergy in the high-dose group (Rosendahl et al., 2019). Interestingly, this study also observed that infants with high cord blood vitamin D levels had a higher risk of food allergen sensitization. These conflicting results highlight the complex relationship between vitamin D and allergy development, suggesting that both insufficient and excessive vitamin D levels may potentially influence allergic outcomes.
The limitation introduced by “however” is wrong – the whole story is not really conflicting if you read my earlier paper on a paradoxical reaction. I have been a reviewer of the Rosendahl paper and asked them to change their misleading spin. It is basically a triple blind study (the authors believed the opposite fact eg that vitamin D supplementation prevents while it induces allergy). Unfortunately, as Rosendahl et al. did not respond to my complaint, we can now clearly see how the bias of the authors is being injected into the LLM.
I dont know why there is still the discussion of any genuine understanding of LLMs as there is none, see Binz et al.
even though LLMs often achieve state-of-the-art performance on existing benchmarks, it remains debated whether this reflects genuine understanding, or whether they are merely acting like stochastic parrots […] When deciding whether to use an LLM, it is important to recognize that LLMs are simply models of word form distributions extracted from text—not models of the information that people might get from reading that text
Anyway, the workflow suggested by inkenai – putting these PDFs now into NotebookML for further analysis – is excellent.
A new paper by CA Mebane in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry now makes six arguments for why double-blind peer review practices increase vulnerability to scientific integrity lapses by
(1) obscuring data from reviewers is detrimental
(2) obscuring sponsorship makes bias harder to detect
(3) author networks can be revealing
(4) undue trust and responsibility are placed on editors
(5) double-blind reviews are not really all that blind
(6) willful blindness is not the answer to prestige bias.
And here are his 5 recommendations for improving scientific integrity
(1) Require persistent identifiers, i.e., ORCIDs, and encourage
durable email addresses from all authors, not just the corresponding
author
(2) Withhold author information from the review invitation
emails
(3) Conduct the review in the usual single-blind style, with
reviewers having full access to all the same manuscript
materials as the editors, except the cover letter
(4) Cross-review and drop the ‘confidential comments to the editor’
option
(5) Open review reports: Publish the anonymous peer review
reports and author responses as online supplements.
Auch der Papst hat Trump bescheinigt, daß er kein Christ ist [1, 2], nicht viel anders auch die deutschen Protestanten
Der evangelische Theologe Heinrich Bedford-Strohm hat die direkt an Präsident Donald Trump gerichtete Predigt von Bischöfin Mariann Edgar Budde als „leuchtendes Beispiel“ für Mut gewürdigt. „Das war zutiefst biblisch verankerte Prophetie im besten Sinne!“, heißt es in einem Beitrag des Vorsitzenden des Weltkirchenrats und früheren Ratsvorsitzende der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) am Mittwoch auf seinem Facebook-Account.
