Archive for funding

Nature’s menu [12 March 2026]

Posted in Kids, pictures with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 26, 2026 by xi'an


In this issue with a nutrition highlight, some recommendations for healthier options, not particularly surprising:

  • “Morning coffee seems best for heart health“, based on a large longitudinal US study, even though “relationship between coffee consumption and health is unclear”, and especially since this does not impact all-day coffee (and tea?) drinkers.
  • “Go vegan for the gut microbiome“, again based on a relatively large metagenomics study (in the US, the UK, and Italy). Omnivorous get the most diverse microbiomes, but red-meat eaters produce some species linked with IBD and cancers, while vegans host more beneficial bacteria with anti-inflammatory impact. Dairy eaters are also (unsurprisingly) associated with healthier microbiomes. And a connected article in this volume on how changes in the microorganisms in the guts contribute to cognitive decline.
  • “The quest for proteins“, associating the hormone FGF21 as an endocrine signal of protein deprivation, and hence justifying our craving for protein-loaded food. Without concluding at its health consequences.
  • “Sugar rationing reduced diabetes and high blood pressure“, really?! Reminiscing of the post-war (WWII) years in the UK when sugar was rationed. And surveying people born before and after the rationing about their diabetes and hypertension patterns. (Guess what?!)
  • “Ditch the fries, not the mash” as a recommendation to eat potatoes despite the high sugar content of this starchy root (which I very rarely consume, even less in the fried format!). Again based on a huge longitudinal study of 5.2 million people years! The conclusion is still that “replacing total potatoes (…) with whole grains was associated with a lower risk of [type 2 diabetes],”

And a shorter list of recommendations for skin care, away from influencers! Like applying sunscreen, eating a nutrient-dense diet, using a simple, well-balanced moisturizer. Apart from these servings, a continuation of themes met in previous issues

  • an editorial on the three recipients of the 2026 Sony Women in Technology Award with Nature, as part of a series of remarkable women scientists, on the occasion of the International Women’s Day, Xiwen Gong at the University of Michigan, Ellen Roche at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Zhen Xu at the University of Michigan, with a rather un-international location
  • yet another tribune on Epstein!, calling for stricter rules on private funding of research,
  • and yet another on stopping the use of AI in war, which has about as much chance to be heeded as a call to stop the wars (alas!),
  • two further wishful opinion articles calling for action against Trump 2.0, with lots of must and can, but little consideration for the negligence of the rule of law by Agent Orange and his administration…

And an article on how Pokémons inspired future scientists, especially those involved in collecting and classifying.

deep learning in Toulouse [post-doc position]

Posted in pictures, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 25, 2019 by xi'an

An opening for an ERC post-doc position on Bayesian deep learning with Cédric Févotte in Toulouse.

the “myth of the miracle machine”

Posted in Books, University life with tags , , , , , , , on September 13, 2017 by xi'an

In what appears to be a regular contribution of his to Nature, Daniel Sarewitz recently wrote a “personal take on events” that I find quite reactionary, the more because it comes from an academic. And I wonder why Nature chose to publish his opinion piece. Every other month! The arguments of the author is that basic science should be defunded in favour of “use-inspired” research, “mission oriented” programmes, “societal needs and socially valuable knowledge”… The reason being that it is a better use of public money and that scientists are just another interest group that should not be left to its own device. This is not a new tune, calls to cut down funding fundamental research emerge regularly as an easily found culprit for saving “taxpayer money”, and it is the simplest mean of rejecting a research proposal by blaming its lack of clear applicability. Of course, when looking a bit wider, one can check this piece bemoaning the Democrat inclinations of most scientists. Or that one that science should sometimes give way to religion. With the definitive argument that, for most people, the maths behind scientific models are so complex that they must turn to an act of faith… Yes, I do wonder at Nature providing Sarewitz with such a wide-ranging tribune.

OBayes 17 travel support

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 1, 2017 by xi'an

The OBayes 17 conference in Austin, Texas, next December is getting nearer! This post is to advertise for the availability of a dozen travel grants for junior investigators, as detailed on the webpage of the conference. One of those grants will even become an ISBA New Researchers Travel Award for the event! This comes on top of registration and accommodation being quite reasonable, thanks to Peter Mueller’s efforts, and hence makes this conference most affordable and attractive for young researchers. Apply now!!!

why I cannot stand committees’ email debates…

Posted in Statistics, University life with tags , , , , on July 19, 2013 by xi'an

I generally dislike committee work for the amount of useless [or low signal-to-noise] email it induces. In a conference committee I am was part of, a debate started on whether or not we should accept sponsorship from a corporate sponsor and nominate a speaker for the associated lecture (named after a prestigious scientist, not after the sponsor). Some members of the committee went viral about this and inundated us with requests for action and for taking position, to such a level that I eventually reacted with the following email to the initiator of the virus:

Dear Zeno of Elea,

While I stayed away from a debate I was not in the least interested in, the latest emails were so aggressive and borderline insulting that I felt compelled to rise to the bait and to add to an already high level of static noise. When I was asked to join this committee, it was to nominate plenary speakers for a conference, not to debate about the sorry state of the World, nor to hear about your quibble on whether or not accepting sponsor money from one corporate source or another is evil.

On a general basis, I am not interested in being forced into debates in this low-content high-noise format and I cannot stand the invasion of my mailbox by a flow of emails that has turned viral. I hope this point contributes to enlighten you as to why some members of the committee did not reply to earlier emails or to the call for a doodle vote. I am simply not interested. And I do not think any of this gesticulation will have any impact on the sorry state of the World. So please leave me out of this debate.

My incensed reaction is not about the sponsorship issue (which I think is terribly trivial) but (a) about the holier-than-thou attitude that considers that everyone should take a stand, chose one side (with an obvious choice), and be ashamed of one’s lack of involvment, and (b) about using collective emails to enforce this strategy. I am a strong believer in Arrow’s theorem and email debates are adding another magnitude of impossibility to committee decisions.