In this 20 August edition, a wealth of data analysis papers, with many highly informative graphs. A call for China to better balance recognition for its junior scientists, another call for (US?) universities to treat bullying complaints in-depth rather than as a public relation exercise. The “compulsory” current status of the Trump 2.0 wreckage of US science with the Senate blocking the appointment of politicians for grant reviews. And with the absurd, ungrounded, health threatening split of the MMR vaccine. 
Another “compulsory” entry on climate change with a scary graph on the ocean surface temperatures rising way way above the confidence band represented by the previous measurements over 50 years. An interview (why?) of a CEO of the startup QED Science that claims an ability to automatically rank preprints and select the top 1% (why?!). Coïnciding with me receiving an email with a review by Claude of our Bayesian Adversarial Privacy paper! A report on the (defunct Starmer) UK Government cutting on fundamental physics projects. An article featuring the predicted rise in the use of exoskeletons, which I read on my way back from the lodge on Mount Fudji that was renting an exoskeleton to help with the climb! With an optimistic view on the consequences on people’s health and muscles. A short book review on Slobodian’s and Tarnoff’s Muskism, concluding that Musk(ism) lacks a coherent philosophy. (A Musk-read according to the Economist!) A long comment on the sleepless summer of the heatwaves, which led me clearly more tired than usual at the end of the summer break. (With a lot of should. And a focus on methodology.) Another one on the Middle East prospects as a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) hub, which sounds paradoxical in the current geopolitic situation. It made me wonder how sustainable are these SAFs? True, they recycle oils, gases and biomass, rather than extracting “new” oils, but they still pollute the air. And, true, they can fill empty returning tankers, but they divert investment and research from more renewable and less polluting alternatives. Among the actual scientific articles, a long review on the safety and security of LLMs in healthcare (but useless pictures). 
One on the massive floods that occurred in Europe in 1342-1343, possibly caused by volcanic eruptions plus Arctic sea ice retreat, nothing that could occur today of course! With massive socio-economic consequences. (And a great graph, except I do not see the point for the 2D projections. Or for modern state borders.) 
An analysis of intergenerational mobility in Europe with the unsurprising conclusion that it impacts innovation. (Go, Erasmus!) With a multivariate regression I did not investigate (using NUTS but not Andrew’s NUTS!). And graphs of intergenerational mobility per European country, with too many colours to be readable (and the regression line to make sense?). Another data analysis of the Pakistan Genome Resource, with distinctive traits of the many ethnicities of Pakistan. And the discovery of many clinically relevant genes (with a massive avalanche of p-values!).
Archive for human genome
human resource [Nature cover]
Posted in Statistics with tags book cover, diversity, DNA helix, exome, genetic variation, Human Genetics, human genome, human variation, Nature, protein coding, sequencing on August 7, 2020 by xi'an
graph of the day & AI4good versus AI4bad
Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics with tags American elections 2016, awful graphs, electoral maps, genes, genomics, gerrymandering, human genome, Hungary, Nature on July 15, 2018 by xi'an
Apart from the above graph from Nature, rendering in a most appalling and meaningless way the uncertainty about the number of active genes in the human genome, I read a couple of articles in this issue of Nature relating to the biases and dangers of societal algorithms. One of which sounded very close to the editorial in the New York Times on which Kristian Lum commented on this blog. With the attached snippet on what is fair and unfair (or not).
The second article was more surprising as it defended the use of algorithms for more democracy. Nothing less. Written by Wendy Tam Cho, professor of political sciences, law, statistics, and mathematics at UIUC, it argued that the software that she develops to construct electoral maps produces fair maps. Which sounds over-rosy imho, as aiming to account for all social, ethnic, income, &tc., groups, i.e., most of the axes that define a human, is meaningless, if only because the structure of these groups is not frozen in time. To state that “computers are impervious to the lure of power” is borderline ridiculous, as computers and algorithms are [so far] driven by humans. This is not to say that gerrymandering should not be fought by technological means, especially and obviously by open source algorithms, as existing proposals (discussed here) demonstrate, but to entertain the notion of a perfectly representative redistricting is not only illusory, but also far from democratic as it shies away from the one person one vote at the basis of democracy. And the paper leaves us on the dark as to whom will decide on which group or which characteristic need be represented in the votes. Of course, this is the impression obtained by reading a one page editorial in Nature [in an overcrowded and sweltering commuter train] rather than the relevant literature. Nonetheless, I remain puzzled at why this editorial was ever published. (Speaking of democracy, the issue contains also warning reports about Hungary’s ultra-right government taking over the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.)
