I have been on a bit of a Eric Weinstein bender lately, and he has some real interesting ideas I think are worth sharing, and possibly discussing. FWIW, I would prefer this thread be about discussing ideas and not making personal attacks like the last thread that was ultimately closed.

Anyways, Eric recently did a podcast with his brother, Bret Weinstein, about Bret's PhD experience that I thought was very interesting. Anyone who knows Bret Weinstein knows him as the professor who was run out of Evergreen State for refusing to buy in to some extreme social justice initiatives by activists at that campus.

However, long before Evergreen in a previous life Bret was an evolutionary biologist graduate student who had a very interesting story, and this podcast was about this story. And it is also about how Eric Weinstein ties his brother's experience into his more general thesis about how academia operates as gatekeepers to suppress disruptive ideas, at the cost of real innovation and scientific integrity.

Specifically they discussed an idea Bret had as a graduate student concerning lab mice used in biomedical research, and predicting how through selective breeding processes the mice had evolved through artificial selection in specific ways that would compromise their effectiveness to be used in biomedical research in the way they currently were being used.

They then discussed how this story was suppressed at the institutional level, including by a leading professor in telomere research (Carol Greider, who would later earn a Nobel Prize for her research on telomeres), who initially had worked with Bret and helped confirm his hypothesis, but later rebuked and supressed his work with the apparent ultimate motive of exploring the subject further on her own and claiming it as completely her own.

A synopsis of the hypothesis (as well as I can remember from the podcast, I haven't read the actual paper yet) is that through artificial selection processes, namely vigorously mating mice when they were very young and then discarding them, breeding labs had evolved strains that were extremely vigorous at a young age (when their selective pressure was highest) but were extremely prone to cancer at older age (when it was irrelevant because they were all dead), and the mechanism for this was evolution of extremely elongated telomeres, so somatic cells would undergo unlimited replications and not undergo senescence like wild type cells do as a protection against cancer.

And the fallout of this work for the biomedical field is that the mice, who had evolved mechanisms to withstand cellular insult at a much greater capacity than wild type mouse (or wild type humans), would underestimate toxic effects in trials. And of course, tying this into Eric Weinstein's ideas about the role of academia as gatekeepers, he argues that the potential disruption to the biomedical industry from this idea was the reason the idea was suppressed. Even when Carol Greider later wrote a paper on elongated lab mouse telomeres, taking complete ownership of the idea to study this as her own, she ignored the whole aspect of how this finding might compromise previous medical study data using mice, and everyone else played along with her and ignored it too.

Anyways, the podcast starts out very slow and then really picks up steam when they get into the actual story. So if anyone has a couple hours to kill and is interested, it really starts ~41 minutes in.

"he argues that the potential disruption to the biomedical industry from this idea was the reason the idea was suppressed"

What were the arguments? I mean outside of a random podcast recommendation and throwing shade on one specific researcher, this seems to be the only part of your post that connects with your larger "I must attack academia| motifs. So what reason did these academics have to ignore important research that might disrupt the biomedical industry? It would make more sense if you are criticizing the biomedical industry for being protective of itself. Capitalism does have those kind of rough edges. So what is the critique, exactly, of academia here?

First off, it isn't a random podcast recommendation. I recommended it specifically because it is a very interesting podcast and it ties directly into my (actually Eric Weinstein's) "motifs of attacking academia" as you put it.

Second, you really can't see what the problem would be if it was revealed the major model organism used to study long-term effects from drug toxicity was actually not a particularly good model, specifically because it would under-estimate toxic effects?

And you really don't find it bizarre that someone could win a Nobel Prize on telomere research, including research showing that laboratory mice had elongated telomeres, most likely due to breeding pressures, and no one subsequently even considered this very simple deduction that it could compromise them as a model organism something worth looking into?

And you really can't imagine how there would be intense pressure on a lot of different fronts to suppress such information, that could cause a situation to play out like this?

Generally, Eric Weinstein argues that academia as currently structured has a perverse incentive is not to advance science per se, but to avoid disrupting the gravy train, and there is active suppression of novel ideas that is stifling scientific progress. He actually talks a lot about how the field of physics specifically (which is an interest of his) has been in a holding pattern for 30 years because the gatekeepers holding the keys refuse to allow any new ideas in. But truth be told when he starts getting into details about physics (which he does) it is technically beyond my capacity to ascertain the validity of his arguments.

Also, specifically he argues the baby boomer generation has been especially pernicious in suppressing following generations to keep the good times rolling for themselves (I am paraphrasing). And he sees his brother's story as one of many anecdotes that support his argument. And this seems to tie into a general "motif" about baby boomer's not handing over the reins.

I didn't take notes as I was listening while driving to work and I don't have a photographic memory, so I can't do the argument complete justice. But I do think I captured the gist of it from a 20,000 foot view, and if anyone is interested the podcast is available.

Also it is pretty easy to find Bret Weinstein's actual article he wrote as a grad student, and Carol Greider's paper that came out a few years later, and weigh the evidence and implications for themselves.

Full disclosure the papers are linked on Reddit in the IDW subforum on a thread devoted to this podcast, but I haven't looked at either yet as I haven't had a chance since I listened to the podcast. I plan on reading the papers and weighing in.

FWIW, Bret Weinstein himself doesn't seem as worked up as Eric about the whole aspect of a colleague further up the food chain taking his idea, running with it, and not acknowledging him. This is the first time he has even talked about it in public (despite having ample opportunity as he has his own podcast and is a regular on Rogan), and only grudgingly at his brother's insistence. It seems this is actually fairly common in the ruthlessly competitive academic world, and he accepts that. His major problem is that he thinks that the suppression of the idea that laboratory mouse might not be as good a model organism as advertised is scientific malfeasance.

In before the race science stuff but I've been doing some thinking lately about race in dogs and cats and how different breeds seem to have different personalities. Siamese are super vocal for example. Huskies are really independent. Little dogs are awful, etc. And I wonder if we can apply those same sorts of ideas to humans?

see, ppl dont mad at you but dont realize its just parody. and just too veiled for them.

So this guy is definitely a moron you shouldn’t be listening to.

I was actually envisioning this thread less as a grab bag for verboten topics, and more focused on actual ideas discussed by Weinstein et. al. If noone is really interested in his ideas, and this thread is very quiet and just mostly me regurgitating podcasts I find interesting, I am ok with that.

If you want to speculate on intelligent human breeding programs maybe we could move such a discussion over to one of the threads with you name in the title? I would be happy to weigh in with my thoughts.

FWIW human breeding programs are actually a fairly common theme addressed in science fiction, and the people controlling the breeding are never portrayed as the good guys in the story.

It would, if anything, over estimate toxic effect wouldn't it? If i read you correctly you're saying these mice are more likely than expected to be susceptible to problems as they age, not less likely. But that's just a guess - science is needed to test any hypothesis.

In any case, yes I seriously doubt anyone is suppressing scientific research into the impact of selection pressure on mice. Far more likely is that there was no credible scientific evidence presented that cast doubt into the safety of drugs which seems to be the case he was trying to make.

No. The theory (at least as I understand it) is the the "problems as they age" are due to having a proneness to developing cancer because they have such vigorous "regenerative" mitotic abilities, with the mechanism being elongated telomeres at the ends of chromosomes.

These "regenerative" abilities would theoretically protect them against toxic drug effects throughout their lifetime up to the point they died from cancer. But again, this is actually a moot point for the mouse itself because the SOP is to kill the mice at a relatively young age (even for mice).

I should (and will) read and post the actual manuscripts that I am talking about when I get a chance (assuming they aren't behind a paywall, like much academic research is)

Eric Weinstein's general argument is that academia serves as gatekeepers to suppress any ideas that upset the apple cart long before they ever reach the point of becoming credible.

I think we can agree in theory this is at least a topic worth exploring? And Bret Weinstein's argument is he encountered extreme institutional resistance when he attempted to do so.

Also, we have had enough drugs recalled after it was discovered postmarket there were toxic effects that were not anticipated by trials (or were covered up, ie. Vioxx) that this lends more validity to the theory. Bret Weinstein actually gave a list of drugs where this happened, although I can't bring them up off the top of my head.

I listened to the podcast you suggested and we discussed but I'd be interested in hearing about his physics thoughts and what he thinks is being suppressed. In the episode I listened to he mentioned string theory but didn't go into any sort of details. So if you had a suggestion for any where he gets into more detail I'd listen. (Despite me thinking that both string theory and Weinstein are problematic).
And orange cats are the best fwiw.

I am currently listening to a podcast he recently did with Garrett lisi (who has a PhD is theoretical physics and is trying to develop his own TOE “theory of everything”) that so far seems to be focused solely on physics, both the technical aspects and the meta of the physics field. The technical aspects are obviously beyond me, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Edit: FWIW Eric Weinstein definitely has an "outsider looking in" approach to physics. If you want someone who approaches the physics field from a more orthodox position from the inside, Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Cal Tech who has a podcast called Mindscape, where he discusses a lot of different things, including going pretty deep in the weeds in various physics topics.

I know about Sean Carroll but I'll pass on the multi-worlds idea. It's came up before in our discussions on determinism.

He interviews other physicists on a variety of topics. Probably even a pod on string theory. But fair enough.

He actually does pods/interviews on subjects adjacent to evolutionary psychology, and shock of all shockers those are the pods I tend to gravitate towards. I actually don't listen much to the physics stuff.

Rogan is definitely an associate of Weinstein, so I think it is ok to put this observation here.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/30/211134...-sanders-trans

So Matthew Iglesias decided to weigh in on Joe Rogan's endorsement of Bernie Sanders despite Rogan being allegedly "transphobic"

In addition to Yglesias actually making a decent case for ideological moderation, what I found most fascinating about this piece is that Yglesias accuses Rogan of being transphobic among other charges of bigotry, but doesn't back it up a single accusation with a quote or hyperlink (at least none that I can find. Maybe it is there and I am missing it?). Strangely enough, he does provide a hyperlink of Rogan saying positive things about Sanders. So this inconsistency is "noted".

Does anyone else find it extremely disturbing that this is what passes for "journalism" nowadays? Making accusations about what someone else says or believes without bothering to source any of your accusations. Especially Joe Rogan, who should be extremely easy to source, as everything public he says is on YouTube.

This is a pretty silly post. Firstly, this is an op-ed. He's not reporting on the transphobic things rogan said, he's making an argument about rogan. Secondly, you are right. The comments ARE extremely easy to source. He isn't hiding them in any way, if you are interested in the things rogan has said that trans people object to you will find them IMMEDIATELY on google. But it is beside the point for this op-ed. Yglesias is writing against people who already think rogan is transphobic, he doesn't need to lay out the case here that rogan actually is transphobic. It isn't even clear he himself thinks rogan is transphobic, he just says it is understandable that trans people objected. Which he is right about.

My brother is a human genetist who did a PhD and now works for biotech startups getting preclinical (read: mice) drugs through the early FDA approval phases. Mice models are extremely useful. For instance, in his research on cystic fibrosis (a horrible disease!) one of the great wonders is that he can literally create mice with certain genes turned on to treat this specific disease and compare to wildtype mice. Having a model that is extremely well studied, universally used, and infinitely adjustable is an absolute cornerstone of modern biomedical research.

So how to value Weinsteins claim? It's pretty questionable. I'm not saying it isn't an issue - everyone knows that mice models don't perfectly map to humans, this is extremely clear. Without being an expert - my brother hasn't responded yet - my guess here is this is just one of the well known things to anyone in the field, that current mice models say are more resistance to toxicity than humans and adjust accordingly. Like, as you say, a ****ing nobel prize winner has published about the elongated telomeres it isn't like it is a secret. It probably just isn't as ground shattering a big deal as you suggest.

By the way, if he thinks she suppressed and plaigarized his work, then he should write to the journals that published the papers. If there is sufficient evidence the process is to retract these papers. There is a mechanism to fight exactly this, so I'm hardly going to take his claims at face value if he hasn't done this.

Regardless, this is EXACTLY the type of thing academia is so great for. The drug industry isn't going to be the ones saying approval process for drugs is too lax. Maybe you should blame the FDA for inappropriately approving drugs. But acadamia has exactly the incentive structure where if someone has a ground breaking idea these are STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.

A few notes from my human geneticist brother: It seems fairly backwards. A huge problem with mice models is they are in TOO sterile, too clean, not toxic enough environements. In FDA approval process toxicity is typically analyzed in the larger dog or monkey trials that happen after mice and before humans.

The other piece is just that everyone knows that mouse models and humans are super, super different. The phrase is "cure the mouse, doesn't cure the human". This isn't surpressed, and while mouse models are a necessary stage of a super long and involved FDA process, they are only a small piece.

So basically: massive, massive benefits to using mice models. Nobody thinks they are perfect. The exact way identified in which they are not quite perfect seems stated backwards. Either way, zero meaningful critique of academia.

hahahahahah i love the wikipedia on this. Guy sounds like a complete chump

unreal

/thread

---------------------------------------------------------------

I will give your brother the benefit of the doubt he didn't actually read anything I (Weinstein) said, and he just got some vague version of the argument from you. Because this response doesn't suggest any understanding of the specific argument; especially pertaining to artificial selection, telomeres, the proposed function of shortening telomeres as a potential guard against cancer, or potential understatement of toxicity issues in vitro in mice with elongated telomeres.

This isn't a general statement about mouse models. I agree, they are hugely beneficial. I worked with mice too when I was in academia. A giant percentage of people that did biology related work did too, and most probably agree they are useful and understand their limitations. It is a specific statement about the mice that were used at Jackson labs at that time (this was 20 years ago), and Weinstein's claims at that time that (in addition to Greider experimentally validating the idea he personally gave her without acknowledging him at all) the community was negligent in willfully suppressing the potential ramifications of laboratory mice potentially being unknowingly artificially selected to have long telomeres.

In the podcast Weinstein says he guesses when they realized what was going on, Jackson laboratory quietly fixed the problem without telling anyone there was a problem at all, which we can all agree is not how science is supposed to work (if that is indeed what happened)

FWIW here is Greider's paper acknowledging that Jackson laboratory mice at that time have elongated telomeres. The Weinstein brothers are arguing the response of Greider and the entire scientific community at the time to this new knowledge was very inadequate.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC113886/

Weinstein has a PhD in mathematics from Harvard and is the managing director of Thiel Capital. Yeah, you are probably right, complete chump.

Whatever you think of Peter Thiel's politics, my understanding is no one disputes he is a great mind in the tech/finance world, so yeah the probability is very high his assessment of Weinstein's capabilities are much more accurate than your own.

But who knows, maybe he just hasn't seen the Wikipedia article and made the obviously correct deducement from it that you have, and if you presented him a copy of the Wikipedia article along with your own (I am sure) much more impressive resume, Thiel would see you are a much more capable person and he would instantly fire Weinstein and hire you in his stead.

Also, FWIW Thiel himself did an interview on Weinstein's podcast that was very good. Given what we already know about how the media inentionally wildly distorts perceptions of people with politics they don't approve of, it should hopefully come as no surprise that in the podcast Thiel couldn't come off further from the cartoon villain the media portrays him to be.

WN,

I have zero problem with posters like Uke critiquing the arguments on their merit (even if he does resort a little bit towards personal attacks at the end); however can I ask that we prohibit this kind of contentless trolling in this thread?

I wish I could edit the first paragraph of this post, but it is too late. It is way too unnecessarily antagonistic. Let me amend it and say everything your brother said could be (and probably is) generally true and Weinstein's concerns (at that time) could still be completely valid. Keep in mind these events took place ~20 years ago. Greider hadn't even received her Nobel Prize yet at this point.