6 ms·

Chemistry Nobel laureate uninvited from biodesign conference

37 points by Reedx 6y ago

dvt 6y ago
Really, we can blame the politicians and mass media for this, as there are merits to discussing the viability of herd immunity, what it would entail, and weighing its merits compared to shutdowns and social distancing. Discourse has become so inflamed (on purpose: it drives clicks), there's a tendency to look at science through the lens of politics. I have a few friends working on startups/solutions to this (non-sensationalist reporting, fact-checking apps, etc.), but I personally think the cat's already out of the bag.
- cooper12 6y ago
  There was a NYT article on this today. Most other scientists thought that their idea didn't actually consider how this would be implemented, and ignored those living in multigenerational households. Touting fringe theories to pander to libertarian ideals and those in the White House in the midst of a pandemic is not responsible science. It's fine to float these ideas, but if mainstream science didn't agree, it becomes dangerous, since their whole approach was "live like nothing's happening and let grandma fend for herself". Note, we already have a case study in this approach in the form of Sweden, and they have high deaths figures and economic impact.
  - deepnotderp 6y ago
    "Touting fringe ideas like heliocentrism in the middle of a faith crisis is not responsible science" (I actually don't even agree with his ideas about covid)
    - dvt 6y ago
      I know this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but there's something poignant about this post which I really admire.
- ogurechny 6y ago
  There is a global media plague, and it's way more serious than an actual disease. No one specifically has started it, and no one specifically can stop it. It tells you something about modern people and societies, and it's not something you can fix by mere smartphone application. Reading Giorgio Agamben, one can see that he was completely devastated by the sight of absolute cowardice and obedience (I don't mean particular social and governmental issues, I mean lack of mental self-sufficiency), and his theoretical work realized in such a way.
avancemos 6y ago
“Many hypotheses proposed by scientists as well as by nonscientists turn out to be wrong. But science is a self-correcting enterprise. To be accepted, all new ideas must survive rigorous standards of evidence. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's work. Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights.” Carl Sagan, Cosmos
- cooper12 6y ago
  Your quote doesn't even make sense here since they're not suppressing his COVID ideas. Regardless, the scientific community considered it and responded: https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/ https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/
  - nickff 6y ago
    While I'd agree that he took some controversial and unpopular positions, I don't think it's accurate to say: "the scientific community considered it and responded". The John Snow Memo was not a specific reply to Levitt's ideas, and I am not sure what the 'scientific community' is. That memo had a relatively small number of signers, so claiming that they represent any large and diverse community is a bit hyperbolic.
  - avancemos 6y ago
    They are suppressing the scientist behind the Covid ideas; ie the desired outcome is the same.
  - dekhn 6y ago
    Are you confusing Battacharya and Leavitt?
    - 6y ago
dekhn 6y ago
Michael is an interesting guy. He has a super-indexed laptop with everything just a search away. Writes fortran programs to do sequence analysis. But he's probably not helping with his analyses.
- idoh 6y ago
  What does a "super-indexed laptop" mean?
  - kyleee 6y ago
    all files are well marked up (tagged) and accessible to be queried quickly and easily?
  - dekhn 6y ago
    https://www.x1.com/2013/11/18/dr-michael-levitt-world-famous-scientist-nobel-laureate-and-x1-power-user/ https://www.x1.com/2013/11/18/dr-michael-levitt-world-famous... """A computer-savvy scientist, Dr. Levitt relies on a Macintosh laptop with VMWare virtualization running a Windows OS, where he stores 200 gigabytes of data, including 40 gigabytes of over 300,000 emails, and of course relies on X1 to make sense of it all""" Michael had other interesting anecdotes for me, like when he advised Sergey Brin to charge for Google search (Sergey was taking some course of his when launching Google).
dsr_ 6y ago
"Michael Levitt @MLevitt_NP2013 US COVID19 will be done in 4 weeks with a total reported death below 170,000. How will we know it is over? Like for Europe, when all cause excess deaths are at normal level for week. Reported COVID19 deaths may continue after 25 Aug. & reported cases will, but it will be over." https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/1287036738565738496 https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/128703673856573849...?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  What is he trying to say with "excess death are at normal level"? The definition of excess death is such that normal is 0. I wonder if anyone can find a prediction of his that turned out correct. He's been saying it will be over in a month, every month since January.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    I presume this means "deaths due to Covid-19 at a rate one would normally expect from a flu-like respiratory illness".
lettergram 6y ago
Personally, I think science should be a forum. Present your ideas, others can challenge. Let the math and facts work their way out, the audience of a conference can make a determination. If I’m reading this correctly, He said this keynote had nothing to do with covid anyway. Those trying to silence discussion(s) are really the ones who should be uninvited (the committee members).
- IvyMike 6y ago
  I think science is a forum, and that forum is telling him "You have been consistently wrong, your predictions have been worthless, and we prefer to give the limited speaker slots to people with a better track record?" He's not being silenced; he can say whatever he wants, but the conference isn't obligated to lend him creditability by making him a speaker.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Levitt has racked up quite a consistent track record of bad science and confidently wrong predictions over the past 9 months. It's not surprising that the community has lost faith in him. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/02/qa-michael-levitt-on-why-there-shouldnt-be-a-lockdown-how-hes-been-tracking-coronavirus/ https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/02/qa-michael-levitt-o...
- dvt 6y ago
  This is just disingenuous, as just about everyone's been wrong when it comes to predictions or claims on COVID-19: from the WHO, to the CDC, to Fauci. I don't really fault anyone for making bad predictions, either (as long as they're made in good faith and not just to drum up controversy) -- it is a novel situation after all.
  - mturmon 6y ago
    I think it's the confident, bad predictions. From the linked article: > TSD: What do you predict to happen in the coming months regarding COVID-19 in the U.S.? > ML: I think it’s going to end up with less deaths than what I thought. In March, I thought there would be a total of 220,000, but there will be less than that. Right now it is around 155,000 in the U.S., and I am expecting it to end up under 170,000 or maybe 175,000. --- The article is dated August 2, and so these confident predictions are not looking too good at all. I'm not cherry-picking, there's a lot more in the article, like: > I think that when we come to look back, we’re going to say that wasn’t such a terrible disease. This just doesn't seem to be a person who has a good perspective on public health or public policy. --- And finally, ML's remarks about the Swedish death rate are not correct, as pointed out editorially in the article.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you posted this article when it doesn't impeach his credibility at all.
  - IvyMike 6y ago
    It illustrates his history of "confidently wrong predictions".
02020202 6y ago
They give the Nobel Peace prise to anyone for anything. why should I care about some meaningless thing that has no real value or meaning or if someone was or was not invited to somewhere? is this the it equivalent of telenovella?

37 points by Reedx 6y ago

dvt 6y ago

Really, we can blame the politicians and mass media for this, as there are merits to discussing the viability of herd immunity, what it would entail, and weighing its merits compared to shutdowns and social distancing. Discourse has become so inflamed (on purpose: it drives clicks), there's a tendency to look at science through the lens of politics. I have a few friends working on startups/solutions to this (non-sensationalist reporting, fact-checking apps, etc.), but I personally think the cat's already out of the bag.

cooper12 6y ago
There was a NYT article on this today. Most other scientists thought that their idea didn't actually consider how this would be implemented, and ignored those living in multigenerational households. Touting fringe theories to pander to libertarian ideals and those in the White House in the midst of a pandemic is not responsible science. It's fine to float these ideas, but if mainstream science didn't agree, it becomes dangerous, since their whole approach was "live like nothing's happening and let grandma fend for herself". Note, we already have a case study in this approach in the form of Sweden, and they have high deaths figures and economic impact.
- deepnotderp 6y ago
  "Touting fringe ideas like heliocentrism in the middle of a faith crisis is not responsible science" (I actually don't even agree with his ideas about covid)
  - dvt 6y ago
    I know this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but there's something poignant about this post which I really admire.
ogurechny 6y ago
There is a global media plague, and it's way more serious than an actual disease. No one specifically has started it, and no one specifically can stop it. It tells you something about modern people and societies, and it's not something you can fix by mere smartphone application. Reading Giorgio Agamben, one can see that he was completely devastated by the sight of absolute cowardice and obedience (I don't mean particular social and governmental issues, I mean lack of mental self-sufficiency), and his theoretical work realized in such a way.

avancemos 6y ago

“Many hypotheses proposed by scientists as well as by nonscientists turn out to be wrong. But science is a self-correcting enterprise. To be accepted, all new ideas must survive rigorous standards of evidence. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's work. Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science. We do not know in advance who will discover fundamental new insights.” Carl Sagan, Cosmos

cooper12 6y ago
Your quote doesn't even make sense here since they're not suppressing his COVID ideas. Regardless, the scientific community considered it and responded: https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/ https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/
- nickff 6y ago
  While I'd agree that he took some controversial and unpopular positions, I don't think it's accurate to say: "the scientific community considered it and responded". The John Snow Memo was not a specific reply to Levitt's ideas, and I am not sure what the 'scientific community' is. That memo had a relatively small number of signers, so claiming that they represent any large and diverse community is a bit hyperbolic.
- avancemos 6y ago
  They are suppressing the scientist behind the Covid ideas; ie the desired outcome is the same.
- dekhn 6y ago
  Are you confusing Battacharya and Leavitt?
  - 6y ago

dekhn 6y ago

Michael is an interesting guy. He has a super-indexed laptop with everything just a search away. Writes fortran programs to do sequence analysis. But he's probably not helping with his analyses.

idoh 6y ago
What does a "super-indexed laptop" mean?
- kyleee 6y ago
  all files are well marked up (tagged) and accessible to be queried quickly and easily?
- dekhn 6y ago
  https://www.x1.com/2013/11/18/dr-michael-levitt-world-famous-scientist-nobel-laureate-and-x1-power-user/ https://www.x1.com/2013/11/18/dr-michael-levitt-world-famous... """A computer-savvy scientist, Dr. Levitt relies on a Macintosh laptop with VMWare virtualization running a Windows OS, where he stores 200 gigabytes of data, including 40 gigabytes of over 300,000 emails, and of course relies on X1 to make sense of it all""" Michael had other interesting anecdotes for me, like when he advised Sergey Brin to charge for Google search (Sergey was taking some course of his when launching Google).

dsr_ 6y ago

"Michael Levitt @MLevitt_NP2013 US COVID19 will be done in 4 weeks with a total reported death below 170,000. How will we know it is over? Like for Europe, when all cause excess deaths are at normal level for week. Reported COVID19 deaths may continue after 25 Aug. & reported cases will, but it will be over." https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/1287036738565738496 https://twitter.com/MLevitt_NP2013/status/128703673856573849...?

srtjstjsj 6y ago
What is he trying to say with "excess death are at normal level"? The definition of excess death is such that normal is 0. I wonder if anyone can find a prediction of his that turned out correct. He's been saying it will be over in a month, every month since January.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  I presume this means "deaths due to Covid-19 at a rate one would normally expect from a flu-like respiratory illness".

lettergram 6y ago

Personally, I think science should be a forum. Present your ideas, others can challenge. Let the math and facts work their way out, the audience of a conference can make a determination. If I’m reading this correctly, He said this keynote had nothing to do with covid anyway. Those trying to silence discussion(s) are really the ones who should be uninvited (the committee members).

IvyMike 6y ago
I think science is a forum, and that forum is telling him "You have been consistently wrong, your predictions have been worthless, and we prefer to give the limited speaker slots to people with a better track record?" He's not being silenced; he can say whatever he wants, but the conference isn't obligated to lend him creditability by making him a speaker.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

Levitt has racked up quite a consistent track record of bad science and confidently wrong predictions over the past 9 months. It's not surprising that the community has lost faith in him. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/02/qa-michael-levitt-on-why-there-shouldnt-be-a-lockdown-how-hes-been-tracking-coronavirus/ https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/02/qa-michael-levitt-o...

dvt 6y ago
This is just disingenuous, as just about everyone's been wrong when it comes to predictions or claims on COVID-19: from the WHO, to the CDC, to Fauci. I don't really fault anyone for making bad predictions, either (as long as they're made in good faith and not just to drum up controversy) -- it is a novel situation after all.
- mturmon 6y ago
  I think it's the confident, bad predictions. From the linked article: > TSD: What do you predict to happen in the coming months regarding COVID-19 in the U.S.? > ML: I think it’s going to end up with less deaths than what I thought. In March, I thought there would be a total of 220,000, but there will be less than that. Right now it is around 155,000 in the U.S., and I am expecting it to end up under 170,000 or maybe 175,000. --- The article is dated August 2, and so these confident predictions are not looking too good at all. I'm not cherry-picking, there's a lot more in the article, like: > I think that when we come to look back, we’re going to say that wasn’t such a terrible disease. This just doesn't seem to be a person who has a good perspective on public health or public policy. --- And finally, ML's remarks about the Swedish death rate are not correct, as pointed out editorially in the article.
googthrowaway42 6y ago
I'm not sure why you posted this article when it doesn't impeach his credibility at all.
- IvyMike 6y ago
  It illustrates his history of "confidently wrong predictions".

02020202 6y ago

They give the Nobel Peace prise to anyone for anything. why should I care about some meaningless thing that has no real value or meaning or if someone was or was not invited to somewhere? is this the it equivalent of telenovella?