S. Scott Graham
LightNews LightNews
banner
sscottgraham.bsky.social
S. Scott Graham
@sscottgraham.bsky.social
770 followers 430 following 420 posts
Writing about health, ethics, COI, rhetoric, AI, and anatomy museums (usually only 2-3 in any given act of writing) at UT-Austin. https://sscottgraham.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
sscottgraham.bsky.social
S. Scott Graham @sscottgraham.bsky.social · Apr 3
Sharing a little bit more about my NEH-sponsored research on anatomical museums today. I have no idea if this project will retain funding, but I am incredibly grateful for the NEH program officers and reviewers who have made so much humanities research possible. sscottgraham.com/archives/911
Entrance to Musem Vrolik. White brick corridor with fat trim black outlined doorway. Blue sign of museum name and posters of anatomical specimens on the wall.
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
dancohen.org
New issue of my newsletter: "The Writing Is on the Wall for Handwriting Recognition" — One of the hardest problems in digital humanities has finally been solved, and it's a good use of AI newsletter.dancohen.org/archive/the-...
The Writing Is on the Wall for Handwriting Recognition
One of the hardest problems in digital humanities has finally been solved
newsletter.dancohen.org
November 25, 2025 at 4:35 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
lindsaywiley.bsky.social
“Fewer than 1/4 of U.S. physicians are members of the AMA. Its financial stability now depends mostly on [licensing fees for AMA-created billing codes]. Financial dependence on a single, government-supported revenue stream leaves the AMA highly vulnerable to political pressure.”
nicktsergas.ca Nick Tsergas @nicktsergas.ca · 3d
The AMA is starting to fracture under political pressure. Our analysis explains what changed this week, and why it matters.
November 23, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
uncleduke1969.bsky.social
Hal hadn’t survived three Thanksgivings by being stupid.
A turkey is fenced in behind a sign on a post reading “LLAMA.”
November 21, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
caseyboyle.fail
We’re hiring an Asst Prof of Instruction in Digital Humanities/Data Science with BSDS + English @UTAustin. Teach Python/R for Humanities, build DH projects, mentor capstones. Starts Fall 26. Repost & share widely.

Apply by Dec 15, 2025: apply.interfolio.com/175750
#DigitalHumanities #DH
Apply - Interfolio {{$ctrl.$state.data.pageTitle}} - Apply - Interfolio
apply.interfolio.com
November 4, 2025 at 10:37 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
A rainy Thursday before break and all of a sudden everyone woke up sick...
a man is sitting on a couch with his hands on his face and the words pretends to be shocked above him
Alt: a man is sitting on a couch with his hands on his face and the words pretends to be shocked above him
media.tenor.com
November 20, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
danielbuchman.bsky.social
“Has the claim that addiction is a brain disease helped or harmed those experiencing drug-related harm epistemically?”

This is also an important Q for contested conditions, eg chronic pain, which are increasingly understood as a disease.

#bioethics #stigma

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
The brain disease model of addiction and epistemic injustice
The brain disease model of addiction (BDMA) is a dominant, if highly contested, model of drug addiction globally. Over many decades, researchers have …
www.sciencedirect.com
November 20, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
levostregc.bsky.social
Yn a free society, universitye-level studye of the artes and humanityes sholde not be avaylable onlye to the wealthye and privileged.
November 20, 2025 at 12:11 AM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
sscottgraham.bsky.social
🚨new pub - Noninferiority and Efficiency/Revenue Facilitation (NERF) Endpoints: @jadeshiva.bsky.social, @kimberharrison.bsky.social & I explore how NERF endpoints prioritize financial incentives over patient outcomes in health AI research & accelerate culture of financialized health. rdcu.be/eQzJe
picture of journal article:: title: Noninferiority and Efficiency/Revenue Facilitation (NERF) Endpoints Shifting Grounds of Argument in Health AI Interventional Studies; abstract: This article investigates ethical hazards associated with argumentative shifts following the emergence of combined non-inferiority and effi-ciency/revenue facilitation (NERF) endpoints, with particular attention to research on artificial intel-ligence (AI) in health and medicine. The study pre-sented here adopts a Toulmin argumentative analysis approach to investigate the dominant persuasive log-ics of twenty-three health AI trials evaluating NERF endpoints. In so doing, the article demonstrates how the argumentative logics of NERF trial reports shifts away from health outcomes as the putative evidence base for adopting novel interventions toward an argu-mentative model that prioritizes economic benefits over patient benefits. Ultimately, the article argues that new logic of NERF endpoints is consistent with and risks accelerating the harms to patient care that arise from increased financialization of the healthcare sector. If the use of NERF endpoints and attendant logics continue to grow unchecked, they could result in significant harms to patient health and well-being.
November 18, 2025 at 4:20 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
🚨new pub - Noninferiority and Efficiency/Revenue Facilitation (NERF) Endpoints: @jadeshiva.bsky.social, @kimberharrison.bsky.social & I explore how NERF endpoints prioritize financial incentives over patient outcomes in health AI research & accelerate culture of financialized health. rdcu.be/eQzJe
picture of journal article:: title: Noninferiority and Efficiency/Revenue Facilitation (NERF) Endpoints Shifting Grounds of Argument in Health AI Interventional Studies; abstract: This article investigates ethical hazards associated with argumentative shifts following the emergence of combined non-inferiority and effi-ciency/revenue facilitation (NERF) endpoints, with particular attention to research on artificial intel-ligence (AI) in health and medicine. The study pre-sented here adopts a Toulmin argumentative analysis approach to investigate the dominant persuasive log-ics of twenty-three health AI trials evaluating NERF endpoints. In so doing, the article demonstrates how the argumentative logics of NERF trial reports shifts away from health outcomes as the putative evidence base for adopting novel interventions toward an argu-mentative model that prioritizes economic benefits over patient benefits. Ultimately, the article argues that new logic of NERF endpoints is consistent with and risks accelerating the harms to patient care that arise from increased financialization of the healthcare sector. If the use of NERF endpoints and attendant logics continue to grow unchecked, they could result in significant harms to patient health and well-being.
November 18, 2025 at 4:20 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
Why is the assumption always lower standards? The grades got better amidst more centers for teaching and learning; more teacher training for STEM grad students; more uni-wide professional development. Unis should respond to grade inflation with "where's the evidence our faculty didn't get better?"
If the culture of grading has eroded, it has done so over years and decades. Not all of the reasons are bad. Lower standards help first-generation college students and others who might arrive on campus with less traditional academic preparation. They also accommodate more modern forms of teaching, such as the “creative assignments and group projects” mentioned in the Harvard report. In total, the change has been so slow and steady that even faculty can barely feel it. We’ve simply been adjusting the expectations of our students, year after year.
November 18, 2025 at 2:28 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
bachynski.bsky.social
“When her professor emailed her feedback on an AI-written paper, she refused to open it. She still hasn’t. “It’s wasting his time because he’s editing a fucking machine,” Gwen said. “Whatever he has to say is meaningless to me anyway, because it’s not my writing.”
markabraham.bsky.social Mark Abraham @markabraham.bsky.social · 9d
New feature article from TNJ (nation's best student magazine): Inside Yale’s Quiet Reckoning with AI thenewjournalatyale.com/2025/10/insi...
By the end of the spring semester, Gwen reached a breaking point with AI. “I felt like I didn’t deserve to be a Yale student,” she said. She thought that she was throwing away her education and the scholarship paying to support it. She decided to quit using ChatGPT altogether. She didn’t ask AI to help her sentences flow or to strike the right tone. She didn’t even use it to brainstorm. “I think that’s a skill you need to have on your own. That’s the core of being original, anyway.” Gwen recalled completing her final assignments without AI, sitting in the middle of a crowded library so that she felt watched. “I struggled. And they weren’t very good.” It was only then, she said, that she started to understand just how much learning she had missed out on. ∎
November 16, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
annafranjam.bsky.social
Less than a month to go until our free online workshop *Object Stories in Health and Medicine, 1700-1900*. Friday 5 December from 10am GMT. Tickets available through this link! 
www.birmingham.ac.uk/events/objec...
November 6, 2025 at 10:37 AM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
mirandayaver.bsky.social
"Excluding MPH and DrPH from the 'professional degree' category could restrict students’ access to higher federal loan limits, making public health education less financially attainable and potentially weakening the future workforce pipeline." Get ready to submit comments! aspph.org/department-o...
Department of Education Proposal Excludes Public Health Degrees from “Professional Degree” Definition
Discover the new results and implications of Dept of Ed consensus regarding professional degree programs and public health education.
aspph.org
November 14, 2025 at 12:27 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
brendannyhan.bsky.social
A staggering statistic: "North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year." What are we doing?
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 15d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 1:58 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
AI- induced busy work in article proofing:

AQ1: You cite Le Puma et al. in the text, but there is no corresponding reference.

AQ2: You cite La Puma et al. in the references, but there is no corresponding citation.

If we still had human copy editors, they would know exactly what happened here.
November 12, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
cait.bsky.social
a few months ago I said "having generative AI handle absolutely anything with regards to healthcare is a nightmare and should be banned" and a bunch of people made fun of me and called me stupid. anyways,
r/ExpectationVsReality u/Additional-Simple858 • 3d Join Al 'doctor' said my back pain is depression, not a slipped disc. Now physical therapy won't get approved. Al Expectation We are reviewing claim #& submitted on 09/28/2025. Our records indicate the claim was filed under diagnosis code F32.9 (Depressive disorder, unspecified), while the corresponding prescription and referral history list treatment for lumbar disc herniation (back pain). Re: Incorrect Diagnosis in Record Hi Thank you for reaching out. We have reviewed your visit documentation and can confirm that the notes in question were generated using our Al scribe system. It appears the Al tool assigned diagnosis code F32.9 (Depressive disorder, unspecified), while your visit notes and treatment plan reference lumbar disc herniation (back pain). Per compliance policy, certain Al-generated fields cannot be manually updated by clinic staff and require vendor correction. We have escalated this to our vendor support team and opened ticket # . We'll notify you once we receive confirmation or correction from the vendor.
November 10, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
carlelliott.bsky.social
The pharmaceutical industry spent decades manipulating the country’s top drug regulator into rubber-stamping its products. The Trump administration is making matters worse.

www.levernews.com/science-for-...
Science For Sale: How Drugmakers Captured The FDA
The pharmaceutical industry spent decades manipulating the country’s top drug regulator into rubber-stamping its products. The Trump administration is making matters worse.
www.levernews.com
November 9, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
loadofbunk.bsky.social
Was it history or philosophy of science that had to make alimony payments after the divorce? Did they ever discuss staying together for the kids, Indy and Pitt? Who got to stay friends with Stephen Toulmin? Too many unanswered questions in HOHAPOS.
November 8, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
ut-hi.bsky.social
🔔 Reminder

Applications for the 2025–2026 Humanities Research Awards are due November 15, 2025.

The HRA provides valuable resources for faculty and graduate students pursuing research projects that intersect with the humanities.

Learn more: bit.ly/humanities-research-awards-2025
Reminder graphic for the 2025–2026 Humanities Research Awards. The image highlights that the application deadline is November 15, 2025. It includes a link for more information: bit.ly/humanities-research-awards-2025. A note at the bottom states that the HRA provides resources to faculty and graduate students for research projects that intersect with the humanities. The design features orange and blue colors, with icons of bells to indicate the reminder.
November 3, 2025 at 8:21 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
March 2023: Paper submitted
(radio silence)
March 2024: Query letter sent
(apology followed by radio silence)
April 2025: Paper withdrawn
(acknowledgment of withdrawal)
October 2025: Reviewer reports and rejection received
October 31, 2025 at 3:52 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
histloneliness.bsky.social
I'm really excited to finally be able to share this after months of work - our new Project EPIC report on the epistemic determinants of health. With over 20 contributors, we make the case for incorporating this new framework into existing determinants of health models:

bci-hub.org/documents/ep...
The Epistemic Determinants of Health
Health and illness are significantly determined by knowledge and its communication. At first glance, this might seem obvious; people use healthcare systems when they suspect that something might be wr...
bci-hub.org
October 21, 2025 at 1:07 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
jensfoell.de
Award-winning pain researcher here. This is not something that can be done. Hope this helps.
hypervisible.blacksky.app Hypervisible @hypervisible.blacksky.app · Oct 15
“In nursing homes, neonatal units, and ICU wards, researchers are racing to turn pain—medicine’s most subjective vital sign—into something a camera or sensor can score as reliably as blood pressure.”
AI is changing how we quantify pain
Artificial intelligence is helping health-care providers better assess their patients’ discomfort.
www.technologyreview.com
October 15, 2025 at 2:02 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
Just got falsely accused of using AI for something I worked hard on. Stop doing this! I know you think you can tell, but I promise you can't.
October 14, 2025 at 9:10 PM