Not going to fight about it but I largely agree with your view and the constraints for the short term, but we can incrementally get to a better goal over years

Thanks for this. We in the science community were talking about something quite similar about Jim Watson at his recent death. Without excusing either of them, this does somewhat explain how they got to these bad places.

Peregrine is good!

Hudak is a Ruthenian/Rusyn name, from subcarpathian Rus, now western Ukraine/southern Poland/eastern Slovakia.

This. We are going to need major political reform.

Macro and AI!

also credit to @deisseroth.bsky.social and group for working out the FLEX Cre-dependent scheme, and to Janelia and HHMI for the GCaMP8 progress. Science truly benefits from collaborative effort, across institutions and distance.

This wouldn't have been possible without the intramural environment and support also from the BRAIN Initiative. We had a tech problem and we were able to focus on the hurdle, figure out how to build on colleagues' expertise, put some resources in, and solve it.

for the big dorks, it's this plasmid:

www.addgene.org/174007/

We find that ChRimson, while not as strong as other opsins, is very stable in the cortex.

#neuroscience

Plain language: we are recording and stimulating neurons in working brains (#mechinterp !), using two high-powered lasers, one to measure activity and one to change it. Getting both proteins inside cells is hard. And this is a solution.

Here's a paper using it:
www.pnas.org/doi/10....

🧠 🤖🧪

This is the way for US science and universities too. Heads down doesn’t work. Stand up for what you believe in.

also, sharp observation. I agree

"These two literatures have largely talked past each other. Legal scholars often assume presidents lack meaningful authority over the civil service. Public admin scholars document presidential influence but frequently treat it as informal, political, or extralegal."

This section is excellent, worth reading as we think about the future of the civil service and gov't capacity.

I think the piece is overall great. But the law is in some sense what the Supreme Court says it is, and we have to focus on the Court as we move forward.

And the link to US science is clear: basic science is a public good that gov't is needed to support, and to make that work we need a well-functioning gov't. Which is contrary to the Roberts Court agenda. Scientists need to care about the Supreme Court.

/end

Agree with Prof Bednar that Congress should work to improve the law. But if the Supreme Court has this much power (US SCOTUS much more than other countries' constitutional courts), and it wants to harm the civil service, it can find a way.

Court reform is now part of good government.

Look at the district court decision by Judge Illston in the RIF case, which declares the RIFs widely illegal. Justice Jackson agreed.
Compare to the SCOTUS majority in that case — which allowed shredding agencies via RIF.

KBJ, p1 here:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

Norms may be part of what protected the civil service. But a functioning Supreme Court that cared about good govt also protected the civil service.

And this SCOTUS doesn't seem to care about the civil service, so it can interpret away legal requirements ("good administration") if it wants.