I think the interesting consequence is that candidates can expect this to happen and with access to the same consumer-facing models, they can then optimize their CV for an ideal summary.
I'm curious what you mean by bankable here? While I'd agree that there is idealism, it seems like reasonable efforts to cut through the catch-22 of funding nascent ideas (exemplified by the old chestnut about getting funding for work already done to do your new work under the table) and making stable career positions for folks who don't want to become a PI. I'd like to see what this really looks like after a couple years, but it doesn't seem completely naive.
I mean that the way we assess research output in the current system makes curiosity a liability. This means that even if investors are interested, the scientific community will judge the output from this institute as inferior. Except if the curiosity part is just for show, which I strongly suspect. Investors want results.
I broadly agree, and it's clear they are limiting the scope of curiosity to some directed areas and the long term research agenda makes me think there is an expectation of more directed follow-up. "Curiosity" is likely code for "many more 'fishing expeditions' from low friction funding with the expectation that the likely low hit rate will still have reasonable number of repeatable, translatable findings after eight years". I would personally wager that is correct.
It will be interesting to see the output of this funding mindset more reminiscent of VCs but with a timespan that biological research programs require.
That's a good point on the limitation, and to expand on your last point, an immediate demographic this could help is frontline healthcare workers and similar jobs who do get routine testing and are at higher risk in general.
I'm a teacher and vaccinated. If I found out that I was exposed, and then tested positive... post-exposure prophylaxis sounds great.
Also there's my dad, who has an immune condition due to old age. He's vaccinated, but who knows how effective the vaccine was for him. The existence of PEP could make it possible for him to do more at a similar level of safety... vs. the current option of staying in a small bubble for the rest of his life despite being otherwise able-bodied and capable.
Oh sure-- if he got infected, we'd throw the kitchen sink at it-- remdesivir, monoclonals, etc. A "better remdesivir" which is supremely effective would improve the risk picture a lot.
PNAS recently moved to a continuous publication process so the paper comes out in the planned issue whenever ready rather than effectively coming out twice: once ahead-of-print and once in the issue.
Nobody was lynched here so anti-lynching law would not apply. Given we're discussing mobs getting riled up over the wrongs of the "other", it also seems appropriate to place the actual outcome in a less exaggerated way.
Kind of ironic that people are getting offended over my choice of words here, but we could call these anti-mob or anti-bullying laws instead. The point remains, it might make sense to make it illegal for institutions to fire people over the call of a mob.
Models are not just descriptions of data, which is why overfitting is not considered success. They are an attempt to generalize patterns from a given datatset. What patterns they generalize is of interest to several research fields, including fairness, domain adaptation, and robustness. A useful but incomplete resource is below.
"Models are not just descriptions of data, which is why overfitting is not considered success." The degree to which a model is overfit is a measure of how accurate the model is, but that doesn't make it any more or less than a description of the data.
I get what everyone's goal is here, it would be shitty to build and rely on a bunch of racist models. But the nonsense in this article is dangerous--again models are descriptions of what is and this weird glorification of them as some sort of source of normative judgement is bizarre. Models have to be used carefully with understanding of the limitations of their structure and the data that went into them. That doesn't make any particular modeling technique racist.
A different approach to asset allocation https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5934