Geoffrey Pullum writes for The Chronicle of Higher Education about the re-release and 50th anniversary of Professor Noam Chomsky’s book “Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.” “Every page presents bold new ideas and strikingly original insights; every section inspired new research programs,” Pullum writes.
The Economist reviews Prof. Marcia Bartusiak’s new book, “Black Hole: How an Idea Abandoned by Newtonians, Hated by Einstein and Gambled on by Hawking Became Loved.” “Ms Bartusiak weaves scientific concepts to create a portrait of the scientific institution itself, showing how its norms and personalities served to shape the path taken by the idea.”
In an article for The Wall Street Journal, Chris Jacobs writes about a study co-authored by Prof. Amy Finkelstein that examines the utility and efficiency of Medicaid coverage. The study “found that beneficiaries valued Medicaid at 20 cents to 40 cents on the dollar,” writes Jacobs.
Professor Barry Posen speaks with Tom Ashbrook, host of NPR’s On Point, about the new American military push in Iraq against ISIS. Posen argues that there is no military solution to ISIS and that the, “Islamic State problem is basically a political problem.”
Wall Street Journal reporter Jason Zweig writes about anti-poverty research, highlighting an MIT study that showed intervention methods can be effective at alleviating poverty. Prof. Esther Duflo says that, “We are trying to promote a culture of learning that will permeate governments and NGOs and businesses to such an extent that it will become par for the course.”
In an article for The Boston Globe, John Tirman writes about why people are fleeing countries like Libya, Syria, and Mexico. Tirman writes that much of the migration “results from unsustainable livelihoods, the disruption of traditional forms of agriculture, production, and government services that for decades provided adequate — in many cases, barely so — incomes in the developing world.”
In an article for The Boston Globe, Prof. Thomas Levenson writes about the dispute over the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) in Hawaii. “The dispute has been framed as the latest skirmish in the long-running campaign pitting science against religion. That’s a mistake,” Levenson writes.
After the release of a paper from U.C. Berkeley researchers detailing how certain strains of yeast may be used to produce opioids, Professor Kenneth Oye coauthored a commentary calling for regulation in the field, writes Lexi Pandell for Wired. “I haven’t seen anything quite like this before,” says Oye.
Rachel Feltman writes for The Washington Post about a commentary by Professor Kenneth Oye that calls for regulation of genetically modified yeast that could potentially produce opiates. “It’s not like tomorrow someone’s going to have a fully integrated, one-pot pathway to go from sugar to morphine,” says Oye. “But it’s coming.”
Michael Le Page writes for The New Scientist about Professor Kenneth Oye’s commentary on research indicating that genetically engineered yeasts could be used to produce opiates. Oye provides a number of policy recommendations to prevent illicit opium production, including outlawing the distribution of opiate-making yeast strains.
Professor Kenneth Oye has coauthored a commentary on a paper that demonstrates researchers may be close to being able to engineer morphine from yeast, writes Nicola Twilley for The New Yorker. The authors worry this “could put illicit opiate production into the hands of many more people, at a much smaller scale.”
Donald McNeil writes for The New York Times about a commentary coauthored by Professor Kenneth Oye on advances that could make it possible to produce morphine using genetically modified yeast. Oye argues for “locking up the bioengineered yeast strains and restricting access to the DNA that would let drug cartels reproduce them.”
The Associated Press writes about Professor Kenneth Oye’s commentary on a paper by researchers at U.C. Berkeley that shows how morphine and other painkillers can be manufactured without opium poppies. Oye calls for regulation in order to prevent abuses.
Tina Rosenberg writes for The New York Times about a study by J-PAL researchers examining the effectiveness of a poverty intervention program. Researchers found that participants in the program, “ate more, were more certain about access to food, held more assets, had more income and savings, spent more time working, and enjoyed better mental and physical health.”
A new study by MIT researchers has found that anti-poverty intervention methods can be effective, reports Carolyn Johnson for The Boston Globe. Interventions resulted in “fewer skipped meals, more income from livestock and farming, and a durable, though small, increase in how much they consume each day.”