this is an interesting and in some places eye-opening discussion, for those that can follow the language. i'll admit that they lost me once or twice, but i was able to follow almost all of it. i think that's mostly because the discussion exists in a broader meta-scientific context, rather than a very specific biological one. that is, the primary question discussed is the pros and cons of different experimental approaches to determining the use of specific drugs. "bio-markers", here, is a kind of buzz word; the discussion cycles around it, but it's not really about it.

but, the fact that we're using buzz words in the first place in what claims to be a scientific conference should create a little bit of pause.

in thinking about how to react to this video (and i've had a few days, as it's taken me some time to move through it), something that came up a few times were some comments made by stefan molyneux (somebody i would normally be hesitant to quote or draw attention to) about global warming. now, he didn't make his argument well. but, he said something along these lines (i'm paraphrasing out of laziness, but it's pretty close):

the government program referred to as "science" is not the same thing as the epistemological approach we call science

he then used that insight to argue that we should be skeptical about government-funded research on climate change. it was more agnostic than anything else. and, as i say, he didn't make his argument well - partly because this insight, while actually quite astute, doesn't really conform well to what we know about how governments approach climate science. taking his insight and applying it to better to the world around us, i might suggest that he should have said:

the industry marketing program referred to as "science" is not the same thing as the epistemological approach we call science.

these two statements are not mutually exclusive. in fact, he might even agree with me in pointing out that both statements are equally valid. or, perhaps he'd throw around some absurd market theory about consumers choosing good science. as though consumers are equipped to do that, right? but, while acknowledging that both statements are valid, i need to suggest that it is the second that is more relevant in the world we live in

i think this conference very clearly demonstrates where the world of "science" as industry marketing interferes and comes into conflict with the world of science as epistemology.