Hide table of contents

A biotechnology blog with a probabilistic and effective bent

Artwork by Dalbert

Today, Niko McCarty and I are launching Asimov Press, a digital magazine dedicated to biotechnology. It will publish lucid writing that leads people to explore the ways that biotechnology can effectively be used to do good. 

Please go here to read the full announcement and subscribe.

Asimov Press is a new publishing venture modeled on Stripe Press, that will produce a newsletter, magazine, and books that feature writing about biological progress. Our primary focus will be on biotechnology, but we will also publish pieces on metascience and adjacent themes. Newsletters and magazines will be free to read. Our mission is to spread ideas that elucidate the promise of biology, take its concomitant risks seriously, and direct talent toward solving pressing problems.

Our published work has three features that I want to highlight here: Pieces will steel-man alternative approaches, focus on high-impact but often underrated facets of biotechnology, and strive for mechanistic and probabilistic reasoning.

Steelman: Biotechnology is not a panacea. Simple solutions are often the best solutions; no engineering required. When Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that doctors at an Austrian Hospital wash their hands between performing autopsies and delivering babies, the maternal mortality rate fell from around 25 percent to 1 percent. In another example, a public health campaign to iodize salt in Switzerland helped bring down the rate of deaf-mute births fivefold in just 8 years. Rather than demand answers from biotechnology, we can often make a positive difference in the world by investing in better public health, improving infrastructure and education, or scaling up existing inventions that have already proven effective.

Even so, simplicity can feel unsatisfactory or even provocative. Semmelweis, considered arrogant by senior doctors, was ostracized and eventually dismissed from his post. An early pioneer in germ theory, he died in a Viennese insane asylum, after being severely beaten by guards. In Switzerland, although evidence for the efficacy of iodized salt was robust, some eminent scientists spoke out against the interventions—advocating for elaborate alternative treatments. We’ll do our best to avoid publishing work that we wish were true, and instead aim to provide balanced, honest, and rigorous coverage of biotechnology.

High-impact solutions: Progress often makes its greatest strides in areas that are not widely covered by the media. We will de-emphasize medical topics and focus instead on areas such as animal welfare and climate resiliency, where biotechnology has proven astonishingly effective yet remains underexplored. We want people to focus on what is most urgent and tractable, and not necessarily on what is most glamorous. 

Laundry is one example. Engineered enzymes that remove stains in cold water reduced the energy required to do laundry by about 90 percent. Laundry may not be as immediately headline-grabbing as new cancer therapies, but it provides a concrete and ingenious solution to a demonstrable need. 

Mechanisms: Biotechnology shouldn’t be a mystery. Although its mechanisms are often infinitesimal, biology is material rather than magic. Cells are made from collections of atoms that we can manipulate, visualize, and control. Every engineering application has a mechanistic and tangible explanation. Often, these explanations are astonishingly beautiful. We encourage our writers to delve deeper and elucidate complex concepts in clear, illustrative prose.

Asimov Press will publish one feature article every two weeks, with additional newsletters and shorter essays scattered in between. Articles will be bundled into a magazine every three months, and each magazine will have a themed section with additional pieces that have not been published before. 

Learn more about our article types and how to write for us by perusing the Pitch Guide. Deep Dives explain how hard-won progress can be, and in so doing, help us better appreciate how far humanity has come. We’re particularly fond of Why We Didn’t Get a Malaria Vaccine Sooner. Essays explain surprising viewpoints or make compelling arguments about biotechnology; examples include I Should Have Loved BiologyPandemic Prevention as Fire-fighting, and Is cultivated meat for real?  We’re also commissioning speculative fiction that imagines positive, but plausible, biological futures, in addition to photo essays that visually demystify places involved in biotechnology. Book projects will launch in 2024.

Asimov Press is an editorially-independent initiative funded by Asimov but does not publish pieces about the company or its commercial interests. Our team consists of two founding editors: Niko McCarty and Xander Balwit. We’re grateful to have excellent advisors aiding us on this journey, including Saloni Dattani (Our World in Data, Works in Progress), Tessa Alexanian (The Council on Strategic Risks), Tom Ellis (Imperial College London), and Tony Kulesa (Pillar VC). Learn more at press.asimov.com

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I'm noticing a trend in "literary" online magazines in EA and adjacent movements, like Works in Progress and Asterisk. Were you inspired by these other magazines/websites? :3

Indeed so! We admire the depth and scope of their writing, not to mention their beautiful visuals. In our extended announcement on our website, we credit them as a serious source of inspiration. Saloni Dattani of Works in Progress is also an advisor for Asimov Press.  

Not sure if relevant, but one topic I am curious about but have not seen much writing about is how biotechnology can be used for a circular economy? For example, imagine that we can grow brain matter to create biological computers. Or grow trees into the shape of houses? Then, when these are no longer needed you just toss them at the side of the road and they decompose just like any other organic matter. No waste, no toxins, just immediately plugging into the circular economy of existing biology. Not sure if this is very EA though, but it is something, as an environmentalist, that gives me hope about biotech. I can see a future with no more landfills, no more toxic waste. Just everything being bio and part of the existing, fine tuned cycles of water, carbon, nitrogen etc.

I haven't seen much writing on this either, but we are certainly after some. "Living" or "self-healing" materials are big in biotech, and it just becomes a matter of seeing what is actually possible and can be done at scale. But yes, things such as living-roof materials, cables made from bacteria, and self-healing concrete are being explored. 

https://asm.org/articles/2022/july/cable-bacteria-electric-marvels-of-the-microbial-w
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710223010677

So exciting!

Thank you so much!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig