What people recommend, in their own words, with the receipt.
Runs global health R&D at Open Philanthropy; writes about the science and medicine that could exist and does not
6 things
How to be a wise optimist about science and technology?Other Michael Nielsen
Nielsen reads as a scientist holding those tensions seriously, alive and vivid, while believing intellectual progress and reconciliation between them is possible.
Roundup post of science writing from the last two years that stuck with him
blog.jacobtrefethen.com ↗·2025-06-09Wrong?
The Practical Guide to Biotech PartnershipsOther Lucas Harrington
I love detailed pieces written by people who've successfully done the thing they're writing about. The more specific the better.
Roundup post of science writing from the last two years that stuck with him
blog.jacobtrefethen.com ↗·2025-06-09Wrong?
blog maximalismOther Erik Hoel
Not to do with science writing, just writing: I love Erik Hoel's philosophy of blog maximalism, blogs embodying the good of the internet
Roundup post of science writing from the last two years that stuck with him
blog.jacobtrefethen.com ↗·2025-06-09Wrong?
Sampling the 2024 blogosphere: Part 1Other Erik Hoel
Relatedly, I loved Hoel's Sampling the 2024 blogosphere: Part 1.
Roundup post of science writing from the last two years that stuck with him
blog.jacobtrefethen.com ↗·2025-06-09Wrong?
Bio(un)ethicalPodcast Leah Pierson and Sophie Gilbert
Here's a podcast from Leah Pierson and Sophie Gilbert, Bio(un)ethical, if you want to start down the rabbithole.
Roundup post of science writing from the last two years that stuck with him, discussing bioethics
blog.jacobtrefethen.com ↗·2025-06-09Wrong?
Machines of Loving GraceOther Dario Amodei
for those wondering if San Franciscans are all the same, FYI I disagree with some parts of Amodei's piece that are pretty important to his conclusions.
Roundup post of science writing from the last two years that stuck with him
blog.jacobtrefethen.com ↗·2025-06-09Wrong?
Every entry is a verbatim quote and a link to the public post it came from. Nothing is paraphrased. If it is not on record somewhere public, it is not here.
The verdict is what they actually said: loved and liked are explicit; recommended means they told others to get it; uses means they only say they use it; read is a book on their public shelf with no verdict; mixed and disliked are kept too.
A dashed affiliate link, sponsored or their own label means the post disclosed a relationship. It is shown, never hidden.
The small bar beside a date shows how dated a recommendation is for its kind of thing.
The bar shows how dated a recommendation is, for its kind of thing. Full and green is recent. It drains, and turns amber and then grey, as the post gets older.
What counts as old depends on the thing. A laptop praised four years ago has been replaced twice; a book loved twenty years ago is probably still loved. The bar is empty after about:
A striped bar means the post carries no date and the date shown is an estimate. No date at all, no bar.