Elisabeth Rosenthal, a medical doctor, writes that most experts believe that Americans do not need to get all of the medical checks and treatments that they do. The annual physical, for example is considered by some to be potentially dangerous. So why do Americans continue to get these tests then?

• In the insurance system the patients aren’t responsible for all of their medical bills. There is therefore a ‘more is better’ mentality on the patient’s side.
• Doctors, of course, make more money the more work they do, and so they too have an incentive to order more tests than are necessary.
• Drug makers are allowed to market their products directly to consumers, increasing demand for them.
• There are fears of malpractice lawsuits that cause doctors to over-proscribe tests.
• A lot of tests are developed – and then conducted – by specialists. However those tests often don’t hold up under the scrutiny of other medical professionals.
• Doctors may also proscribe tests because patients expect them or ask for them, and they don’t want to say no.
• However such tests can be dangerous. Certain aliments can be diagnosed causing the initiation of complicated procedures when it may have healed better by itself.

To read much more including what tests you probably take that professionals recommend you shouldn’t – or at least not as often – as well as why it’s dangerous to undergo too many tests, the financial motives involved, the organization that is trying to solve the problem, statistics related to health care spending in the United States, what health care professionals should actually do, and the path forwards, click here.

Source: The New York Times

Via: Kapil Gupta

Timothy B. Lee reflected on how a future where self-driving cars are the norm will affect our urban environment. He assumes that few people will ‘own’ a car and that instead everybody would order self-driving cabs when and where they need them:

• No more parking spots. During peak hours all the cars will be on the road and during off-peak hours they can just pull over on the side of a street. Cars could double and triple park if they wanted to during times when nobody is using the roads.
• Higher road density. People will use the car that fits their size requirements so smaller cars will be a lot more prevalent. Since software gives better driving capabilities you could conceivably see two small self-driving cars journey side by side in the same lane.
• Scaled options. You might order a private self-driving car for $3, or agree to share one with somebody else for $2. A van with lots of other people might only cost $1.

To read more about the implications this would have, including why being in a car will be a more pleasant experience, what it will mean for light rail, why there will be greater density around subway stations, what will happen to metro areas, and many more implications for a future that doesn’t seem too far off, click here.

Source: Forbes

Via: Marginal Revolution

William J. Dobson explored the relationship between China and Harvard. Highlights include:

• 10 years ago China’s ruling communist party decided to send promising officials abroad to hone their governance skills. Harvard was selected as their destination.
• The program was successful and now sends promising Chinese officials to other institutions including Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge and the University of Tokyo among others.
• The party’s Central Organization Department decides which of the Party’s officials get to go. It’s a secretive body whose number in the caller ID comes up as a string of 0s.
• Harvard runs a variety of courses tailored specifically for these students. They include a course on the Shanghai municipal government.
• Prominent Harvard alumni in China’s governance structure include the chairman of China’s first investment bank, the governor of Shaanxi province, the minister of commerce, and the head of the Central Organization Department – the body that decides who goes to Harvard.
• This makes China different from other authoritarian countries. Libya’s Qaddafi or Zimbabwe’s Mugabe never sent their rising stars abroad to learn.

To read about the implications of this, what it’s like for these students, the ethical conundrum this creates, the notable faculty members who teach the courses, what this says about China, how this relates to Bo Xilai, and what China and Harvard have in common, click here.

Source: Slate

The plan to mine asteroids for minerals might face a slight hitch: under current international law it’s illegal. Paul Marks explains:

• The United Nations’ 1967 Outer Space treaty prohibits entities from making territorial claims in space. It is not legal to ‘own’ an asteroid.
• Therefore if gold was ever brought back from an asteroid to earth, it’s not clear who would legally own it.
• Yet this might be a legal distinction that doesn’t have any operational realities. Meteorites are fallen asteroids and there’s a vibrant market for those.
• Future laws related to space mining may be based upon the laws of the sea. Nobody ‘owns’ the fish in the sea but anybody has the right to fish for them. Similarly nobody would own the asteroids but people could mine them.
• Another question to deal with is who would bear the liability is an asteroid that was being mined were to, for example, crash to earth killing people. The law states that it would be the government of the country that is responsible, yet space exploration is no longer exclusively the domain of countries and now involves the private sector.

To read more about another initiative to mine platinum from the moon, why asteroids might not even be covered under the UN treaty, how it’s fairly easy to pull out of the treaty, why the Moon Agreement doesn’t apply, how one man with an asteroid named after him would feel if it was mined, and why hitting the earth is actually fairly difficult, click here.

Source: Slate

Women in the United States have made impressive strides in various fields writes Dana Goldstein, but one place where there is still a lot of ground to cover is females in computer science. She highlights:

• Female computer scientists have actually declined as a percentage over the past 25 years.
• This is a problem because the majority of jobs in the United States are being created in STEM fields – science, technology, engineering and math.
• Those in STEM fields are far less likely to be unemployed meaning that women are missing out on a secure job.
• The wage gap between the genders in STEM fields is small compared to other fields. (Although depressingly, it still exists.)
• Brazil, India and Malaysia have done a better job of getting women into computer science.
• The problem starts at a young age – girls are less likely to have toys that build spatial reasoning skills such as Lego and game consoles. These are some of the things that motivated Mark Zuckerberg to become a programmer.
• The lack of women in the field also leads to embarrassing mishaps such as Apple’s refusal to let Siri treat women equally.

To read more about what one college has tried to do to attract female computer scientists, what Facebook’s (female) COO has to say about it, the importance of video games, how Asus’ recent actions demonstrate the problem, why companies like Microsoft and HP are desperate to find female programmers, and some creative solutions to the problem click here.

Source: Slate

s

Free Exchange reported on a paper written by the McKinsey Global Institution blasting away some of the commonly held myths about trade. They include:

• Myth: Developed economies have seen exports decline and imports rise over the past 15-20 years.
  • Fact: Imports and exports as a % of GDP have stayed remarkably stable since 1994.
• Myth: Developed countries have a trade deficit because of the consumer goods they import (those with the ubiquitous “made in China’ stickers on them.)
  • Fact: The trade deficits are primarily driven by the demand for oil and other forms of energy. Moreover the majority of advanced economies run a surplus in knowledge-intensive manufactured goods such as airplane engines.
• Myth: Trade has led to the decline in manufacturing jobs.
  • Fact: Manufacturing jobs have declined due to increases in productivity.
• Myth: Trade creates low paying jobs.
  • Fact: Trade creates jobs in idea-intensive sectors that pay well.

To read more about the tricky question of income inequality that the report can’t answer, what the empirical research says, why less trade would not be the solution to income inequality, what rich countries need to do, and why it might be a problem that financial innovations can’t be patented, click here.

Source: Free Exchange

Slate’s explainer Brian Palmer outlined how winners of spelling bees do later in life. Highlights of his explanation include:

• A surprising number build careers focused on understanding the human mind. They include professions such as psychiatrists, neurosurgeons, and psychologists.
• Others work as journalists. One even won a Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the 1989 Bay Area earthquake.
• Some seem to become addicted to games of wit. The 2002 winner is on the international poker circuit while others have appeared on shows such as Teen Jeopardy.
• A lot stay with the competition. The current director won the Spelling Bee in 1981.
• None have won a Nobel Peace Prize.

To read the names and histories of these participants, as well as other examples of how they turn out, what the current champion wants to do with her life, the role that local newspapers play, the authors among them, and the place where you can hear the voice acting of one of them, click here.

Source: Slate

Brooms. In every building you go to there isn’t one too far away. But we rarely give much credit to this under-appreciated tool writes J. Bryan Lowder who seeks to change that by giving a short overview of its history:

• There isn’t an exact date for the ‘invention’ of the broom. But bundles of various fibers have been used as a cleaning tool for centuries.
• Before the 19^th century brooms were created by individual families at home. They didn’t last long and would have to be remade often.
• Artisanal broom makers started off in Anglo-Saxon England where they would take twigs from birch trees to make brooms.
• The modern broom truly dawned on western civilization however when a sweet corn plant now known as “broomcorn” was first used to make brooms. It would be more durable than other types of fibers, and the person who discovered it was soon making several hundred a year.
• Other farmers cultivated the crop and made their own to sell – it was a profitable side business.
• A Christian religious sect invented the flat broom that is prevalent today.
• The broom industry continued to gradually grow in the United States, going through industrialization and mechanization. Then NAFTA happened and it was no longer profitable to make brooms in the United States. Today most come from Mexico.

To read more about the rise of synthetic brooms, the role that DuPont played, the types of brooms to use for different jobs, how the vacuum cleaner fits into all this, mentions of the broom in the Bible, what exactly beson squires are, what broomcorn was used for before it was used to make brooms, different versions of broom machines, why flat brooms are superior, who pioneered whisk brooms, and a photo gallery that visualizes the history of the broom click here.

Source: Slate

In recent years an increasing number of experts have suggested that rapid economic growth may soon come to an end. The argument goes, Free Exchange notes, that it is no longer easy for a lone genius to come up with a brand new discovery the way that Einstein did. You need teams of people from various fields working together for many years to make progress. Yet Free Exchanges goes onto argue that while this may be true, there is no reason why this will limit economic growth. Highlights include:

• The amount of resources accessible to us has increased exponentially. Advanced statistical software has barely been around for two decades. Widespread broadband for less than a decade. The potential of these nascent developments has barely been unlocked.
• There is no clear link between new discoveries and economic growth. It takes decades for countries to adapt to, and take advantage of, new technologies.
• The tacocopter is an example. It simply leverages existing mapping and drone technology to come up with an innovative and valuable idea. Yet laws have not adapted to these new technologies and such a business venture would currently be illegal.

To read more about the role that Watson might play, what the industrial revolution shows us, the role that government has to play, how societal evolution, legal institutions, and social institutions all tie it together, the example of land-use policy, American tolerance for messiness, and what this means for unemployment, click here.

Source: Free Exchange