I was stunned reading this. It looks like the group pushing this project are just taking advantage of the president's advisers ignorance. Cognitive neuroscientists, psychologists and neurologists have been "mapping" the human brain for well over 20 years now. There's even a conference dedicated to the pursuit (http://www.humanbrainmapping.org) it attracts over 2500 attendees each year. Unless this project is focusing on some aspect of the brain that has yet to be studied (not very likely) it looks like this is just going to take NIH funds away from researchers who are already working in these areas. It doesn't surprise me though. Francis Collins (head of NIH) was the leader of the publicly funded half of the Human Genome Project. I guess he's trying to pull the same trick twice. It will be very interesting to see what the final proposal looks like.
EDIT:
Also claims that "we'll be able to cure Alzheimers!" are pretty much part of every grant proposal submitted to NIMH in one way or the other. It's just an easy way to get your "impact on public health" covered. I can't believe they're failing for it here.
Right, and people had been playing with rockets for 30 years before the Apollo project. There is something to be said for large, concerted effort toward a singular goal. There are still enough massive gaps in our understanding of the brain to justify further research.
That said, this press speculation is just fluff and it's unclear to me whether it is possible to define such a focused goal.
As an aside, I don't quite get all the cynicism in this thread.
President: we will spend more money on science!
HN: Meh?
President: we will spend more money on science! HN: Meh?
The cynicism is that all "science" is not equal. Correct or not, cantastoria's criticism is that giving money to charlatans takes that money away from basic research. A good counterargument would outline why "mapping the brain" is possible and a good use of resources. Personally, I'm still waiting for that from someone.
Correct or not, cantastoria's criticism is that giving money to
charlatans takes that money away from basic research.
I don't understand who the supposed charlatans are. The basic scientists lauded by cantastoria for doing existing research are almost certainly going to get the lion's share of this new money.
outline why "mapping the brain" is possible and a good use of
resources.
Because that's how grant peer-review works? Who will compose the review panels for this funding? Mostly the same people who already compose the review panels for existing NIH/NINDS/etc. funding mechanisms.
I can only guess that you find this paper convincing.
The nanoprobe and "complex emergent properties" stuff at the beginning are a bit hand-wavy, but the concrete 5 and 10-year goals are sufficiently ambitious while certainly not outlandish.
It's more like if people had been already going to the moon for 30 years in this case.
There is something to be said for large, concerted effort toward a singular goal.
As I said that concerted effort has been going on for quite some time now it just hasn't been funded by a narrow project that will benefit very few scientists (and apparently Google, Microsoft and Qualcomm).
It's not cynicism, it's healthy skepticism. "More money on science" in this case looks more like a boondoggle that will benefit a few select scientists and corporations and will probably end up taking money away from a larger group of scientists already looking into these areas.
The "mapping" of the brain, while accelerating, has been growing at a rather slow pace. In fact one of the few large 'mapping' projects is conducted by a non-academic entity, the Allen (of microsoft fame) institute (http://www.brain-map.org/). The reason for this slow progress is the small scale and scope of most investigations. Thousands of studies are being repeated (and mice sacrificed) because of the lack of both data sharing and concerted planning among neuroscientists. The academic pressure for publishing fast unfortunately limits the scope of most scientists to projects that can bring results easily.
This new project sounds like it is the neuroscientific analog of LHC or the Human Genome Project. The truth is that we wouldn't be able to replace the LHC with 1000 synchrotrons.
Maybe but one of the reason why there is such slow growth is that there's so much disagreement amongst researchers about how to interpret results.
I would be much happier if this project was focusing on creating the LHC equivalent in brain mapping w.r.t. instrumentation and methods.
For instance, a cheaper imaging technology that offered 2-3x the resolution of current techniques. That would be a much more focused goal and would have clear benefits for all scientists working in these areas.
The LHC (and even the HGP) were largely engineering projects. Basic science is much more hard to focus, but there is an overarching goal nevertheless: "figure out how the brain works by any means". I presume imaging methods are part of this.
A key point about bias and discrimination is that people aren't (and often can't be!) aware of their own biases
as it's typically the beginning of an explanation for why admissions/hiring policies are being changed to ensure an equal outcome or Khan's case a 2:1 outcome (which apparently is just great as long as it's in the right direction).
The parent is describing the postmodern definition of Meritocracy where "merit" is just a point view. In that world all achievements/failures must be evaluated in light of the person or group's privilege/race/class/gender and sexuality. People who subscribe to this definition really don't believe in meritocracy as it's generally viewed as a way to institutionalize white male advantage. Just a heads up :)
I am not sure whether this is what the parent meant. I mean one way of looking at it is that the more people from completely different backgrounds do things, the more interesting the work gets. E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more.
I generally support the success of more people from varied backgrounds in tech. Mainly because it makes for a wider variance in problems that get solved. It gets tiring to see every startup out there that solves problems for 20 something people who live in San Francisco (who incidentally might be male, asian/white...). This does not however mean that I ascribe to the idea that one should impose quotas or have lower standards for people who don't fit in these demographics.
I completely agree with you that there is more merit(effort) in coming from a disadvantaged background (say x-5) and getting to point x than coming from a wealthier background (x-3) and getting to point x.
I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit and completely orthogonally to privilege/race/class/gender.
I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit
Why? If two candidates are equal in every way, why not favor the one coming from a disadvantaged background? Shouldn't they be more, rather than equally, likely to achieve more given the same future resources?
It's disheartening to watch online communities turn on themselves as they become infected with the cancer of postmodern feminism. It's a bullying, disempowering, dissent-crushing and divisive[1] ideology that erases individual experiences, obsesses over things one cannot control, demonizes nuance, and glorifies experiencing alleged "oppression", as defined in Marxist terms. It's toxic.
Unless things change, the evaporative cooling effect will leave Hacker News a divisive, infighting shell of its former self. Hopefully, a few new, positive communities will have sprouted by then. I'm constantly on the lookout.
[1] Look beneath the surface of any postmodern Marxist, anarchist, or feminist community, and you'll quickly see that dissent is completely non-tolerated, often in comical fashion. "Check your privilege" and similar anti-intellectualisms are internally thrown around like candy over any disagreement, new members are expected to prostrate themselves, and sub-communities are constantly splintering off and reemerging under new "leaders".
I'm curious to know what aspects of Khan's recruiting/admission policies
resulted in such a large number of female admissions. It would be nice if the authors' response included some description of their policies.
As the person who stands at the end of our hiring process’s pipeline, I find “Mark“‘s idea that we’re sacrificing quality to fill some quota merely very insulting. If I were one of the women who has successfully navigated our brutal interview process, I’d be furious.
This is said as if there is no basis for "Mark's" belief. Affirmative action programs are notorious for establishing two-tier admissions policies for the sole
purpose of fostering "diversity". While official quotas are illegal, it's well known that minority students are admitted to prestigious universities with far lower SAT and GPA's that their white/Asian counterparts. What's to make us think that's not what's at work here? Especially given that increasing female enrollment was a high priority given that there are so many "big smiles" when it was achieved. Again, some transparency would be nice.
If any piece of evidence from the above points to an organization that values quotas over excellence in interns and the work expected of them, well please raise the alarm.
We need to get past our default response being a knee jerk assumption of discrimination.
Fogcreek and Google's interview process both seem to yield a far larger number of male employees than females yes?
David, Dylan and Jamie are all men yes?
If any piece of evidence from the above points to an organization that values quotas over excellence in interns and the work expected of them, well please raise the alarm.
No one is accusing you of using quotas and no is saying you do not value excellence in interns. What's being asked is why was there such a steep increase in the number of female
interns accepted? Were there more female applicants? Were interview questions changed?
How did this result come about?
One thing Fog Creek did was we hunted harder for qualified women applicants, which meant we actually had to go to female tech recruiting events.
The problem is that there are few female developers to start with, and they are all heavily recruited by large software companies (Google, Microsoft, etc) already. The larger companies have big budgets to devote to this and encourage the very small number of women developers to go work there.
If you just sit back and wait for more women to apply, they are going to get picked up by the bigger companies before you even get a chance to interview them.
It's also difficult to attract that small group of women devs to apply to work at your company when there are no women developers there currently. The larger companies already have a bunch of women developers, so it can suggest to future candidates that these companies are great places for them to work (i.e. they won't be discriminated against at these companies). It may be that your small company is also a great place, it's just that you don't have any women to vouch for that.
So in Fog Creek's case, we increased the number of women applicants by making it our goal to get more women to apply. That's the only thing we changed. Our interview process stayed exactly the same.
Having worked with Kamens, including interviewing the same candidates, I can't even entertain the idea that the interviews were rigged in some way, which is you abhorrent implication.
We see 2:1 male to female ratios all the time, and no one bats an eye. But when it gets flipped we need to figure out why?
Regardless of how it came to be, this is a win for our industry, as it sets an example that the numbers don't need to be so heavily skewed towards men.
We see 2:1 male to female ratios all the time, and no one bats an eye. But when it gets flipped we need to figure out why?
Simple probability. A 2:1 male environment is completely reasonable in a gender neutral process, whereas a 2:1 female environment is exceedingly unlikely to occur under such a process.
And what I'm asking you is: can you come up with any possible explanations for an increase in women devs over time that should be celebrated, especially at an organization that values equal education for everyone, without first wondering if our interview questions have changed?
Why is an explanation required? Any developer worth his or her salt knows that, statistically, something like this is bound to happen over enough companies and enough years, even if the trend is so heavily skewed the other way.
Is this a 3 sigma deviation? Maybe. Or could it be that, on average, women might be drawn to educational software more than other types? Doesn't sound unreasonable.
Regardless, your insistence on an explanation shows that you're still stuck in the bad old days.
I'm pretty sure most universities have a company mission that appeals to both men and women and they haven't suddenly seen a 2:1 f/m ratio in CS majors. What makes Khan so different?
He might have a point in that a lot of women seem to aspire to be teachers. For example when I got my maths degree, 99% (estimated) of the women sitting in the lectures with me were studying to become teachers. Perhaps working for Khan Academy somehow seems close enough to teaching.
I don't think you have to feel attacked, isn't it natural to ask what is going on if you produce an outlier? It could be genuine curiosity.
In the same vein it is interesting to ask why most companies receive more male applications. Without asking these questions, how can there ever be an improvement (except for random luck)?
As a hiring manager for over a decade, I can't recall the last time I received a resume from a qualified female applicant for a full-time software position.
Internships tend to be a bit less one-sided, but the skew is still quite high.
This sucks. I want to receive those resumes, for what I hope are obvious reasons, but I don't ever receive them.
Given that, I can't help but wonder whether:
1) You have a completely different applicant pool
or
2) You somehow changed your application process in a way that resulted in a 2:1 female:male ratio.
I don't think those are terrible questions to have. The answers could be enlightening.
"it's well known that minority students are admitted to prestigious universities with far lower SAT and GPA's that their white/Asian counterparts"
SATs have been criticised for having inherent socioeconomic bias. The validity of both SATs and GPAs, and their appropriateness as gauges of student intelligence, future performance, learning, and appropriateness for use in admissions have all been questioned.
LockeWatts: What does the SAT have to do with writing software? I'd say being able to overcome adversity, i.e. being able to do more with what you've been dealt than others believe you can, is usually going to be a stronger indicator of future performance than is a test score. Furthermore, I'd argue in software development especially, you need to be able to overcome people's initial compunctions, and you need to be resourceful and able to figure out how to succeed when it seems like the chips are stacked against you.
As to how you test for that: why not ask? The SAT and ACT both have an essay portion. Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity? Also, how is asking interviewees how to solve a programming problem more quantitative than asking them how they've dealt with adversity?
"I'd say being able to overcome adversity, i.e. being able to do more with what you've been dealt than others believe you can, is usually going to be a stronger indicator of future performance than is a test score."
Well you can say that, but I haven't seen any studies that would indicate as such. However, multiple studies have shown that logical reasoning, critical thinking, and mathematical aptitude all lead to better programmers. These are things the SAT attempts to select for.
"why not ask? The SAT and ACT both have an essay portion."
A much discussed and argued about section, precisely due to it's inability to be quantitatively and statistically analyzed.
Admissions officers at multiple schools indicated they gave the essay portion little to no consideration for precisely this reason.
"Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity?"
To colleges or jobs? For jobs, simply because it's a less efficient method.
"Also, how is asking interviewees how to solve a programming problem more quantitative than asking them how they've dealt with adversity?"
You can measure things about this. Candidate A took N minutes to solve the problem ideally, Candidate B took N + 5 minutes. All other things being equal, candidate A is superior to candidate B.
Furthermore, you can look at things such as programming fundamentals that are easily quantifiable, such as being able to correctly create a log(n) versus n search algorithm, or being able to correctly indicate why log(n) might be superior to n.
Finally, 'adversity' hasn't even been defined in this conversation, so I'm arguing against an ethereal concept. Please define it for me.
Adversity: a state, condition, or instance of serious or continued difficulty or adverse fortune (see adverse)[1]
One of the biggest problems with relying purely on quantitative data is that you bias the results to those who are better at achieving quantitative goals. EDIT: and your results are inevitably skewed by the test. Are you saying communication and writing capability are unimportant, simply because they're difficult to quantify?
What you're arguing for is, given a choice of bad quantitative tools and OK to mediocre qualitative ones, using the quantitative tools as they're the only way you can measure things. This is a similar argument as to why grades are more important than actual teacher feedback, despite some teachers giving 95% of the class an A, and others giving 20%.
The SAT has a history of discrimination, and, in addition, there are proven stereotyping effects: give self-identifying Asian women a math test, and they'll perform better when you make them identify with being Asian then when you make them identify with being a women[2].
Given how much energy has been spent recruiting me (having me fly out to interviews, organizing tech talks at my school, having employees at the company take me to lunch, etc.), and given that every company I interviewed with asked something along the lines of "tell me about a project you've done recently," which also is a subjective, non-quantifiable question, it hardly seems like an unreasonable burden to ask, as part of the regular interview questions, how a candidate has overcome adversity.
And admissions officers don't give weight to the SAT essay because they have their own essays with which to judge a candidate with. And the SAT just provides a quantitative essay score, whereas colleges can see and evaluate multiple written pieces. And they do often ask questions like how you've overcome adversity. Which makes sense, as they want students who won't give up when facing difficulties.
"Why not ask candidates to write an essay, or tell you in person, about how they've overcome adversity?"
Wouldn't such a system be very easy to attack, how would you avoid the judges being biased, or the claim that they could be biased? Since judging an essay would probably not be an automated thing at this stage of AI development?
Most colleges (especially private colleges) already require you to write essays. Having one on adversity is also, for certain colleges, already in place. I'm not talking about automated judging, or even explicit scoring (besides figuring out hire/not hire, or next round or not), i.e. no, this can't really be used to exactly replace the SAT, but it could be used as an evaluative supplement.
Well A) How do you plan on quantitatively measuring that so that all candidates are equally considered? and B) What does that have to do with writing software?
That list doesn't really contain many privileges in the "unpacking the knapsack" sense, in that they aren't advantages you have just because of your race/class/gender. If anything it shows that these opportunities/advantages are available to those to who pursue them whether it be you or your parents or your country.
Perhaps you are underestimating the impact that hard work has had on your life and over-estimating the impact of "privileges" you list. Certainly, you were born into such favorable circumstances (although your parents/family seemed to have been very intentional in creating that for you) but you wouldn't be successful in tech without the hard work part. I wonder what motivates you to emphasize the former and not the latter?
> in that they aren't advantages you have just because of your race/class/gender.
Clearly not – they are advantages that are atypical to my race and starting class, but entirely typical to a great many of the people I've encountered in my work. That's what was interesting to me about the exploration.
> but you wouldn't be successful in tech without the hard work part.
I completely agree. I'll put it to you like this: I may have run in the race, and that was all my effort, but someone needed to first put me on plane for me to even compete.
I'll put it to you like this: I may have run in the race, and that was all my effort, but someone needed to first put me on plane for me to even compete.
Sure, but they worked hard to be able to put on that plane. That you recognized the opportunity and took it is a tribute to you and them.
It sounds like you're the product of a lot of hard work (and maybe
a little luck). Why minimize that by calling it privilege? It does
a disservice to you and those who've helped you.
It is privilege because not everyone got parents who gave a damn.
Not everyone got parents who would bother to teach them things or buy them a computer. Some people just aren't getting those things in their lives. And as long as that's true, these things are privileges.
So I am grateful. But I know that you can't universally pick up any given person with my background, tell them to work hard, and have that be enough.
Thanks for taking the time to spell this out for everyone. You've a real knack for putting things in a simple non-offensive manner.
I try to bring up the concept of privilege once in a while, but I find it really hard to get people to think about it. On one hand, it can come off as an attack on your sense of self. And I think it is a blow to certain aspects of your ego. But the intellectual gratification of understanding yourself and how things come to be should make it worth the reconceptualization, even if it didn't tend to make you appreciate your own life as well as the people you spend it with more.
I hate the word privilege (used in this way), but I'm having trouble articulating why. It's become a loaded term, indirectly associated with sexism, racism, and other isms (just look at a Google search - you'll see "male", "white", "straight", etc. - amusingly enough "American" never seems to make the list), so it can too easily come across as an accusation or attempt to guilt. I'm well aware of my privileges and very grateful for them, but it feels like it's not anyone else's business to point them out to me.
Here's a thought experiment - when you try to bring it up, replace the word "privilege" with "blessing" or "luck". Does the concept lose any of its meaning? How do people's reactions change?
There are two things: having privilege, and wielding it over people. If you are white and male and have a good job, you have privilege and there's nothing wrong with that. No one really has a right to check you for that.
If you then go on to tell all kinds of people that you got where you are by working hard and everyone else just has to work hard and they'll get there too, you're minimizing their challenges. They have to work harder to maintain a realistic, positive attitude with respect to the hurdles in front of them, which makes their life harder. Meanwhile, your life is not affected at all by the conversation, you go back to work and are productive. That's wielding your privilege, and that's a dick move, and people have every right to check you for that.
As for the difference between privilege and luck or blessings... Privilege is a kind of continuous luck.... one's maleness pays off throughout their entire life. Finding a dollar on the street is only instantaneous luck. And privilege only applies to things that are substantial advantages in the sort of common denominator pursuits of the median individual. Your maleness helps you earn more money which is something pretty much everyone needs to do. If you have small wrists and can easily clean out the inside of glass jars, that's not really privilege.
As for why you hate the word, perhaps you hate it because you think being sexist and racist means you're evil, therefore having privilege makes you evil. But everyone is sexist sometimes and everyone is racist sometimes. It's harmful, but it doesn't mean you're evil. It's just the way people work. That said, recognizing your racism and sexism and seeking out ways to be less so is an opportunity to be good.
As for people making you feel guilty... No one has a right to make you feel guilty. If they're trying to make you feel bad, they're just being an asshole. That said, they could be simultaneously being an asshole AND checking you on something where you're being an asshole at the same time. If so, I would just forgive them (to yourself) for trying to make you feel bad, and thank them (to their face) for helping you understand better the ways in which you're harming people. Learn something and don't let the petty stuff get in your way.
I think the reason it's worth going beyond "blessing" to "privilege" is that some things aren't really "luck" in the sense of some sort of randomly distributed boon. Some are part of self-sustaining systems.
As a straight white guy, I have a hard time saying "Gosh, I'm so lucky to be white." But it has absolutely been an advantage for me.
I don't know that I feel guilty for that, exactly. But I do feel an obligation to use my power responsibly. And if I fail to do that, then I hope I have friends kind and smart enough to call me on it. And that is when I'd feel guilty.
So the question revolves about whether being born to the right set of parents is a privilege or a result of hard work. One could say that it's almost certainly a privilege -- however what about the parents? What about the work they did to give their kid(s) access to those privileges? Just the mere fact that OP's parents made a decision at some point in their lives to say no to alcohol (or heroin or what have you) is something that should be rewarded, if not in their generation, then in the next.
And what about the parents who were systemically denied access to wealth, denied equal access to education, denied the right to vote, and denied equal protection under the law for generations? Isn't freedom from persecution a privilege?
Your argument only makes sense in a bubble where institutional sexism, classism, racism, and xenophobia doesn't exist.
Hard work alone should be enough - but that is an ideal, not the reality.
The business models that will emerge in science will be as diverse as the ones on the web at large. There will be advertising businesses; freemium models; and enterprise sales models.
I'm not sure who the author thinks the customers for these services will be. Perhaps universities will pay for access but I guarantee you faculty and students will not. I also can't imagine advertisers paying much to target academics, a small and not particularly unique demographic. In short, I just don't see how these sites hope to generate any revenue. Academia is an incredibly difficult market to get money out of and even if you're going to sell at the university level you're talking about a massive sales effort that is going to take years to yield results (think Blackboard). As other have said here journals are going to end up being open-access and free. Many of them will probably end being run by well endowed university presses (e.g. MIT press).
> I just don't see how these sites hope to generate any revenue.
Good point. The academic publishing "sector" is definitely a very interesting domain and there is a lot of POWER in knowledge, but it is not clear what the role of a startup company would be in there. We could bring cool new technology but without wide adoption tech is useless.
Mr. Price is trying the generic (and by now annoying as hell) "social network for science" approach but it is not clear that having "likes" for papers inside the academia.edu walled garden do anything for science. What is cool is the tremendous opportunity for better scientific discovery applications and the organization of knowledge. Hopefully at some point Mr. Price will //do// something interesting on that front instead of spending his time in PR mode writing guest posts for tech news sites.
@Richard: Sorry bro, but the "sign up to see the PDF" really pissed me off the other day so you are in the bad books until you change that. Not cool.
My guess is that the future of dissemination looks a lot like the arXiv (self-service, cheap) and that a peer review system can be bolted on top of it. Prof. Gowers was recently mentioned he heard of an initiative to build "arXiv overlay journals" [1].
If you are occupying the position of privilege, you have a duty to go read about why this is sexist
According to what? The Social Justice Handbook?
king_jester please stop lecturing us on how to behave. You are not our proctor. You clearly subscribe to a post-structuralist/Marxist belief system and thankfully most of us do not. What you are doing is equivalent
to a Evangelical Christian going into an Atheist discussion forum and
telling them all they must consult the Bible to find out why they're
behaving incorrectly.
> According to what? The Social Justice Handbook? king_jester please stop lecturing us on how to behave.
My response was specifically to someone who demanded proof from affected before they would believe anything that is being said. You are free to do what you want, but I of course will call out sexism. There are tons of resources going over the basics a simple Google search away, so there is no excuse for someone to come into this thread and brush off people who are rightly pointing out this marketing stunt as sexist.
> You are not our proctor.
True, but that doesn't mean I can't call sexism out when I see it.
> You clearly subscribe to a post-structuralist/Marxist belief system and thankfully most of us do not.
Actually, I don't. Calling sexism out doesn't make me post-structuralist or Marxist.
> What you are doing is equivalent to a Evangelical Christian going into an Atheist discussion forum and telling them all they must consult the Bible to find out why they're behaving incorrectly.
Except I'm not telling anyone to consult my preferred religious beliefs and implying that not obeying my religion is behaving incorrectly.
The fact of the matter is dismissing people's criticism and experiences is simply moving the goal posts. That commenter could have easily done the bare minimum of googling to learn more, but instead they went with a brush off. I do personally behave that treating people ethically is the duty of folks who could otherwise treat people poorly, but that's just polite behavior.
There are tons of resources going over the basics a simple Google search awayActually, I don't. Calling sexism out doesn't make me post-structuralist or Marxist.
From one of your other comments:
Gender is a performance, not a thing. You act in alignment with what you portray to others as your gender.
Oh bullshit. People that think "Gender is a performance" and that there are "basics" that have to be learned have clearly been steeped in post-structuralist thought or perhaps maybe you should Google more about the origins of your beliefs. And you're not just "calling out" sexism you're clearly instructing people how to behave and think.
That commenter could have easily done the bare minimum of googling to learn more, but instead they went with a brush off.
See what I mean.
I do personally behave that treating people ethically is the duty of folks who could otherwise treat people poorly, but that's just polite behavior.
> People that think "Gender is a performance" and that there are "basics" that have to be learned have clearly been steeped in post-structuralist thought
As someone who knows a thing or two about post-structuralism, I also know many, many people who think "gender is a performance" and know absolutely nothing about it. Your assumption that everyone knows the entire intellectual history of the ideas they espouse is a bit wrong.
Furthermore, while it's true that Butler et. al are some of the more prominent proponents of 'gender is a performance', one could easily believe that gender is performative for a different reason. A implies B does not mean B implies A, and all that.
EDIT:
Also claims that "we'll be able to cure Alzheimers!" are pretty much part of every grant proposal submitted to NIMH in one way or the other. It's just an easy way to get your "impact on public health" covered. I can't believe they're failing for it here.