Lots of interest in gene editing startups but in practice they don't do that well: Few diseases can be corrected through gene editing, hence valuations of such companies, despite FDA approvals, are low. Compare with addressing shared causes of multi-morbidity like aging or obesity. If you want to work on the former, at Retro.bio we are hiring :)

The decline of social status of stay at home moms as cause of fertility decline (via Scott Alexander)

Why can't the US build ships

Isaak Freeman's journey to learn mandarin

Trevor Klee on Robert Moses

Advice on finding writing ideas, with some of my own!

Don't get too worried about microplastics

A while back I proposed this idea of going around successful labs and researching their management practices. Why are top labs top labs? Now, it is happening.

In 'qualitative metascience' there is a rich body of work to be developed about how to fund science or conduct research. Startups have Getting Things Done or High Output Management or The Great CEO within and a plethora of supporting essays and articles about fundraising, managing, or marketing. Startups do make use of this hard-earned knowledge through experience. What does science have that's comparable? (Limits and possibilities of Metascience)

Entrepreneurship changed the way I think, by Casey Handmer

Paligenosis, or tissue regeneration