I, flotsam.

Certain relatives of mine cling to the fantasy that I will be able to decide where I get a job, so as to live within a few miles of them. While the sentiment is appreciated, and shared, the reality is that I have almost no say in where I end up.

Let's review a few facts. First, the US economy is still in the shitter, if slightly less deep in than a few years ago. Lots of people, regardless of their industry, are moving wherever for whatever job they can get. Maybe there is some profession where you can just up and move where you want and be confident of making a living there, but I'm not sure what profession that would be at this point.

Second, even in good times, academics can almost never pick a city and get a job there. For hundreds of years academics have been moving to whatever University has a position for them. I'm reading a book about Alexander von Humboldt, who was one of the greatest scientists of the late 1700s and early 1800s, and even he keeps going from country to country looking for a patron and encountering academics working far from their own countries. There are extraordinarily few academics who can simply contact a University of interest and based on their scientific reputation be confident of getting a job there. Once you've won a Nobel Prize your chances are good. Barring that, good luck.

Third, I have done what most of the academic establishment says scientists should do, but very few fully do, because it makes publishing and job-hunting that much harder. My work is so damn interdisciplinary and specific that I am unlikely to fit the particular job description a small disciplinary department at a college or university is likely to write. I am on an email list for an online bulletin board for evolutionary biologists called EvolDir, and every few days I get an email for some position somewhere in the world that they are trying to fill. Here are a few of the most recent entry-level faculty positions:
•"There are several openings for Bioinformaticians and Software Developers at the University of Glasgow (UK)."
•The City University of New York seeks candidates with expertise "in tropical ecology, biogeography, evolutionary ecology, and conservation biology."
•" Tel Aviv University (ISRAEL) invites ... applicants who apply modern approaches to investigate fundamental problems in the general area of Plant Ecology. "
•UC Riverside "invites applications for a faculty position in plant evolutionary developmental biology."

These are positions I would bother applying for. This is not to say that I won't find anything, but rather that even if Near My Relatives U does decide to advertise for a new professor, they are more likely to be looking for an expert in the genomic analysis of primate fecal samples than they are a developmental evolutionary demographer. When I am ready to apply for positions, the question will not be, "Is that biking distance from my relatives?" but rather, "am I plausibly qualified for that position and is it a place where my wife is willing to live?" If it is, I'll need to apply. It is most likely that positions I do apply for will be among the relatively few broadly defined positions in evolutionary biology, with no further disciplinary restrictions. I very much approve of such broad-net casting, but it tends to lead to many hundreds of applications, as everyone in the field qualifies, so my chances with any one such position are slim.

If the economy were to improve dramatically, I could plausibly limit my search to within 1000 miles of my family. As it is, that limit will be about 12000 miles.

Decreasing population, increasing density

The Institute where I work is built on land that used to be part of huge East German ship building facility. The facility folded shortly after the German Democratic Republic did. The buildings were, for the most part, left derelict. One of the former factory buildings has been converted into an indoor shopping center. Each store is its own single story box built into the bottom of the cavernous factory building, with walkways and cranes still hanging overhead. Most of the other buildings have been torn down, and ~15 waterfront apartment buildings have been built (or are being built) on the land, most just within the two years I have been here. Apartments in these new buildings are on the expensive side for Rostock, but are filling up fast. One or two huge windowless cement monstrosities (one holds a dance club called The Bunker) remain, as well as a couple of older brick warehouses that have been refurbished. One is being used as a temporary home for the Rostock Volkstheater (community theater) while their main hall is closed for fire-code violations. It feels as though a new, fairly fancy, neighborhood is simply sprouting from the root-system of the old shipyards, among the remaining shells, foundations and train tracks to nowhere.

The demand for housing that fuels all this building is a story of migration. Rostock is Mecklenberg-Vorpomern, the least densely populated state in Germany, and a state that has steadily lost population since reunification. Many of the outylying villages are dominated by abandoned buildings. Apartment complexes on the outer edges of Rostock, plunked down in the middle of fields by the communist planners, now offer multiple months of free rent to anyone who will move in and still are emptying out. Rostock is full of college students, who don’t want to be on the outskirts in half empty buildings, and an aging population of long-term residents, who don’t either. The more abandoned the outskirts get, the strong the incentive to move toward the city center. So the center of Rostock is becoming denser even as the state loses population.

Return on Investment in Higher Education

One of the major debates in US politics is usually framed like this: Should we spend more on things that are worth doing, or should we maintain balanced budgets by spending less. The underlying assumption of this type of argument is that spending more necessarily worsens the budget outcome. If the budget outcome income minus spending, doesn't it make sense that spending more worsens the outcome? Only if we can assume that the spending does not spur more income. In other words, only if we assume that investment is impossible. Investment is spending intended to increase income.

After reading Mike Hout's recent article on the importance of public higher education, I was left wondering how public expenditure on higher education compared to other investments in purely budgetary terms. Mike points out that education leads to higher personal incomes, higher rates of entrepreneurship and other good things that increase tax revenues. At the same time education leads to lower rates of things that cost the state money, like imprisonment and needing public assistance through social security/unemployment/health expenditure. So I wondered, how does the expenditure function as a investment. If the state of California could either spend an extra Billion on education, or invest that money in the stock market, how fast would the market have to rise to give better returns than the education (ignoring the non-fiscal benefits of education)?

I wrote to Mike to ask him, and it turns out he is scheduled to give a talk on that very subject here in Rostock some time soon. He sent me a copy of a 129 page report he and colleagues wrote on the subject in 2005. A pdf of that report (or a draft of it) is here.


The concluding summary of the report says:

The state devotes a substantial portion of its budget to supporting education in
California. That support is not wasted: the costs of neglecting education are
high, and the return this investment brings to the state is equally high. Laudable
though it may be, California’s investment in higher education is insufficient. If
things stay as they are now, that is, if future students progress through their
educational careers at the same rates as their ethnic counterparts did in 2000, the
state will suffer a net loss, and that loss will increase as years pass. With no other
changes, the state will forgo revenues from the increased earnings that education
encourages, and pay more to support a population in a situation of increased
poverty and incarceration. If, rather than maintaining the per-person level of
educational support and access, the state were to limit capacity, the situation
would become even more dire.
However, based on existing trends in educational demand, we expect that high
school graduation rates and college going rates will increase, and demands on
state support for education will climb commensurately. California will have to
invest in community colleges and universities in the short run, but both the state
and its residents will benefit handsomely from this additional support in the long
run. Our calculations suggest net savings to the state will exceed the additional cost by three-fold or four-fold, while its population will enjoy lower levels of poverty, crime, and dependency, and higher levels of average income and political participation.

(Emphasis mine)

The report also specifies in great detail the time scale on which these returns occur, and the majority of returns are "realized in the first ten years after investment because the benefits it buys -- lower welfare, less crime, and healthier children -- are problems/ benefits that disproportionately affect 18-34 year olds."

Now this suggests that we are getting 300% return within the first ten years. So let's just say our $1Billion turns into $3Billion by the end of ten years. That is about 11.5% annual return on investment (1.115^10= 2.97), better than the 11% average rise in the Dow Jones from 1926 through to its pre-dot com bust peak in 1999.

I am a strong believer in the value of education, and would gladly quadruple expenditure on education, but I find this purely monetary claim incredible. This is such an extraordinary claim that we are forced to consider the background of the person making it. The only one of the authors I know is Mike, and what I know about him is that he is the Chair of the best Demography graduate program in the Western Hemisphere, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a careful scholar. Mike does not go around spouting grand pronouncements. If he makes a claim like this it is because his analysis tells him it is true. There really is a strong argument to be made that in purely fiscal terms, investment in higher education pays off better and more consistently than investment in stock.

In that light, two things surprise me. First, that I haven't heard that argument made before. I hang around with a lot of people distraught about the direction American (and particularly Californian) higher education is going, and no one has ever mentioned this. Second, I'm amazed that Wall Street hasn't tried to securitize this yet.

I'm eager to hear what new work on the subject Mike will be presenting at his talk.

Finally, and sadly, I've just heard that Berkeley's demography department won't be able to accept any new graduate students this year. The lack of funding makes it impossible for them to hire faculty to replace those who have retired or left for better funded institutions. If this does not improve in the next few years, I would guess the department will have to close its doors.

Demographic Decline

There are no national rankings for departments of Demography in the US. If there were, UC Berkeley would certainly be near the top, and would likely rank first. Four of the five core faculty members have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and the last is relatively young. (The entire Academy has about 2100 members, out of perhaps a million PhDs who could potentially have qualified). I had the good luck to stumble into association with this department, benefited greatly, and was tremendously impressed.

This department contributes tremendously not only to Berkeley, and the field of Demography, but to our civilization's progress in understanding how populations function, how populations are likely to change in the future, and what effects these changes have on our economy, society and environment. Methods developed at Berkeley are at the core of the United Nations' understanding of population trends and their importance. Alumnae of Berkeley's rather small program in Demography can be found in almost every important institution making use of demographics, from the US Census Bureau to every major branch of the UN, to departments of Economics, Sociology, Anthropology and Epidemiology at most major universities, to think tanks, research organizations, and major corporations. The people that come out of this program are predictably smart, creative, quantitatively talented and know how to ask important questions and answer them convincingly. It is everything that graduate education should be. There are not many rooms full of people in which I feel slow, but discussing research with a bunch of Berkeley demographers required me to manufacture a fair bit of bravado. Among Berkeley's graduate programs, so many of which are at the top of their field, Demography stood out to me as a bastions of professionalism and brilliance.

Unfortunately, like so many of Berkeley's programs, Demography is in clear and present danger from the current fiscal crisis, and several of its students have hinted to me that it could easily cease to exist in a relatively few years. This happened once before. The following is an excerpt from a 1991 interview with Albert H. Bowker, Berkeley's sixth chancellor (1971-1980):

Q: I don't want to skip over some of your other activities with various departments, if you'd care to pick up on that again. Let's see, we had Department of Demography.

Bowker: Demography was a small group, and it had a lot of trouble recruiting faculty, largely because it was dominated by Judith Blake. I just decided to abolish it, largely because it was just one person, really, on permanent position. It's just something you can have or have not, not an important subject. There are some subjects that every university must have-- mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history, English, philosophy, some of the languages, and others. Demography is not one of them, and criminology is not one of them. If you have it, it ought to be good and large. They kept bringing it back, and apparently that was not so much on intellectual grounds. It's a silly subject and the group there couldn't be very effective. Then Judith left, and somebody revived it, not in my day.

Q: Do you remember the Department of Design?

Bowker: Vaguely. Yes, we abolished that for the same reason, I guess. I've forgotten now what design was.

Demography was brought back by a group of faculty who are themselves now of an age where even many dedicated academics retire. The Demography department is, as a professor in another department put it "highly age structured." Beyond this older group, they brought in a few younger faculty, shared with the Department of Sociology. One of these recently left for a better offer in Texas. The department is unable to replace her because of the budget crisis. Another scheduled faculty search was cancelled. If recruitment remains frozen for longer than the faculty's more senior members care to continue teaching, (which is quite possible) the department could easily be back to one or two professors. One of these has already said that if this were to happen he could simply join another department. The current administration, may or may not remember what Demography is, or care whether it is important, and is unlikely to make any particular effort to save the department from attrition.

This department is of course just one casualty of the budget cuts to the University, which is in turn only one portion of the destitution of California's public education system, which is in turn only one piece of the general collapse of governance in California. To me, of course it means more than that. I wasn't actually a student in the department, but I spent enough time there to know I was surrounded by the best humanity can produce finding out things that humanity desperately needs to understand. This department is one of the best pieces of the best school in what was once the most ambitious public education system in the world, and it hurts to see it left to atrophy. This abandonment of greatness symbolizes for me what ails California, and America.

Plagaism, homicide and Wyeth

In trying to understand why America's healthcare system is so much more expensive and so much less effective than in other rich nations, I usually blame the insurance companies. But as is common with problems of this magnitude, there is more than enough blame to go around. The New York Times today highlights another major problem: distortion of the scientific literature by moneyed interests, particularly the pharmaceutical companies. Corporate culture, and corporate law, effectively require officers of publicly owned companies to do everything they legally can to maximize profit. A pharmaceutical company, faced with the option of doing something that boosts profits but decreases health, has every incentive to do so, and predictably will do so in many cases. Americans end up spending money to decrease our own health.

The case described in today's article should be shocking, but due to a long standing pattern of this type of thing, is only disgusting and outragous. Pharma giant Wyeth, maker of among many of things, synthetic hormones for hormone replacement therapy, has been paying ghostwriters to write review articles highlighting the benefits and minimizing the dangers of hormone replacement for post-menopausal women. These review articles were then passed to respected medical researchers who published them in their own names (whether for money, or just to boost their publication records, I'm not sure). The ghostwriters are not mentioned. Wyeth used these articles to paint a false consensus that its product was safe, and thereby boost sales and stave of regulation.

"But the seeming consensus fell apart in 2002 when a huge federal study on hormone therapy was stopped after researchers found that menopausal women who took certain hormones had an increased risk of invasive breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. A later study found that hormones increased the risk of dementia in older patients."

Wyeth's behavior is certainly harmful and reprehensible, and may or may not be illegal; they are currently being sued by several thousand former patients or their survivors. What is absolutely clear is that the researchers who went along with this are some seriously sleazy people who should not be allowed anywhere near medicine, or research. One of the first things we tell students in freshman science classes is that you never ever ever put your name on something that someone else wrote. It is fine to quote people, it is fine to collaborate and have everyone involved in the collaboration listed as authors, but we have a name for taking something someone else wrote and claiming it as your own, even with the blessing of the true author: plagiarism.

One of the many reasons plagiarism is illegal, and specifically forbidden in the ethics codes of universities and publishers, is to avoid exactly this kind of nonsense. We are trained to always question the motivation and bias of the author of anything we read. Why does this person take such a sunny view of the medicine? Why isn't that other study that showed increased risk of strokes mentioned? If the author is a well respected medical researcher with no apparent ties to the manufacturer, maybe the medicine really is that good, and the stroke study wasn't done well enough to be worth mentioning. But if the real author is an employee of Wyeth, with the specific goal of boosting sales, our interpretation might be different. This applies as much to the peer reviewers who were tricked into approving these fake reviews as to the average reader. Peer reviewers are supposed to evaluate conflicts of interest which cold make the article less valuable to the reader. Plagiarism makes it impossible to know the interests of the real author, which was undoubtedly the goal of Wyeth's scheme.

All researcher shown to be publishing articles written in part or whole by ghost-writers (a.k.a. plagiarists) should be publicly discredited by both their employer and their publisher. Furthermore, they should be held legally responsible for the harm and deaths caused by their unethical practices. Such sleazebags are bad for science, bad for medicine, bad for patients and bad for America. Although Wyeth is the most identifiable villain in this particular debacle, the "researchers" who shilled for them should lose the reputations they let Wyeth borrow. Laws should be enacted to make it clear that pharmaceutical companies may not produce deceptive scientific literature to boost sales, and are legally and financially liable both for the deception and for any harm that arises from it. Governments and insurers tricked in buying medicines through deceptive practices should be able to collect recompense and penalties from those perpetrating the fraud. If other pharmaceutical companies have been engaging in similar practices, they and their mouthpieces should also be exposed. It took decades and hundreds of thousands of lives lost to kill the Tobacco Institute. I hope that it will take less time to rid Pharma, which uses largely the same playbook, of their homicidal tendencies.

Academic constipation

The NYTimes has a recent article about the current academic job market. In two words, it sucks. Professors who thought they could afford to retire are staying on, so positions aren't opening. Even when they do retire, hiring freezes are leaving their positions vacant until the economy improves, so post-doctoral researchers aren't likely to find a tenure-track position, and remain in underpaid temporary jobs. This means there are extremely few positions (as faculty or post-docs) for recent grad-students, and the usual routes out of academia, industry jobs, also aren't available. But while the routes out for grad-students are limited, recent college graduates who can't find real jobs are apply to graduate programs in record numbers.

While the situation is bleaker for the humanities, which have long been in decline economically, the scientific community in the US is keenly aware that however this turns out will have effects that will be felt for generations. The closest comparison I can make is the tremendous expansion of enrollment in colleges in the 1960s and '70s. As the students flooded in, colleges hired large numbers of professors right out of grad school. By the 1980s there were extremely few positions opening up, almost every professor had been hired in the previous two decades, and there were almost no retirements. A whole generation of academics had almost no chance of finding a professorship. I know several people of that era whose careers were permanently put onto alternate tracks because they simply couldn't find a professorship. Then, just in the last decade, that flood of professors hired to teach the baby-boomers have been retiring in droves, and many people were expecting a new wave of hires. More than one person has told me, "When I finished grad school, there were no jobs. When you finish, there will be openings everywhere." Now, given the economy into which I am graduating, I feel lucky to be in a sub-field that has some post-doctoral positions for a few years. Perhaps in three or four years universities will start filling all those vacant positions, and a new wave of young faculty, hopefully including me, will be an impediment to the career aspirations of our younger colleagues.

Cannabalism, entropy, economics and consumerism.

Among the millions of species of organisms out there, you can find a species that specializes in eating almost anything. There are lion-poo specialists, feather-barb specialists, lichen specialist, you-name-it specialists. There are also lots of generalist species, and many of these generalists engage in cannibalism. But no species is a cannibalism specialist. I can say this with confidence, even though we don't know what most species eat in any detail. A species of dedicated cannibals would quickly run out of energy. Everything an organism does burns energy that cannot be retrieved. Thermodynamics and all that. If a population is to withstand the ravages of entropy for any time at all, there has to be a sizable inflow of concentrated nutrients and well-ordered energy. A population of cannibals has outflows but no inflows, and quickly changes food supply or goes extinct. Engaging in cannibalism can be beneficial for short periods under specific circumstance, but you can't eat all conspecifics all the time. That way lays rapid extinction. Similarly, an ecosystem cannot persist for any period of time without massive inward fluxes of organized energy. Sunlight, geothermal chemicals or organic detritus from one of these two are necessary inputs to every ecosystem we have ever come across. Without that, organized energy in the system quickly declines until life can no longer be supported.

This same logic applies in economics. Pyramid schemes and speculative bubbles ultimately must collapse, because there is no underlying production of valuable stuff to support the outflows of capital of those involved in the speculation. Extending the analogy only slightly further, we see why a "consumer services based economy" cannot long persist. We import the carpet-cleaning machine from China, but we cannot export the carpet-cleaning service. We import the yoga mats but can't export the yoga lessons. We bring in coffee beans but can't export the latte. The consumer services part of the US economy (the biggest part) sends money out but brings effectively no money in, feeding instead on money that is already in the system.

The fact that our consumer economy lasted as long as it did/has is a testament to why economics is a social science, rather than a natural one. Humans are inherently illogical, and economics needs an understanding of that as much as it needs equations to understand the ways in which we are logical. Economic theory worked out for any other species would perform terribly for humans, meaning economics is by necessity anthropocentric, and therefore a social science. This has allowed an economy with few inflows to persist by inventing imaginary inflows, known as international borrowing. Americans may not be able to give you anything back for your stuff, but if you lend us the money to buy it from you, we will promise that at some point in the future we will borrow more money from someone else to pay you back with interest. Stated this way, it is an obvious pyramid scheme. But we have preferred to think that because our economy is large, because it has been dynamic, we soon would no longer need to borrow. Instead, I hope, we have figured out that we have to consume at a level closer to the level at which we produce. Otherwise we are just eating our children's future earnings, which is a bit too close to cannibalism for my taste.

On a related note:

University of California's endowment loses $1Billion in value.

"UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said that if the financial markets continue their downward slide in coming years, there could be future reduction in endowment support for scholarships, research and funding to recruit and retain faculty, among other things."

Graduating into a Depression

The number of professorships in the country does not vary much from year to year. Usually the number of positions opening up approximately equals the number of professors dying, retiring or moving to other jobs. Occasionally a new campus opens or there is a major expansion of enrollment, and a bunch of new positions are created. Other times the economy sucks (to use the technical term) and as a cost-cutting measure positions are retired or left vacant for a few years. As an example, the budget problems California has been having ever since the dot com bust have caused UC Berkeley to greatly increase the average time between one professor leaving and another being hired.
Right now, professorships are hard to get and I fully expect them to get harder. Somebody or other, a housing economist I think, was on NPR today predicting that the housing market will hit bottom in another three years. I expect the academic job market to hit bottom around the same time, or possibly a year or two later.

Which brings me to me. I will be getting my PhD in a little under a year. I then expect to spend two or three years as a Post-Doctoral researcher in Germany. That should have me searching for an assistant professorship just about the time there are no professorships of any sort to be had.

President-Elect Obama, I think an investment in our nation's universities and research institutes would be a great way to stimulate the economy, improve education and develop the technologies we need to deal with environmental issues and health care. Sooner is better than later. I have this three-year plan.

One foot in this world...

From my perspective as an evolutionary biologist, all of the social sciences are parts of the study of human behavior, which is a part of the study of animal behavior, which is a part of biology. I don't generally bring this up to the social scientists I know.

I recently attended a talk, in which the speaker was an historical economist, studying the marriage market in post-WWI France. The lack of marriageable men(due to combat fatalities) led to the surviving males having the ability to be much more choosy than they otherwise would. Many men were able to marry women from social classes higher than their own. Many women simply never married. This effect faded away as a new crop of young men got old enough to marry. At the end of his talk I raised my hand, and asked if he was aware of the biological literature on the effect of skewed operational sex ratios on mate choice and assortative mating. I believe that the idea of looking at the literature on the same phenomenon in other species hadn't occurred to him. To a natural scientist this is almost scandalous. To a social scientist, it is the standard and correct way to proceed. It is a very different world view.

But now my field of expertise is becoming evolutionary demography, which draws as much from social science as it does from natural science, and this has begun to affect my thinking. This afternoon I was presenting my research plans to my professor's lab group, and one of the biologists asked why everything I said kept relating back to humans. I told him that as I was studying post-reproductive lifespan, and humans have more PRLS than any other species we know of, and we know more about it in humans, and therefore it was inevitable that most of our questions and methods would relate back to humans. It took me a minute to realize this wasn't the whole truth. The broader answer was that I had started to think a bit like a social scientist, meaning anthropocentrically. In the social sciences one doesn't need an excuse to focus on humans, the social sciences are all about humans. Having a conversation with social scientists requires one to be able to understand anthropocentric thinking, and if one practices this enough, one can start to think like them.

There are times when anthropocentrism is absolutely necessary and proper. Most of human activity revolves around interactions with other humans, and many of the problems we face can only be understood by focusing deeply on understanding humans. Part of the reason I work on problems relating to humans is because that is what society values, and as I've said before, I think this is appropriate. But the reason society (through a grant to an economic demographer) is paying me, rather than an economist or a demographer to do this work, is because it is useful to have your conversation about humans be illuminated by knowledge of other species.

If I stay in this field, which I plan to, I will have to learn how to converse one moment with those for whom humans are almost everything, and the next with those for whom humans are just one very over-studied species.

Chemicals of Science

A very kind scientist at McGill sent me samples of four different strains of rotifers, along with the formula for the medium he keeps them in. The rotifers look so lively and healthful that I decided to buy the chemicals and mix up some of his medium. The problem is that while I need a few milligrams of this and a couple of grams of that, nobody sells the stuff in quantities smaller than 500 grams of this and 1kg of that. So at the end of the project, I have almost the entire container left over, and because it came in a form that is so concentrated as to be toxic if swallowed, it all has to be treated as toxic waste. Iron-chloride is not very toxic, but if you swallow 500g you would be very unhappy. So what I will probably end up doing is mixing lots of extra solution, basically making artificial pond water, because that does not need to be disposed of as toxic waste.
I was complaining about all this to some colleagues, who replied that this is a perennial problem, and that almost any time one does lab work, one has to budget for disposal of the left over chemicals, because one can't buy them in small enough quantities. The College of Chemistry on campus has a chemical reuse library for this purpose (drop off unused chemicals with out paying for disposal, pick up extra chemicals without buying a whole container) but they don't allow people from other departments to participate, even if we ask real nice.
I looked through the various suppliers and ordered the smallest quantities possible, even when it cost more.
How thoroughly wasteful and silly this whole system is.

Journal of the American Forehead Slapping Assosciation

In another big no-shock-shocker that needed to be demonstrated anyway, It has been found that when poor women are given vouchers to local farmers' markets, their families eat more fruits and vegetables. While anyone with two axons to rub together could have predicted this, I am still glad they took the time to prove it.

METHODS: Women who enrolled for postpartum services (n=602) at 3 WIC sites in Los Angeles were assigned to an intervention (farmers' market or supermarket, both with redeemable food vouchers) or control condition (a minimal nonfood incentive). Interventions were carried out for 6 months, and participants' diets were followed for an additional 6 months. RESULTS: Intervention participants increased their consumption of fruits and vegetables and sustained the increase 6 months after the intervention was terminated (model adjusted R(2)=.13, P<.001). Farmers' market participants showed an increase of 1.4 servings per 4186 kJ (1000 kcal) of consumed food (P<.001) from baseline to the end of intervention compared with controls, and supermarket participants showed an increase of 0.8 servings per 4186 kJ (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Participants valued fresh fruits and vegetables, and adding them to the WIC food packages will result in increased fruit and vegetable consumption.

Writers' Strike

It seems to me that economists should be able to quantify the value of the work of a profession to society based on the larger societal impacts of that group temporarily ceasing their work. We'll call this variable V(s). In France, when the transit workers go on strike the nation is temporarily paralyzed. High V(s). If the New York City police department went on strike, serious trouble. They have a high V(s). I hear that the Screen Writer's Guild has been on strike for a while now. Is anyone outside of LA missing them? V(s)=?