Mark Satta

Associate Professor of Philosophy and Law @waynestate.

[Mark Satta @mark_satta]

I’m gonna stop checking/using this account for a while, so if I don’t respond, that would be why!

[Surya Ganguli @SuryaGanguli]

*Every single* cure for a disease ultimately flowed from basic exploratory research. Stopping basic research is like stopping the mountain rains and expecting rivers of cures to still flow. Examples:
1) studying saliva of Gila monster -> GLP1's
2) studying funghi -> first statins
3) mRNA biology -> gene therapy for spinal atrophy
4) studying bacterial genetics -> CRISPR gene therapies
5) studies of nuclear magnetic resonance -> MRI scans
this list can go on and on. Not only in biology but all aspects of technology.... e.g.
6) curvature of spacetime -> GPS
7) quantum mechanics -> semiconductors
8) electromagnetism -> fiber optics -> internet
...

[Anita Devineni @BrainsExplained]

Clearly Ivy Leagues are used here as examples to rile up conservatives, but rates are higher at places like Seattle Children's Hospital (95%) or Dana Farber Cancer Institute (75%) - underscoring how cutting indirect funds will directly impact pediatric and cancer care.

[F. Perry Wilson, MD MSCE @fperrywilson]

NIH has announced a cut in the "indirect rate" to 15% across the board, in a move that appears to be retroactive to even existing grants. This is a bloodbath for research institutions throughout the country.
Brief explainer for those not in this world:

https://t.co/VUP7tWat7O

[Margo Rusconi @MargoRusconi]

Feels like it’s been awhile since someone has said this, so I will say it again:

If you are going to report on a lawsuit, link the complaint.

Link. The. Complaint.

And with that out of the way, happy Friday 😊

[Anthony Scaramucci @Scaramucci]

We are about to learn why a government should never be operated like a business.

[charlie @chunkbardey]

causing innumerable problems in the CVS by wanting to purchase the items they have there

[matty matt @noetic_emetic]

the category is ‘i wasn’t the same person i was before i read this book’

[Kenny Pearce @KennethLPearce]

Call me a hair-splitting analytic philosopher, but these are 3 different debates:

Theism vs atheism
Religion vs non-religion
Supernaturalism vs naturalism

The ways in which people might not line up on the same side in each of them are actually very interesting.

[Stagatha Christie @STAGathaC]

Trump likes to test run ideas he’s serious about as “jokes.” He’s being doing that for years with the idea of violating the 22nd Amendment and running for a third term.

As a result, this is totally (if tragically) predictable: https://t.co/rr6C7NJx8K

[Mark Satta @mark_satta]

And here are other places where I discuss this importance of strict abidance of presidential term limits for democracy: https://t.co/hfy4KthTkQ

https://t.co/L2SCAvQZid

[Mark Satta @mark_satta]

During Trump’s first term, I worried he’d someday try to get around the 22nd Amendment’s two term limit. I’m sad but unsurprised that this was not an idle worry.

Here’s something I wrote back then in response, which seems relevant now: https://t.co/qttcPtsVB3

[Mark Satta @mark_satta]

Here’s relevant info on early moves from Trump and allies in this direction:

https://t.co/WUkMKdMkiI

https://t.co/ICaKiRAUDN

[James Surowiecki @JamesSurowiecki]

This is simply not correct. The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of religion, which is not an immutable characteristic.

[Associate Deans @ass_deans]

To decrease the size of the university, we need a dean of university efficiency. We’ll fix everything by creating a new dean!

[The Philosophy Teaching Library @ThePhilLibrary]

*New Article*

https://t.co/kfIXurkc1G

Often, when we think about living an ethical life, we think about which of our actions are right or wrong . Can we ever be in the moral wrong based simply on what we believe?

It would be wrong if you didn’t read on to find out…

[florence 🦐🏳️‍🌈 @morallawwithin]

Forgot about the time Kant explained what books are

[Steven Porter @reporterporter]

"I actually think this is sort of like a deliciously complicated case that is not a slam dunk for either side," said @mark_satta, an associate professor of law and philosophy at @waynestate. https://t.co/AnnxJ0aO1V

[Steven Porter @reporterporter]

Two legal experts who've written about the 2022 SCOTUS flagpole-speech precedent said Nashua seems to have a stronger argument in this new dispute, but both noted the outcome remains uncertain. One said the case is "not a slam dunk for either side." https://t.co/AnnxJ0aO1V