Institutional nominative determinism paper on therapeutic gold from the Gold Coast

Nominative determinism is the jocular notion that surnames determine destiny, to wit:

the term was first used in the magazine New Scientist in 1994, after the magazine’s humorous Feedback column noted several studies carried out by researchers with remarkably fitting surnames. These included a book on polar explorations by Daniel Snowman and an article on urology by researchers named Splatt and Weedon. These and other examples led to light-hearted speculation that some sort of psychological effect was at work.

I suppose the Gold Coast campus of Griffith University in Queensland is just where you would expect to find researchers publishing on therapeutic gold:

The application of gold in medicine is traceable for several thousand years and Au(i) compounds have been used clinically to treat rheumatoid arthritis since the last century. Recently research into gold-based drugs for a range of human diseases has seen a renaissance. Old as well as new Au(i) and Au(iii) compounds have been used and designed with an aim of targeting cellular components that are implicated in the onset or progression of cancers, rheumatoid arthiritis, viral and parasitic diseases. In addition, new disease targets have been found for gold compounds that have given insight into the mechanism of action of these compounds, as well as in the molecular pathophysiology of human diseases. Here we discuss the rationale for the design and use of gold compounds that have specific and selective targets in cells to alleviate the symptoms of a range of human diseases. We summarise the most recent findings in this research and our own discoveries to show that gold compounds can be developed to become versatile and powerful drugs for diseases caused by dysfunction of selenol and thiol containing proteins.


“What’s not going to change in the next ten years?” (via Pedro de Bruyckere’s “From experience to meaning” blog)

I normally hate Twitter “threads”, which often seem all too pompous, tendentious, and flat out wrong. But here’s a good one, via Via Pedro de Bruyckere’s From Experience to Meaning blog.  And it is also a thread that makes me think a little better of Jeff Bezos.  Here’s the beginning :


When I read the first tweet of this thread by Benjamin Riley I had the feeling we were up to something good. And Benjamin didn’t disappoint. I won’t make it into a habit of posting something like this on this blog, but I do wanted to share this here as I know that many of my readers would otherwise miss this:

Benjamin Riley@benjaminjriley

Please forgive me for the following tweet thread (not to say tirade) that will attempt to connect Jeff Bezos, , predicting the future, and cognitive science together. Get ready!

Benjamin Riley@benjaminjriley

First, here’s the quote from Jeff Bezos about building a business when the future is uncertain (it’ll take a few tweets): “”I very frequently get the question: ‘What’s going to change in the next 10 years?’ And that is a very interesting question; it’s a very common one…”

Benjamin Riley@benjaminjriley

Bezos continues: “I almost never get the question: ‘What’s not going to change in the next 10 years?’ And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two — because you can build a business strategy around the things that are stable in time.”