Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Sunday and again yesterday I wrote posts here about the biomedical world.   Yesterday's, you may recall, I summarized a paper by Andrew Lo and two other scholars, proposing a new system for the private financing of biomedical research. Today I'd like to say something about another recent paper by Lo [well, not so recent -- I'm behind the curve -- this goes back to 2011], that is the other sign of the coin of Lo's own versatility. The paper offers a neuroscientific look at the impulses of traders and investors. In both cases, the paper I summarized yesterday and this one , Lo occupies the borderland between biology and finance. But he faces in opposite directions: in the one case discussing the best ways to finance biology, in the other case discussing the biological bases of finance. Now: isn't that a neat symmetry? So who is Lo? He's the possessor of a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University (1984). He has been on the MIT finance faculty since ...

Since I commented briefly on the pseudo-science of the anti-vaccine folks Sunday, I thought I would stay on a biomedical kick today, and perhaps tomorrow. Though the subject of today's post is, aside from the applicability of that broad label, very different from Sunday's. As for tomorrow ... tomorrow only knows. Today, I'm looking at an article by Jose-Maria Fernandez, Roger M. Stein, and Andrew W. Lo, "Commercializing Biomedical Research Through Securitization Techniques." You can access it here.   The idea is that biomedical innovation is getting more expensive and riskier. Upon whom shall that risk fall? Well, securitization is the obvious method of spreading the risk around, although the word "securitization" acquired rather a bad odor from its connection with the pre-2007 housing market.   Anyway, the authors are undaunted by that odor. They propose securitizing megafunds of $5 to $15 billion that could yield a floor of 8.9% for equity in...