Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30
Q Exciting news there. The, um, say more just in terms of maybe we could zoom out. You mentioned you, you know, took over six months ago. What, what are your reflections so far in terms of your, your activity and achievements to date and, and, and then what you hope to, you know, achieve going forward?
A Well, I mean, we've done a lot. So, um, like one of the first things I did was, um, we looked at, uh, you know, the way we fund foreign collaborations, right? So, um, that's, that was, it turns out that we, uh, we fund foreign collaborations, but it's very difficult for the NIH to check that the money's going to the right things. We couldn't audit, like the Wuhan lab. The NIH had sent money to the Wuhan lab, uh, but we couldn't audit it. Um, so we put in a new system for allow, like, I'm, I think foreign collaborations are really important, um, for science, but we need to do it in a way where I can look at the American people in the eye and say, look, we can, we're, we're actually tracking the money, we're, we're checking to make sure things are going in the right place, doing the right thing. I put in a new system. The frustrating thing about that is, like, we put that in, and all of a sudden I'm seeing reports that I want to end all foreign collaborations, which is, I mean, couldn't be further from the truth. I just want to make sure that we do it in a way that, that's, that, that's auditable, I can go to, in front of Congress and say, yeah, I know we're, I know we sent money to one lab, and here's the lab notebooks that they sent, that they worked on, which we couldn't do under the old system. Um, we've changed the way that we, um, Evaluate grants. Uh, so, uh, you, we have a…
AI assessment note: “we've done a lot. So, um, like one of the first things I did”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30
Q Exciting news there. The, um, say more just in terms of maybe we could zoom out. You mentioned you, you know, took over six months ago. What, what are your reflections so far in terms of your, your activity and achievements to date and, and, and then what you hope to, you know, achieve going forward?
A Well, I mean, we've done a lot. So, um, like one of the first things I did was, um, we looked at, uh, you know, the way we fund foreign collaborations, right? So, um, that's, that was, it turns out that we, uh, we fund foreign collaborations, but it's very difficult for the NIH to check that the money's going to the right things. We couldn't audit, like the Wuhan lab. The NIH had sent money to the Wuhan lab, uh, but we couldn't audit it. Um, so we put in a new system for allow, like, I'm, I think foreign collaborations are really important, um, for science, but we need to do it in a way where I can look at the American people in the eye and say, look, we can, we're, we're actually tracking the money, we're, we're checking to make sure things are going in the right place, doing the right thing. I put in a new system. The frustrating thing about that is, like, we put that in, and all of a sudden I'm seeing reports that I want to end all foreign collaborations, which is, I mean, couldn't be further from the truth. I just want to make sure that we do it in a way that, that's, that, that's auditable, I can go to, in front of Congress and say, yeah, I know we're, I know we sent money to one lab, and here's the lab notebooks that they sent, that they worked on, which we couldn't do under the old system. Um, we've changed the way that we, um, Evaluate grants. Uh, so, uh, you, we have a…
AI assessment note: “Well, I mean, we've done a lot. So, um, like one of the first things”
Answered raw tape
D 4 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 3 3.85
Q Are, are there certain areas you feel were under allocated or over allocated if, if you could, uh, you know, just wave a wand?
A Oh, we're all, every area is under allocated, of course. I mean, I, I mean, I think, um, the thing is about the under allocation is, I don't know if it's a question of money, um, but if you look at, Uh, the trends in public health over the last decade and a half. The United States has seen no increase in life expectancy. Um, we have enormous overhang of, of patients, people with heart disease, uh, the, the, the, the, the, actually cancer, we've seen big improvements in, in life expectancy, or sort of, uh, life expectancy after getting cancer, but, but huge increases in the incidence of cancer. Uh, type one, type two diabetes, autism, we've talked about, a whole host of other chronic conditions. I mean, uh, and we've made big advances in other places, right? So the question is, like, uh, how can we address the biggest health needs of the country, right? It seems like we're really good at, like, and we should be good at, um, some, some, some conditions that have lower prevalence. Like, we've made tremendous advances in HIV. It's a huge cause for celebration, right? Uh, we still have some way to go. 40,000 people got HIV last year. We can end the HIV epidemic. We should still invest in that. But at the same time, What about all the people that died of heart attacks? What about all the people that died, died, have, have, you know, type two diabetes that are suffering from, you know…
AI assessment note: “every area is under allocated, of course.”
Redirected raw tape
D 3 · C 3 · P 4 · Cm 3 3.25
Q Are, are there certain areas you feel were under allocated or over allocated if, if you could, uh, you know, just wave a wand?
A Oh, we're all, every area is under allocated, of course. I mean, I, I mean, I think, um, the thing is about the under allocation is, I don't know if it's a question of money, um, but if you look at, Uh, the trends in public health over the last decade and a half. The United States has seen no increase in life expectancy. Um, we have enormous overhang of, of patients, people with heart disease, uh, the, the, the, the, the, actually cancer, we've seen big improvements in, in life expectancy, or sort of, uh, life expectancy after getting cancer, but, but huge increases in the incidence of cancer. Uh, type one, type two diabetes, autism, we've talked about, a whole host of other chronic conditions. I mean, uh, and we've made big advances in other places, right? So the question is, like, uh, how can we address the biggest health needs of the country, right? It seems like we're really good at, like, and we should be good at, um, some, some, some conditions that have lower prevalence. Like, we've made tremendous advances in HIV. It's a huge cause for celebration, right? Uh, we still have some way to go. 40,000 people got HIV last year. We can end the HIV epidemic. We should still invest in that. But at the same time, What about all the people that died of heart attacks? What about all the people that died, died, have, have, you know, type two diabetes that are suffering from, you know…
AI assessment note: “Oh, we're all, every area is under allocated, of course.”
