Slate Money Podcast: "Good Science / Crap Science"

Date: June 13, 2020
Host: Felix Salmon
Guests: Anna Szymanski, Emily Peck, and special guest Cathy O’Neil

Episode Overview

This week, the Slate Money team—Felix Salmon, Anna Szymanski, and Emily Peck—are joined by returning guest Cathy O’Neil, mathematician and author, for a packed discussion on the pandemic’s data modeling, the credibility crisis in science, institutional reckonings on racism, and a charitable bombshell from the Ford Foundation. The episode moves deftly from technical to societal questions, tackling both the triumphs and failures of COVID-19 modeling, how structural inequalities drive pandemic outcomes, and whether recent high-profile resignations represent real change.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Science and Communication of COVID-19 Modeling

[00:46–11:55]

• Initial Context: Cathy O’Neil shares a nuanced verdict on epidemiological models, noting that while "modelers have done pretty well," their warnings and caveats "were ignored" and that created a disastrous feedback loop with the public and media.

  • "All of their caveats and conditions were ignored and their error bars were ignored and they should have known it."
  • [02:17, Cathy]

• Assumptions Drive Outcomes: Early, dire death estimates (e.g., 2.2 million) reflected what would happen if behaviors didn't change. The models did provoke behavior change—which ironically made future models look wrong and eroded public trust.

  • "There’s this feedback loop between the modeling community and the public health community, which makes the modeling community look stupid, and now they look stupid."
  • [03:01, Cathy]

• It’s Not Over: O’Neil cautions against judging outcomes too early, highlighting that true evaluation must wait until "we have herd immunity" (vaccine or otherwise).

  • "Once you've lost trust, then public health pronouncements just lose power. And so now what we're seeing, as everyone knows, is a major uptick in cases."
  • [04:06, Cathy]

• Muddled Messaging: The panel debates whether modelers or the media are to blame for public confusion, ultimately agreeing both shoulder responsibility. O’Neil proposes a focus on "R," or the virus reproduction number, rather than death tolls.

• R and Measurement: Cathy clarifies commonly misunderstood terms:

  • "R₀ is the average people one infected person passes the disease to, assuming susceptible hosts."
  • "RT" is the time-varying effective reproduction rate better suited to track evolving behavioral changes.
  • Measuring RT is "always lagging by a few weeks," since deaths and case numbers only reveal past infection spread.
  • [07:05–09:29, Cathy]

• Media and Simplification: The difficulty of communicating statistical uncertainty leads to public fatigue, misunderstanding, and even ammo for anti-science movements.

  • "We went for the easy thing because...it was an emergency a few months ago, and we needed to make people wake up."
  • [10:06, Cathy]

2. Trust, Science, and Societal Factors in Pandemic Outcomes

[11:55–17:16]

• Comparative Success: Differences in COVID-19 trajectories worldwide are attributed to structural and cultural realities—autocracy (China), trust in government (Singapore, Germany, NZ, Sweden), or the lack of both (US).

  • "United States has neither of those."
  • [13:07, Cathy]

• Inequality and Racism: Cathy emphasizes that structural inequality and racism drive disproportionate pandemic impacts—outbreaks cluster in nursing homes, prisons, low-wage worker neighborhoods. This is mirrored in Singapore’s guest worker dorm outbreaks.

  • "I would claim that inequality and racism and mass incarceration are, in fact, causal factors for pandemics."
  • [14:18, Cathy]

• Policy and Politics: Emily Peck connects policies that deprioritized COVID response as soon as disparities became clear, especially impacting Black Americans.

  • "There was a sense that it was like, oh, maybe it's not so bad for certain people...the unified way the country initially responded...came to an end after it became clear that there was an inequality."
  • [15:47, Emily]

• Cynicism and Irresponsibility: Discussion turns to Trump’s rally plans, which require waivers from attendees, revealing an apparent disregard for his own supporters’ safety.

3. The Corporate Reckoning: Race, Media, and Real Change

[17:19–30:21]

• Rapid Resignations: As protests roil the country, corporate America—especially media and fashion—sees swift, high-profile resignations tied to racism: NYT’s op-ed head, Bon Appétit’s EIC, Refinery29’s founder, discussions about Anna Wintour (Vogue).

  • "This is happening more quickly, I think, than anything we saw in MeToo."
  • [17:19, Felix]

• Systemic Problems: Real change, Anna and Emily argue, goes beyond ousting "bad apples." Media’s hiring practices, reliance on credentials and networks, and underpaying entry-level roles all sustain racial and class homogeneity.

  • "There are all of these things that are much bigger than just firing one person."
  • [19:38, Anna]

• Cause for Optimism? Trevor Noah’s rise after Jon Stewart and Alexis Ohanian stepping down from Reddit are cited as positive succession examples, but the consensus is that leadership changes alone won't solve systemic barriers.

• Shifts in Public Attitudes: Felix highlights polling data showing "public opinion has changed faster on this issue than on virtually any other"—even those stepping down "are saying, yeah, I'm kind of racist. I shouldn't be here."

  • [24:27, Felix]

• Persistence of Inequality in Power Sectors: Media changes are visible, but Emily wonders if finance and consulting will experience similar reckonings—or whether such industries are more resistant thanks to insidious, "hardwired" racism.

  • "With the banks and stuff, I feel like it's just harder...it's hard to really get in those places and understand those dynamics."
  • [27:04, Emily]

• Meritocracy Myth: Anna points out the enduring myth that “the best person” will rise, while Cathy adds that U.S.-born Black Americans are dramatically underrepresented even relative to Black immigrants from Africa, which is also a reflection of educational privilege.

  • "It's class...the people who immigrate to the United States from Africa are very well educated."
  • [29:02, Cathy]

• Algorithmic Hope: Despite her daily work uncovering "racism in algorithms," Cathy is "more hopeful than I was a month ago," suggesting anti-racist hiring algorithms are possible—if organizations commit to it.

  • "We could, if we wanted to, build anti-racist algorithms...this could actually help."
  • [30:09, Cathy]

4. The Ford Foundation’s Bond Gambit: Endowments and Responsibility

[30:28–42:19]

• Announcement Recap: Felix describes the Ford Foundation’s decision to issue bonds—rather than draw down its endowment—to increase current charity outflows during the crisis. He sharply criticizes the move as catering to money managers who "continue to look after 100% of our money."

  • "They get to continue to look after 100% of our money."
  • [31:09, Felix]

• Debate: Anna defends the approach as "how endowments work," protecting principal to ensure perpetual giving, while Emily decries the small 5% payout, calling it "kind of icky" that so little is disbursed yearly.

  • "I'm supposed to think the Ford Foundation is...good...but it's only spending a small, small sliver."
  • [33:06, Emily]

• Timing and Conservatism: Felix argues foundations use market timing excuses to avoid spending, and that crises like this call for front-loading charity, especially since market values have rebounded.

• Endowment Purpose: Cathy reframes the discussion, reminding that foundations’ missions are values-driven, not primarily about money, but agrees college endowments’ reluctance to support COVID responses "kind of makes me...question the whole point of endowment."

  • "Aren't they supposed to be buffers for bad times?"
  • [40:28, Cathy]

• Systemic Self-Interest: Felix concludes that the people benefiting from massive, ever-growing endowments are those managing them—"invariably white...beneficiaries of systemic racism."

  • [42:17, Felix]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On COVID Modelers and the Public:
  "People got so sick of hearing 2.2 million, no, 60,000, no, 500,000, no, 100,000..."
  — Cathy O’Neil [04:06]

• On Racism as a Causal Factor in Pandemics:
  "I would claim that inequality and racism and mass incarceration are, in fact, causal factors for pandemics."
  — Cathy O’Neil [14:18]

• On the “New Normal” in Corporate Accountability:
  "It's amazing...even the people who are stepping down, who are accused of being racist, are saying, yeah, I'm kind of racist. I shouldn't be here."
  — Felix Salmon [24:27]

• On Endowment Logic:
  "But, like, the house is on fire now. Like, don't hoard the water."
  — Emily Peck [38:47]

• On Algorithmic Change:
  "If we wanted to build anti-racist algorithms...this could actually help. But it would require us to just do it."
  — Cathy O’Neil [30:09]

Timestamps for Noteworthy Segments

• COVID-19 Modelers and Public Trust: [00:46–11:55]
• International Comparisons and Structural Racism: [11:55–17:16]
• Race Reckoning in Media and Beyond: [17:19–30:21]
• Ford Foundation and Endowment Debate: [30:28–42:19]
• Numbers Round (Journalism Tuition, Tech & Policing, Hertz, etc.): [42:27–49:26]

Numbers Round Highlights

• [Emily]: "$159,206" — Cost of one year in Columbia’s Data Journalism Masters, raising questions about accessibility and perpetuating media elitism. [42:27]
• [Cathy]: "3" — Number of tech giants halting facial recognition sales to police (IBM, Microsoft, Amazon). [45:06]
• [Felix]: "1 billion" — Dollars Hertz wants to raise on the stock market, despite being bankrupt; a symbol of wild retail speculation. [47:13]
• [Anna]: "$200 million" — Amount tied to Jho Low's laundering schemes as journalistic complexity meets global scandal. [48:27]

Tone and Style

The conversation is lively, skeptical, and at times irreverent, with honest disagreement and a throughline of pointed critique about institutional responses to crisis and justice. Cathy's technical clarity grounds the early pandemic modeling discussion, while Felix often brings an acerbic, witty framing to financial topics. Emily’s and Anna’s contributions deepen the analysis on both gender and equity issues.

This summary captures the rich, multidisciplinary conversation and is a resource for listeners seeking to quickly absorb the episode’s key arguments, stories, and moments.