ICYMI 2025 Edition

Notes on Engineering Health is a monthly publication with ~15,000 subscribers that explores the intersection of science, technology, and society, most often with a focus on human health and innovation. The last Note of the year traditionally provides an opportunity to reflect one more time on the topics we covered throughout the year. This year our Notes again organized into three broad themes:
‍
1/ Theoretical Concepts
The first category highlighted a unifying theme of deep theoretical concepts that govern the emergence of complexity, structure, and limits across biological, computational, and societal systems:

Biological Speed Limits (January 2025)
January’s Note explores the surprising discovery that conscious thought processes information at merely ten bits per second which is slower than dial-up internet and 100 million times slower than the sensory data flooding into our brains. It explains that while our eyes alone transmit 1.6 billion bits per second, our conscious mind extracts just one meaningful bit from every hundred million received, a profound filtering operation that reflects the brain's two-mode operation: a high-dimensional “outer brain” connected to sensory inputs and motor outputs, and an “inner brain” that operates on dramatically reduced data streams to make flexible, context-dependent decisions. The essay surveys how biological systems across scales face fundamental speed limits imposed by physics, including the speed of light, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamic principles like Landauer's Principle, all while balancing critical trade-offs between speed, accuracy, energy consumption, and robustness. Evolutionary pressures have pushed many biological systems to operate surprisingly close to these theoretical physical limits, suggesting that our seemingly sluggish cognitive processing speed isn't a design flaw but rather an optimized solution that trades raw computational power for the flexible decision-making required to navigate an unpredictable world.

Recursion (March 2025)
The March Note analyzes recursion as a conceptual principle that transcends disciplinary boundaries, manifesting as both a mathematical abstraction and the fundamental algorithm of life itself. The piece traces how recursion operates through paired mechanisms of base cases and recursive steps across domains: in computing, where AI systems navigate decision trees by repeatedly calling themselves to evaluate chess moves or strategic options; in biology, where evolutionary processes function as recursive optimization algorithms testing and amplifying successful variations across generations; and in neuroscience, where consciousness may emerge from recursive neural circuits that continuously reinterpret information. Drawing on scholars like Stuart Kauffman, who demonstrated how recursive molecular networks spontaneously self-organize into biological complexity, the essay argues that recursion represents more than a technical mechanism but rather is a way of understanding how simple, self-similar rules generate the sophisticated emergence we observe everywhere from immune system responses to human language's capacity for nesting ideas within ideas. The essay suggests that recursion offers an  epistemological lesson: complexity arises not through linear reduction but through recognizing the interconnected, self-referential nature of systems, revealing that what appears as chaos is actually an elegant interplay of recursive principles operating across scales from molecules to consciousness itself.

Quantum Biology (April 2025)
April’s Note reviews the emerging field of quantum biology which challenges decades of conventional wisdom by demonstrating that the counterintuitive rules of quantum mechanics may actually underpin some of life's most fundamental processes in living cells. The piece argues further that quantum effects aren't merely theoretical curiosities but practical biological tools that evolution has harnessed over billions of years, with potential applications ranging from quantum-informed drug design targeting enzyme reactions to artificial photosynthesis systems that could double or triple solar panel efficiency by mimicking nature's quantum coherence effects. The Note suggests that the quantum nature of biological building blocks (electrons, protons, and chemical bonds all obeying quantum principles) makes quantum biology not an exotic fringe topic but an essential framework for understanding life itself.

Randomness (June 2025)
June’s Note explores Ramsey's theorem, a 1930 mathematical insight that reveals a deep truth about the nature of reality: complete disorder is impossible, and patterns inevitably emerge from apparent chaos regardless of how randomly we try to arrange things. The theorem challenges conventional thinking about emergence by suggesting that certain types of order aren't created by complex rules acting on simple components, but are instead unavoidable consequences of size and connection, representing a middle ground between Newtonian determinism and quantum randomness where specific outcomes remain uncertain but structure becomes inevitable. Drawing on implications ranging from computer science to cosmology, the article argues that Ramsey's theorem may help explain why the universe appears fine-tuned for complexity—perhaps physical constants that enable stars, planets, and life aren't special coincidences but inevitable expressions of mathematical structure asserting itself in nature's fundamental laws.


2/ Rapid Innovation Challenges
The second category commented on some of the societal friction generated by rapid innovation:

Contracts (May 2025)
In an era when the average American “signs” more contracts in a single day than their great-grandparents encountered in a lifetime—reflexively tapping “I agree” to terms of service longer than the Constitution while scrolling past legal language designed to obscure rather than illuminate—the modern contract has become both the most ignored and most consequential document in American life, a paradox that reveals something profound about how capitalism has replaced trust with litigation's cold comfort. May’s Note traces contracts from their origins in ancient Mesopotamian marketplaces through their evolution into what legal theorist Oliver Wendell Holmes recognized as capitalism's essential fiction: documents that don't actually require performance but simply establish the price of betrayal. As artificial intelligence begins automating contract analysis and blockchain enables self-executing “smart contracts” that adjust terms in real time, the essay argues we're approaching a bewildering future where algorithms negotiate with algorithms on behalf of humans who understand neither the process nor the outcome, bound by agreements evolving faster than comprehension—though perhaps this algorithmic dystopia isn't so different from our current reality of incomprehensible insurance policies and friendship apps with explicit terms about emotional boundaries, a world where every human interaction demands contractual precision not because we trust each other more, but because we trust each other less.

Patents & Licenses (July 2025)
The July Note focuses the phenomenon of “ethical licensing” through the revealing case of Duke University's APOE gene patents, where researcher Alan Roses deliberately restricted predictive Alzheimer's testing in healthy individuals despite leaving money on the table, using patent power to impose his personal ethical framework that such testing could cause psychological harm without providing actionable medical benefits. The piece argues that ethical licensing creates difficult governance questions for democratic societies, where decisions about medical technology access typically flow through transparent regulatory processes with diverse stakeholder input and accountability, rather than through individual patent holders who become unelected moral gatekeepers shaping entire technological fields based on disputed personal judgments about what serves the public good. As biotechnology advances into CRISPR gene editing, synthetic biology, and AI-assisted drug discovery, the essay warns that ethical licensing's potential to shape innovation will only intensify, demanding more intentional conversation about the proper balance between inventors' moral agency, market forces, and democratic governance in determining who ultimately controls not just biotechnology innovation but the future of human health.

The Rule Gap (October 2025)
‍October’s Note examines the persistent “rule gap” between technological innovation and regulatory governance—a lag that emerges not from malice or incompetence but from the fundamental asymmetry between how quickly determined entrepreneurs with capital can deploy disruptive technologies to millions and how slowly consensus-driven governance moves through public debate, legislative drafting, and bureaucratic implementation. The piece argues that this asymmetry creates a “first-mover advantage in chaos” where early-deploying companies benefit from operating without compliance costs or oversight, becoming so economically entrenched by the time regulators arrive that rules accommodate rather than constrain their business models—a dynamic the technology industry supports through rhetoric treating innovation as inherently progressive and regulation as synonymous with stagnation, when in reality rules aren't innovation's enemy but crucial social technology that prevents markets from becoming perpetual consumer experiments and ensures productivity gains don't accrue entirely to capital. As we confront artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing, the piece concludes, we face a choice between continuing to treat rule-making as following innovation at a respectful distance or recognizing that the rule gap itself is a design choice we can close.

The Error Bar (November 2025)
‍At a time when scientific certainty has become currency and uncertainty feels like failure, the error bars that populate research papers, medical studies, and policy reports represent both science's greatest virtue and its most misunderstood symbol, a visual vocabulary of doubt that even professional researchers frequently misinterpret according to sobering studies showing scientists consistently overestimate their ability to judge statistical significance by eye. November’s essay traces error bars from their origins in the statistical revolution of the early twentieth century to reveal a startling truth: error bars don't actually tell you what most people think they tell you. The piece argues that error bars create an “aesthetic of precision” suggesting we've successfully bounded the unknown when actually they capture only sampling and measurement uncertainty from particular statistical models while remaining powerless against systematic errors, wrong questions, or flawed theoretical frameworks. As artificial intelligence transforms uncertainty estimation through neural networks that predict molecule binding with confidence scores or climate ensembles running thousands of simulations, the essay warns that big data can shrink error bars to invisibility creating false certainty even when models encode systematic biases or spurious correlations. Yet for all their limitations, the essay concludes, error bars remain indispensable as visual reminders that certainty isn't prerequisite for action and that understanding knowledge boundaries is itself knowledge.

3/ Historical Context & Necessary Mechanisms
Our final category included Notes examining the long history of influenza pandemics, the necessity of protocols in scientific discovery, and the various alternative financing mechanisms required to support “unfundable” but socially valuable projects:

The Flu (February 2025)
February’s Note traces influenza's role as both biological adversary and historical force, beginning with hypotheses that humans first acquired the flu when domesticating birds and pigs and continuing through centuries where the virus shaped human civilization with ruthless efficiency. Drawing on breakthroughs from the first antiviral drug approval in 1963 to 1993's pioneering mRNA vaccination research in mice, the essay argues that despite modern sophistication replacing star-based theories and medicinal whiskey prescriptions with surveillance systems preventing millions of illnesses annually, humanity remains fundamentally vulnerable to a virus whose genius lies in its imperfect reproduction — mistakes that ensure survival as molecular disguises evolve faster than immune recognition. Ultimately, the piece suggests that influenza's history offers both warning and wisdom for confronting 21st-century viral threats: our battle with infectious disease isn't a war to be won but an endless waltz with an ever-changing partner who never tires, reminding us that the tension between our social nature and biological vulnerabilities represents not a problem to solve but a dance to master.

Protocols (August 2025)
The August Note identifies protocols as the invisible architecture of modern knowledge through the painstaking transformation of flashes of insight into reliable, repeatable procedures. The essay argues that protocols have come to govern not just research methods but knowledge infrastructure itself, defining the boundaries of what we can know about ourselves. Ultimately, the piece suggests that protocols embody a striking paradox—simultaneously conservative and revolutionary, preserving communities' accumulated wisdom while enabling radical departures from conventional thinking—and in an era when expertise faces assault and authoritative knowledge confronts skepticism, protocols offer something invaluable: a transparent pathway from question to answer reminding us that knowledge is not a collection of facts but a set of practices, where the difference between wisdom and opinion often lies not in what we discover but in how we go about discovering it.

Funding the Unfundable (September 2025)
September’s Note asks why urgently needed technology-based goods and services that could improve the human condition remain chronically under-funded and under-produced in our current economic system, tracing the myriad factors that render projects “unfundable.” The piece details how long development timelines for complex scientific ventures, lack of scale-up funding for “first of a kind” project finance, past failures creating investor skepticism particularly in boom-and-bust sectors like clean tech, and corporate risk aversion favoring incremental improvements over radical innovation create persistent funding gaps that leave critical innovations stranded despite their potential impact. Acknowledging that “unfundable” isn't absolute—projects can become fundable as scientific knowledge advances, regulations evolve, and investor preferences shift—the essay catalogs an array of alternative financing approaches. The piece argues that addressing the “unfundable” challenge requires matching financing strategies to each venture's specific context while recognizing that systemic gaps in funding critical public goods from vaccines to fundamental R&D represent design choices about what our economic system values, choices that alternative approaches can begin to reshape toward serving the common good.


We very much appreciate you reading our Notes and hope that you will continue to engage with us during 2026. Until then, the whole team at Digitalis Ventures wishes you a happy, healthy, and peaceful New Year.

– Geoffrey W. Smith



First Eleven
First Five is our curated list of articles, studies, and publications for the month. This month, we provide our favorite First Five entry from each edition of our monthly Notes during 2025:

1/ January: Why easy is better than hard for marathon training
New data shows that the biggest difference between elite and middling runners is not their hard workouts, but rather how much time they spend jogging. Read more here >

2/ February: Unbundling the university
“An extended essay attempting to synthesize the current zeitgeist around universities, our research ecosystem, and technological stagnation; to argue that at least part of the solution is to unbundle the societal roles the university has taken on; and to suggest some concrete actions.” Read more here >

3/ March: Will all our drugs come from China?
“It was not too long ago that China’s main contribution to the pharma industry was the raw chemical material, the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), that went into finished drug products discovered, designed, and developed by Western (and Japanese) innovators. However, if you’ve been paying attention, you’ll have noticed the steady rise in Chinese companies as a source of genuinely new drugs (i.e. drug discovery). Chinese companies are now responsible for about a quarter of new trial starts—more than Europe. It is in early-stage (phase I), oncology, and cell and gene therapy where Chinese companies are particularly active.” Read more here >

4/ April: Foundation of human intelligence
“A study has demonstrated how neurons in the human brain generate memories and establish narratives. Contrary to previous beliefs, individual neurons represent the concepts we learn, regardless of the context in which we encounter them. This allows humans, unlike other animals, to establish higher and more abstract relationships, which lays the foundation of human intelligence.” Read more here >

5/ May: Investing in creativity as social infrastructure
“How artmaking and creative practice in the United States can address community challenges, strengthen local economies, and rebuild human connections—and three less-well-traveled ways to support it.” Read more here >

6/ June: Why catalytic capital needs a better definition
“The decline and fall of ESG offers a cautionary tale for social impact financing and highlights the need for the sector to sharpen its understanding of catalytic capital. We propose a potential definitional framework for catalytic capital to drive clarity, measurement, and greater market participation.” Read more here >

7/ July: Pros & cons of friendship
“Friendship comes with complex pros and cons — possibly explaining why some individuals are less sociable, according to a new study of gorillas. Scientists examined over 20 years of data on 164 wild mountain gorillas, to see how their social lives affected their health. Costs and benefits changed depending on the size of gorilla groups, and differed for males and females.” Read more here >

8/ August: Nuclear spin microscopy
“Researchers have invented an entirely new field of microscopy—nuclear spin microscopy. The team can visualize magnetic signals of nuclear magnetic resonance with a microscope. Quantum sensors convert the signals into light, enabling extremely high-resolution optical imaging.” Read more here >

9/ September: Unfundable #2: Healthcare for the poor
“Among low-income individuals, how does a cash benefit affect use of the emergency department and outpatient care? In this study of 2880 randomized participants, there were significantly fewer emergency department visits among those assigned to receive a monthly cash benefit compared with the control group (217.1 vs 317.5 emergency department visits per 1000 persons), including fewer emergency department visits leading to hospital admission and fewer emergency department visits related to behavioral health and substance use.” Read more here >

10/ October: Is information a fundamental force of the Universe?
“Are the laws of classical physics as we currently understand them missing something important about how the Universe works? This radical notion lies at the heart of a new proposal by the mineralogist Robert Hazen and the astrobiologist Michael Wong at Carnegie Science in Washington, DC. In this short documentary, they explain why they believe a ‘law of increasing functional information’ could help us better understand why everything from atoms to cells to civilisations seems to grow more complex and orderly over time. They suggest that, if information is as fundamental as mass or energy, it could not only account for the similar ways so many systems appear to behave, but also help physicists make sense of the concept of time, which remains elusive in current models.” Watch more here > and read more here >

11/ November: More exercise, fewer heartbeats
“New research from Australia overturns the old idea that exercise ‘uses up’ heartbeats. It shows that fitter people actually use fewer total heartbeats each day thanks to their lower resting heart rates, even when accounting for workouts. Athletes’ hearts beat around 10% less daily, saving over 11,000 beats per day compared to sedentary people. This efficiency not only signals cardiovascular fitness but also translates to longer life expectancy and lower disease risk.” Read more here >

‍