Resonance and Growth
In January, we hosted our first Jeffersonian Dinner in New York City.
Ten guests—investors, scientists, entrepreneurs, and social leaders—gathered for an evening organized around a single question: What are the forces holding science back today, and what might we do about them? Over a cocktail hour and dinner, the conversation ranged widely—from the structure of scientific incentives, to the institutional constraints shaping discovery, to long-term aspirations for what science might accomplish.
What struck us most was the depth of engagement around the table. People from very different backgrounds found themselves circling many of the same themes: the narrowing of scientific exploration, the difficulty of supporting long-horizon work, and the need for new institutional experiments.
To those of you who joined us, thank you again for being there and sharing your perspectives! To those who weren't able to make it, we're looking forward to seeing you at another one in the near future. Our next event is already coming up soon: we will be hosting another Jeffersonian Dinner on April 15 in Chicago.
If you know someone—scientist, investor, entrepreneur, or thinker—who would particularly enjoy participating, we would love to hear from you. We still have a few seats available for the Chicago event, so please reach out if you know anyone there. And we are already planning future dinners in Washington, DC and Philadelphia, so we are working on invite lists for those as well.
Thank you, as always, for your engagement and support!
The Idea Garden
China and the Future of Science
For much of the past century, scientific leadership was concentrated in the West. That is changing. China’s rapid ascent—measured in both output and influence—is beginning to redefine the global landscape of discovery. This piece offers a clear view of that shift, and raises the quiet but important question of what it means for where the future of science is being shaped.
Designing AI for Disruptive Science
What role will AI actually play in the future of science? This essay cuts through the hype, examining where AI systems are already proving useful—and where they fall short. It suggests that while AI can dramatically expand certain capabilities (like search and pattern recognition), the core drivers of scientific progress may remain stubbornly human. A useful lens on what changes—and what might not.
Who will program manage the program managers?
This essay revisits a persistent bottleneck in innovation: not the lack of ideas, but the lack of people who can structure, fund, and manage ambitious programs. It argues that breakthrough efforts often depend on skilled program builders who sit between vision and execution—and that these roles are both scarce and underdeveloped. A useful lens on why some bold initiatives stall before they begin.
The Legibility Problem
As AI systems becoming increasingly relied upon to generate scientific insights, a new constraint may emerge: human understanding. This essay argues that AI usage presents a risk of discoveries expressed in ways humans can’t interpret or apply. Without new infrastructure to translate and integrate these findings, even genuine breakthroughs may remain stranded, unable to connect to the real-world systems where science ultimately has impact.
Free the PhD
PhD programs are often treated as the default path into science—but are they fit for purpose? This essay suggests many are overly rigid, slow, and poorly aligned with the evolving landscape of research and innovation. The result is a system that can constrain talent at the very stage where exploration should be most expansive.