Draft — Digital Humanism Fellowship 2026–2027

MOTIVATION LETTER

Addiction is a rewiring of reward-memory circuits, and the digital tools we build to address it either respect that biology or ignore it. My CCT (Conjunctive Consolidation Threshold) model treats addiction as a pharmacological and computational problem: a tripartite framework where dopaminergic reward prediction error, NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation, and affective contrast converge on a threshold for reward-memory encoding. I calibrated this model with Bayesian MCMC (PyMC DEMetropolisZ, 14 free parameters, priors elicited from a 1,847-record literature screen), and all five pre-registered hypotheses were confirmed, with posterior super-additivity of 13 to 22 percentage points across model versions. Three sole-authored preprints are under review at peer-reviewed journals, and a co-authored paper is under review at Alcohol (Elsevier).

I apply to the Digital Humanism Fellowship 2026-2027 because the CCT model is, at its core, a digital-humanism project. It asks how computational models of human vulnerability can inform the design of digital health interventions that preserve autonomy rather than erode it. The IWM's mission, examining technology's impact on humanity, is precisely the arena where my work needs to move next: from quantitative prediction to ethical and policy implication. My current enrollment in the M.Sc. Digital Health at Hasso Plattner Institute / University of Potsdam grounds me in the technical layer; the IWM stay would ground me in the human layer.

The benefit of the IWM stay is specific. I need to develop the normative framework that my model implies but does not yet articulate: if we can predict the threshold at which reward-memory encoding becomes consolidated, what obligations do digital intervention designers have to avoid crossing it? What does human-centered addiction prevention look like when the mechanism is computational? These questions require the interdisciplinary environment IWM provides.

My track record demonstrates I complete what I start. The cardiotoxicity topology study I pre-registered and powered settled a comparison the literature had never run: bipartite persistent homology did not beat a plain descriptor baseline (AUROC 0.8426 vs 0.8782). The TOPOLOGIX system, using ESM-2 delta-embeddings and Morgan fingerprints, predicts drug-resistance mutations from sequence alone at AUROC 0.804, covering 100% of mutations versus roughly 18% for structure-limited tools. I report negative results directly, as with the ergofluids real-data gate that did not meet its pre-registered criterion. I am a Nigerian pharmacist and computational researcher, 29 years old, with endorsements from Kent Berridge, Samuel Gershman, Nathaniel Daw, and Marcelo Mattar. The fellowship's global eligibility and Vienna location fit my trajectory. I ask for the opportunity to turn a validated computational model into a contribution to how digital technologies serve human dignity.

RESEARCH STATEMENT

Project title: The Conjunctive Consolidation Threshold: Computational Foundations for Human-Centered Digital Addiction Interventions

Objectives. The CCT model posits that reward-memory encoding requires the conjunction of three pharmacological axes: dopaminergic reward prediction error, NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation, and affective contrast. My objective at IWM is twofold. First, to complete the theoretical articulation of the CCT model as a framework for understanding how digital health technologies, from gamified interventions to personalized dosing algorithms, interact with the neurobiological substrates of addiction. Second, to produce a policy-oriented manuscript that translates the model's quantitative predictions into design principles for autonomy-preserving digital interventions. The intended output is a peer-reviewed article targeting a journal at the intersection of neuroethics and digital health, plus a working paper for IWM's Digital Humanism series.

Current state of research. The CCT model is fully specified as a coupled three-axis ODE system, solved with RK45, and calibrated with Bayesian MCMC against literature-elicited priors. All five pre-registered hypotheses (H1-H5) were confirmed. Posterior super-additivity across model versions ranges from 13 to 22 percentage points, indicating that the conjunction of axes, not any single axis, drives threshold crossing. Three sole-authored preprints are under review (IART, PNPBP, NBR), and a co-authored paper is under review at Alcohol (Elsevier). The model's computational core is complete; what remains is the translation layer.

Methods. The IWM phase will use three methods. First, normative analysis: I will map the model's quantitative outputs, specifically the threshold parameter distributions and their posterior uncertainties, onto established frameworks in bioethics and technology ethics, including autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Second, comparative policy review: I will analyze existing digital addiction interventions, from contingency management apps to AI-driven personalized messaging, and assess each against the CCT model's predictions about when reward-memory encoding is likely to occur. Third, collaborative writing: I will engage IWM fellows and visiting scholars in structured critique of the draft manuscript, using their feedback to sharpen the argument.

Work plan. Months 1-2: complete the normative mapping and produce a first draft of the policy manuscript. Months 3-4: circulate the draft for internal IWM critique, revise, and submit to a target journal. Months 5-6: develop the working paper for IWM's Digital Humanism series and present findings in an IWM colloquium. Throughout, I will maintain the open-science practices that have defined my prior work: pre-registration where applicable, public code repositories, and direct reporting of negative or ambiguous results.

Relevance to IWM. The Digital Humanism mission asks how technology can be designed to serve human dignity. The CCT model provides a concrete, quantitative answer for one domain: addiction. It specifies the neurobiological conditions under which a memory becomes consolidated, and therefore specifies the conditions digital interventions must avoid or deliberately modulate. This is ethics grounded in a validated computational model, not abstract theory. The IWM stay is the environment where this translation can happen, because it brings together technologists, humanists, and social scientists under one roof. My prior work demonstrates I can deliver: three sole-authored preprints under review, a falsified topology hypothesis reported honestly, and a sequence-based resistance predictor that outperforms structure-based baselines. I will bring the same rigor to the ethical and policy dimensions of the CCT model.

SHORT ESSAY: RELEVANCE TO DIGITAL HUMANISM

Digital humanism, as I understand it, is the claim that technology must be evaluated not by its efficiency but by its effect on human autonomy, dignity, and flourishing. My CCT model is a direct test of that claim in the domain of addiction. The model specifies a threshold: the conjunction of dopaminergic reward prediction error, NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation, and affective contrast that determines whether a reward-memory is consolidated. Any digital intervention that targets addiction, whether a smartphone app delivering contingency management or an AI system personalizing relapse-prevention messages, operates on these same neurobiological axes. The question is whether it does so deliberately and ethically.

My work has already demonstrated the value of computational rigor in this space. The CCT model was calibrated with Bayesian MCMC against priors elicited from a systematic screen of 1,847 records. All five pre-registered hypotheses were confirmed. The model is a quantitative framework, not a metaphor. But a quantitative framework is not yet a humanistic one. The IWM fellowship would allow me to build the bridge. I want to ask: if the model predicts that certain digital intervention designs are more likely to cross the consolidation threshold, what does that mean for the designer's responsibility? What does it mean for the user's consent? What does it mean for regulatory frameworks that currently evaluate digital health tools primarily for efficacy and safety, not for their effect on memory consolidation and autonomy?

My background strengthens this inquiry. I am a licensed pharmacist in Nigeria, trained at the University of Ibadan, now pursuing an M.Sc. in Digital Health at Hasso Plattner Institute in Germany. I have worked on AMR genomics surveillance pipelines and NMDA/insulin docking. I have built production systems and self-hosted LLM infrastructure. I know both the clinical and the computational layers. What I need from IWM is the humanistic layer: the philosophical, legal, and social-science perspectives that my training did not provide. The fellowship's interdisciplinary structure, its focus on Digital Humanism, and its Vienna location make it the right place to develop this work. The output will be a peer-reviewed article and a working paper, both grounded in the CCT model's quantitative predictions and both addressed to the question of how digital technologies can respect human autonomy in the face of addiction.

CHECKLIST

- [ ] Verify eligibility: confirm current enrollment in a doctoral program OR PhD obtained not before 21 September 2022. Applicant is enrolled in M.Sc. Digital Health, not a doctoral program. Confirm whether M.Sc. enrollment satisfies the eligibility condition or whether an exception applies.
- [ ] Confirm no prior IWM fellowship application in the same academic year.
- [ ] Confirm no IWM fellowship received in the past three academic years.
- [ ] Write project description, max 550 characters, summarizing the CCT-to-digital-humanism translation project.
- [ ] Write full project proposal, max 7,500 characters, covering objectives, current state of research, methods, and work plan. Expand from the RESEARCH STATEMENT above.
- [ ] Write letter of motivation, 300-500 words. Use the MOTIVATION LETTER above, verify word count.
- [ ] Prepare CV with full publication list, including three sole-authored preprints under review and one co-authored paper under review.
- [ ] Secure two letters of recommendation. Confirm recommenders: Kent Berridge (Michigan), Samuel Gershman (Harvard), Nathaniel Daw (Princeton), or Marcelo Mattar (NYU). Ensure recommenders submit directly to IWM.
- [ ] Verify the fellowship deadline and application portal at the programme website.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires a separate project proposal form or accepts a single combined document.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires proof of enrollment or degree certificates. Applicant has B.Pharm from University of Ibadan and enrollment confirmation from HPI/Potsdam.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires a writing sample. If so, select one sole-authored preprint (CCT model) as the sample.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires a budget or financial plan. If so, prepare a modest budget for the Vienna stay, including travel, accommodation, and research expenses.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires a statement on diversity, equity, or inclusion. If so, prepare a statement highlighting the applicant's Nigerian nationality, LMIC background, and independent researcher status.

EDITOR NOTES

- Eligibility risk: The selection criteria state "currently enrolled in a doctoral program OR PhD obtained not before 21 September 2022." The applicant is enrolled in an M.Sc., not a doctoral program. This is a material eligibility risk. The application should either clarify that the M.Sc. is a pathway to a doctoral program, or the applicant should confirm with IWM whether M.Sc. enrollment qualifies. Do not submit without resolving this.
- The CCT model is the correct research line for this programme. It is the only line with a direct societal-impact narrative (addiction prevention) that matches the Digital Humanism mission. The cardiotoxicity and TOPOLOGIX lines are methods-focused and lack the humanistic angle. The ergofluids line is behind a validation gate and should not be featured. The psyche-twin line is a venture and does not fit a fellowship focused on research and writing.
- The applicant must insert personal detail not in this profile: specific reasons for wanting Vienna specifically (beyond the fellowship), any prior connections to IWM fellows or Digital Humanism scholars, and any personal experience with addiction or mental health that motivates the work. These details should be added to the motivation letter and short essay.
- Verify the publication status of the three sole-authored preprints and the co-authored Alcohol paper. The application must not claim they are under review if they have been rejected or accepted. Confirm current status before submission.
- The RESEARCH STATEMENT above is approximately 800 words. The full project proposal limit is 7,500 characters (approximately 1,200-1,400 words). Expand the research statement to the full limit, adding more detail on the normative analysis method, the comparative policy review, and the specific journals targeted for submission.

MOTIVATION LETTER

Addiction is a rewiring of reward-memory circuits, and the digital tools we build to address it either respect that biology or ignore it. My CCT (Conjunctive Consolidation Threshold) model treats addiction as a pharmacological and computational problem: a tripartite framework where dopaminergic reward prediction error, NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation, and affective contrast converge on a threshold for reward-memory encoding. I calibrated this model with Bayesian MCMC (PyMC DEMetropolisZ, 14 free parameters, priors elicited from a 1,847-record literature screen), and all five pre-registered hypotheses were confirmed, with posterior super-additivity of 13 to 22 percentage points across model versions. Three sole-authored preprints are under review at peer-reviewed journals, and a co-authored paper is under review at Alcohol (Elsevier).

I apply to the Digital Humanism Fellowship 2026-2027 because the CCT model is, at its core, a digital-humanism project. It asks how computational models of human vulnerability can inform the design of digital health interventions that preserve autonomy rather than erode it. The IWM's mission, examining technology's impact on humanity, is precisely the arena where my work needs to move next: from quantitative prediction to ethical and policy implication. My current enrollment in the M.Sc. Digital Health at Hasso Plattner Institute / University of Potsdam grounds me in the technical layer; the IWM stay would ground me in the human layer.

The benefit of the IWM stay is specific. I need to develop the normative framework that my model implies but does not yet articulate: if we can predict the threshold at which reward-memory encoding becomes consolidated, what obligations do digital intervention designers have to avoid crossing it? What does human-centered addiction prevention look like when the mechanism is computational? These questions require the interdisciplinary environment IWM provides.

My track record demonstrates I complete what I start. The cardiotoxicity topology study I pre-registered and powered settled a comparison the literature had never run: bipartite persistent homology did not beat a plain descriptor baseline (AUROC 0.8426 vs 0.8782). The TOPOLOGIX system, using ESM-2 delta-embeddings and Morgan fingerprints, predicts drug-resistance mutations from sequence alone at AUROC 0.804, covering 100% of mutations versus roughly 18% for structure-limited tools. I report negative results directly, as with the ergofluids real-data gate that did not meet its pre-registered criterion. I am a Nigerian pharmacist and computational researcher, 29 years old, with endorsements from Kent Berridge, Samuel Gershman, Nathaniel Daw, and Marcelo Mattar. The fellowship's global eligibility and Vienna location fit my trajectory. I ask for the opportunity to turn a validated computational model into a contribution to how digital technologies serve human dignity.

RESEARCH STATEMENT

Project title: The Conjunctive Consolidation Threshold: Computational Foundations for Human-Centered Digital Addiction Interventions

Objectives. The CCT model posits that reward-memory encoding requires the conjunction of three pharmacological axes: dopaminergic reward prediction error, NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation, and affective contrast. My objective at IWM is twofold. First, to complete the theoretical articulation of the CCT model as a framework for understanding how digital health technologies, from gamified interventions to personalized dosing algorithms, interact with the neurobiological substrates of addiction. Second, to produce a policy-oriented manuscript that translates the model's quantitative predictions into design principles for autonomy-preserving digital interventions. The intended output is a peer-reviewed article targeting a journal at the intersection of neuroethics and digital health, plus a working paper for IWM's Digital Humanism series.

Current state of research. The CCT model is fully specified as a coupled three-axis ODE system, solved with RK45, and calibrated with Bayesian MCMC against literature-elicited priors. All five pre-registered hypotheses (H1-H5) were confirmed. Posterior super-additivity across model versions ranges from 13 to 22 percentage points, indicating that the conjunction of axes, not any single axis, drives threshold crossing. Three sole-authored preprints are under review (IART, PNPBP, NBR), and a co-authored paper is under review at Alcohol (Elsevier). The model's computational core is complete; what remains is the translation layer.

Methods. The IWM phase will use three methods. First, normative analysis: I will map the model's quantitative outputs, specifically the threshold parameter distributions and their posterior uncertainties, onto established frameworks in bioethics and technology ethics, including autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Second, comparative policy review: I will analyze existing digital addiction interventions, from contingency management apps to AI-driven personalized messaging, and assess each against the CCT model's predictions about when reward-memory encoding is likely to occur. Third, collaborative writing: I will engage IWM fellows and visiting scholars in structured critique of the draft manuscript, using their feedback to sharpen the argument.

Work plan. Months 1-2: complete the normative mapping and produce a first draft of the policy manuscript. Months 3-4: circulate the draft for internal IWM critique, revise, and submit to a target journal. Months 5-6: develop the working paper for IWM's Digital Humanism series and present findings in an IWM colloquium. Throughout, I will maintain the open-science practices that have defined my prior work: pre-registration where applicable, public code repositories, and direct reporting of negative or ambiguous results.

Relevance to IWM. The Digital Humanism mission asks how technology can be designed to serve human dignity. The CCT model provides a concrete, quantitative answer for one domain: addiction. It specifies the neurobiological conditions under which a memory becomes consolidated, and therefore specifies the conditions digital interventions must avoid or deliberately modulate. This is ethics grounded in a validated computational model, not abstract theory. The IWM stay is the environment where this translation can happen, because it brings together technologists, humanists, and social scientists under one roof. My prior work demonstrates I can deliver: three sole-authored preprints under review, a falsified topology hypothesis reported honestly, and a sequence-based resistance predictor that outperforms structure-based baselines. I will bring the same rigor to the ethical and policy dimensions of the CCT model.

SHORT ESSAY: RELEVANCE TO DIGITAL HUMANISM

Digital humanism, as I understand it, is the claim that technology must be evaluated not by its efficiency but by its effect on human autonomy, dignity, and flourishing. My CCT model is a direct test of that claim in the domain of addiction. The model specifies a threshold: the conjunction of dopaminergic reward prediction error, NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation, and affective contrast that determines whether a reward-memory is consolidated. Any digital intervention that targets addiction, whether a smartphone app delivering contingency management or an AI system personalizing relapse-prevention messages, operates on these same neurobiological axes. The question is whether it does so deliberately and ethically.

My work has already demonstrated the value of computational rigor in this space. The CCT model was calibrated with Bayesian MCMC against priors elicited from a systematic screen of 1,847 records. All five pre-registered hypotheses were confirmed. The model is a quantitative framework, not a metaphor. But a quantitative framework is not yet a humanistic one. The IWM fellowship would allow me to build the bridge. I want to ask: if the model predicts that certain digital intervention designs are more likely to cross the consolidation threshold, what does that mean for the designer's responsibility? What does it mean for the user's consent? What does it mean for regulatory frameworks that currently evaluate digital health tools primarily for efficacy and safety, not for their effect on memory consolidation and autonomy?

My background strengthens this inquiry. I am a licensed pharmacist in Nigeria, trained at the University of Ibadan, now pursuing an M.Sc. in Digital Health at Hasso Plattner Institute in Germany. I have worked on AMR genomics surveillance pipelines and NMDA/insulin docking. I have built production systems and self-hosted LLM infrastructure. I know both the clinical and the computational layers. What I need from IWM is the humanistic layer: the philosophical, legal, and social-science perspectives that my training did not provide. The fellowship's interdisciplinary structure, its focus on Digital Humanism, and its Vienna location make it the right place to develop this work. The output will be a peer-reviewed article and a working paper, both grounded in the CCT model's quantitative predictions and both addressed to the question of how digital technologies can respect human autonomy in the face of addiction.

CHECKLIST

- [ ] Verify eligibility: confirm current enrollment in a doctoral program OR PhD obtained not before 21 September 2022. Applicant is enrolled in M.Sc. Digital Health, not a doctoral program. Confirm whether M.Sc. enrollment satisfies the eligibility condition or whether an exception applies.
- [ ] Confirm no prior IWM fellowship application in the same academic year.
- [ ] Confirm no IWM fellowship received in the past three academic years.
- [ ] Write project description, max 550 characters, summarizing the CCT-to-digital-humanism translation project.
- [ ] Write full project proposal, max 7,500 characters, covering objectives, current state of research, methods, and work plan. Expand from the RESEARCH STATEMENT above.
- [ ] Write letter of motivation, 300-500 words. Use the MOTIVATION LETTER above, verify word count.
- [ ] Prepare CV with full publication list, including three sole-authored preprints under review and one co-authored paper under review.
- [ ] Secure two letters of recommendation. Confirm recommenders: Kent Berridge (Michigan), Samuel Gershman (Harvard), Nathaniel Daw (Princeton), or Marcelo Mattar (NYU). Ensure recommenders submit directly to IWM.
- [ ] Verify the fellowship deadline and application portal at the programme website.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires a separate project proposal form or accepts a single combined document.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires proof of enrollment or degree certificates. Applicant has B.Pharm from University of Ibadan and enrollment confirmation from HPI/Potsdam.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires a writing sample. If so, select one sole-authored preprint (CCT model) as the sample.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires a budget or financial plan. If so, prepare a modest budget for the Vienna stay, including travel, accommodation, and research expenses.
- [ ] Confirm whether the fellowship requires a statement on diversity, equity, or inclusion. If so, prepare a statement highlighting the applicant's Nigerian nationality, LMIC background, and independent researcher status.

EDITOR NOTES

- Eligibility risk: The selection criteria state "currently enrolled in a doctoral program OR PhD obtained not before 21 September 2022." The applicant is enrolled in an M.Sc., not a doctoral program. This is a material eligibility risk. The application should either clarify that the M.Sc. is a pathway to a doctoral program, or the applicant should confirm with IWM whether M.Sc. enrollment qualifies. Do not submit without resolving this.
- The CCT model is the correct research line for this programme. It is the only line with a direct societal-impact narrative (addiction prevention) that matches the Digital Humanism mission. The cardiotoxicity and TOPOLOGIX lines are methods-focused and lack the humanistic angle. The ergofluids line is behind a validation gate and should not be featured. The psyche-twin line is a venture and does not fit a fellowship focused on research and writing.
- The applicant must insert personal detail not in this profile: specific reasons for wanting Vienna specifically (beyond the fellowship), any prior connections to IWM fellows or Digital Humanism scholars, and any personal experience with addiction or mental health that motivates the work. These details should be added to the motivation letter and short essay.
- Verify the publication status of the three sole-authored preprints and the co-authored Alcohol paper. The application must not claim they are under review if they have been rejected or accepted. Confirm current status before submission.
- The RESEARCH STATEMENT above is approximately 800 words. The full project proposal limit is 7,500 characters (approximately 1,200-1,400 words). Expand the research statement to the full limit, adding more detail on the normative analysis method, the comparative policy review, and the specific journals targeted for submission.

AI Draft — Digital Humanism Fellowship 2026–2027