sciency28.bsky.social
224 posts
11 followers
37 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
real bad ass
comment in response to
post
...a show of humility. MAGA hates anybody that does not show humility, and so this show of humility by the NAS may be attractive to republicans. I was in academic science a very long time and shows of humility from profs were extremely rare.
comment in response to
post
Perhaps for two reasons:
1.) science is now associated with the democratic party, and when a republican is president, they are going to want to tear it down to satisfy the MAGA base. What McNut may be getting act is we have to find ways where it does not depend on federal funding, if possible....
comment in response to
post
Im not very confident that the PRC can develop a strong biotech industry, in light of the fact that a good fraction of their data in their published work is irreproducible.
comment in response to
post
Based on his behavior and actions, I think Musk is a social darwinist. This action against USAid is exactly what a social darwinist would do.
comment in response to
post
She looks good!
comment in response to
post
Some of that indirect cost goes to non-productive faculty and administrators, and so some would argue this money is wasted. If uni's made some effort to change and reduce indirect cost waste that maybe they would have more respect and negotiating powers with the feds.
comment in response to
post
I dont think 1 and 3 are duplicates. Woman at far right looks slightly different.
comment in response to
post
He really wants that job --- NCI director.
comment in response to
post
I appreciate that Amgen and Bayer are assertions, but my reasonable guess they are based on facts. The cancer reproducibility project and the recent study from Brazil are facts, data is there for others to see.
comment in response to
post
The evidence of irreproducibility in the biosciences keeps building and suggests a rate of 70%. That is a fact. It could be different in different fields, such as organic chemistry.
Using this as an excuse to defund the system, IMO, is wrong. Other ways to solve the problem need to be found.
comment in response to
post
I see ACS as profiteers, not unlike any academic publishing house. But what makes them contemptable is they have a fake veneer of probity has an honorable science society like the Royal Society.
comment in response to
post
Well, there going to be much fewer employment opportunities in the academic sciences anyway.
comment in response to
post
Doing well in Korea: scholar.dgist.ac.kr/handle/20.50...
comment in response to
post
The mark of Rockenstein
comment in response to
post
Another problem with the slaughter it will accomplish exactly the opposite of what DOGE wants. Ending grants turn professors into very expensive deadwood that the school can't forcibly retire. Less home grown MS/Phd grads in natural sciences, will turn to H-1B for our needs. All bad, IMO.
comment in response to
post
I agree, but Im not optimistic about the possibility of change. The people in charge of the system in academia---the one's that get most of the grants---think the system works great as it is, and are in denial about the magnitude of the problem.
comment in response to
post
One possibility: focus DOGE cuts on labs that show up a lot on pubpeer.
comment in response to
post
One possibility: focus DOGE cuts on labs that show up a lot on pubpeer.
comment in response to
post
If I may: pointing out your recent impact factor is not a sign of humility. Correcting any errors in published papers is a sign of humility.
comment in response to
post
For type 1 changing diet would not help. For type 2 it could help with some individuals--I know of a couple of people that have controlled or ended their type 2 by changing diet alone. Im not sure exactly what he said, but he should have distinguished the two, and probably needed to be more clear.
comment in response to
post
Yes, but this is an eye opening look at Argentinian science. Not good.
forbetterscience.com/2024/01/16/a...
comment in response to
post
I cannot respond because you're writing is so unclear.
comment in response to
post
Ha! Again, I strongly suggest you read the book. The book concludes its around 70% irreproducibility. I dont like this fact, but it is a fact. May be different in different fields.
Also recent study in Brazil of papers from this country came to the same conclusion.
comment in response to
post
Might I suggest you read this book, which is far more thorough than I possibly could be:
www.amazon.com/Unreliable-R...
Also: www.cos.io/rpcb
The 70% irreproducibility figure in the biosciences seems to be reasonable. Raises the question is there a better way.
comment in response to
post
First three paragraphs are correct. Multiple studies in the biosciences suggest that up to 70% of the data is irreproducible (Amgen, Bayer, reproducibilty project: cancer biology), I think in good part due to fraud (desperate post-docs need a CNS paper to get a good job). Not sure how to solve.
comment in response to
post
I think this is kind of extreme for someone worldly enough to read El Pais.
comment in response to
post
Its legal for cars, but, depending on the state, not for us.
comment in response to
post
Well, he may be aware that over 50% of the data in the biomedical sciences is irreproducible, but I doubt that. Its a well kept secret, apparently.
comment in response to
post
Im a STEM researcher. It won't hurt me to have fewer immigrants to compete with for a job.
comment in response to
post
I'm impressed with anyone in one country (Germany) that reads the newspaper in another (Spain-- El Pais). Makes you look good.
comment in response to
post
You are probably aware that over 50% of published data is irreproducible, in part due to fraud. If only DOGE could defund the labs that produce largely rubbish. Perhaps a connected person like you can direct DOGE to pubpeer.
comment in response to
post
Love a guy who reads El Pais. Wordly indeed.
comment in response to
post
I'm impressed if an academic can express this. Most academics in stable positions (faculty, admin) have huge egos, because they think it was their abilities and skills only that got them there.
comment in response to
post
...current research in physics which some argue is a dead end due to non-falsifiable string theory. In biology, I know people who model the structure of ancient (non-existing) enzymes---non-falsifiable research---and question if its a good use of money.
comment in response to
post
I think it would have been better for him to say we can never prove or disprove either hypothesis, as there is evidence for each (I tend toward lab leak based on the molecular biology of the virus). Falsifiable research? Well, if you don't follow that, then you may become like....
comment in response to
post
Neither the lab-leak nor the wet market hypothesis can be proven or disproven, so it would by silly if he used either hypothesis as an example of something that could be disproven.
comment in response to
post
Higher ed are also gigantic debt generators for intelligent young people; their money, over time, is going to overpaid college admins and profs. Therefore, I think the bad of uni's balance any good that come from them.
comment in response to
post
Only for molecules substituted twice (one on each end of the db) and so keeping a hydrogen on each end. Cis/trans based on H's.
comment in response to
post
Exactly
comment in response to
post
That's due to libraries paying so much to ACS pubs. ACS pubs is a business and should be taxed like one.
comment in response to
post
She should have said Glc, in extremely large amounts. Could have given a nod to Frc as well.
comment in response to
post
MAHA is correct in saying most Americans are in poor health due to chronic disease and these people will increase medical care expenses. However, MAHA will fail because we demand the right to eat the crap we eat and drink what we drink. Getting rid of dyes and high frc corn syrup will do nothing.
comment in response to
post
Uni's need to stay away from political issues, such as DEI.
comment in response to
post
MAHA is correct in saying most Americans are in poor health due to chronic disease and these people will increase medical care expenses. However, MAHA will fail because we demand the right to eat the crap we eat and drink what we drink. Getting rid of dyes and high frc corn syrup will do nothing.
comment in response to
post
Well, this is from multiple independent studies: 1.) Amgen 2.) Bayer 3.) reproducibility project - cancer biology 4.) most recently, Brazilian research study.
If it was just one study, I would be doubtful. But four major studies say that irreproducibility is 50% or more, like to be 70%.
comment in response to
post
There are several studies that suggest the data in bioscience is 50% irreproducible. See book "Unreliable" by by Csaba Szabo. This is, in part, due to fraud. DOGE is incompetent to cut NIH/NSF as they are doing it, if only we can get them to focus on pubpeer.
comment in response to
post
There are several studies that suggest the data in bioscience is 50% irreproducible. See book "Unreliable" by by Csaba Szabo. This is, in part, due to fraud. DOGE is incompetent to cut NIH/NSF as they are doing it, if only we can get them to focus on pubpeer.
comment in response to
post
In the biological sciences, over 50% of the data is irreproducible. May be true for the physical sciences. If the 50% being cut were the fraudsters, I'd say fine, but I don't think this is going to happen. The honest reproducible data generators are most likely to be cut as they publish less.