it's not hard to explain

de-extinction doesn't justify the fundraising and valuations for this company. the markets that do make sense for their embryo editing technologies are livestock and humans

This is a wild take. There is no constituency of voters who voted for Trump because they thought Biden wasn’t serious enough about the pandemic.

are we just, never going to have a discussion about how publishers claim copyright over the works of authors?

This is of a piece with our most essential cultural trend: you can believe whatever you want. many people pretend to use data in believing whatever they want, and many don’t. But they are all doing the same thing of just believing whatever they want

very very cool! i had the privilege of asking Mohammed AlQuraishi's opinion on this topic a couple years ago

this stuff is so embarrassing and i encourage scientists to stop participating. on a day when we learn a huge Ebola outbreak has been spreading unbeknownst to global health authorities, we get yet more coverage of this theoretical technology. the article is riddled with falsehoods. please stop

A reporter is explaining basic military strategy to the president of the United States, who is not getting it

Person who has spent years promoting themselves as a reliable source of information on social media: “Being people's source of info can be uncomfortable”

These look like FROs, a very promising alternative to grant based funding promoted by many scientists. At around 1% (not 10%) of the budget, i think It’s worth a shot and could be made to work well. We’ll see what it looks like in practice

fully half of UC Berkeley postdocs are international

i'm jealous that math/CS/physics have kept their active social media community. it's appalling that they've done so by choosing to remain on twitter.

i strongly support federal funding for non-university research institutions. universities and funders have created a tiered research ecosystem based entirely on transient labor, and that's bad i don't think NSF is the right mechanism and i know this government is not trying to address these issues

Lmao

poaching top researchers is a historically proven way to build strength in science provided you seriously intend to expand research capacity. dropping top people into a system at capacity further dilutes scarce resources

This is the same as calculating percentages wrong (6000% cheaper) just with couple extra words thrown in

This paper is sticking in my craw and I wonder if cellular metabolism is also pulsatile. This would be hard to detect with most methods, only time course imaging with cellular resolution would really cut it

European innovation has finally arrived

Today a PI said this has been their worst year for grant rejections. They werent sure if it was because of the political situation, but they were planning on submitting more grants. Price discovery for how much work you are willing to wash down the drain.

1. prop up SpaceX 2. escape traditional jurisdictions 3. gain negotiating leverage against communities on the ground

after Kristi Noem stepped down the title of Dumbest Governor was left open. Claude suggests Ron DeSantis, Katie Hobbs, Tina Kotek, and Greg Gianforte have the "weakest grasp on economic, scientific, and policy matters"

the Doudna lab paper threw me off cuz i was like wait didn't i just read that in Nature? really cool to translate this bacterial cell death mechanism to mammalian cells. maybe even a bit surprising it wasn't done already in the 2010s

What Trump has given Iran is far more valuable than a nuclear bomb. they can negotiate over nuclear concessions while building deterrence based entirely on economic disruption.

The completely serious truth is that ransomware companies have a reputation to uphold and going back on their word too often would be bad for business

Look up how many hospitals paid ransom last year

this isn't my read. i'm seeing the same grab-and-hold tactics they've been using for decades. most likely scenario is continued gradual decline largely due to Democrats not adopting a legitimate anti-corruption platform

is there a new paper or just a press release? page links to a preprint from last year, but i can't tell if that's the only published work

Happy to announce publication of our first therapeutic mRNA-LNP paper! In vivo reprogramming of cytotoxic effector CD8 T cells via fractalkine-conjugated mRNA-LNPs | Science Immunology www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

What you don’t do is gain power and then let this system continue on as currently constructed.

I think it’s correct to see success rates as a market force with slow feedback. At 34%, unis hire and people want the job. At <10%, they don’t hire and it’s not attractive for applicants. Grant writers are competing with each other for how much rejection they are willing to tolerate

Our puritanical rejection of corn smut has come at great cost

interesting company founded by the last author. focused on biomolecular simulation, looks like a fusion of physics and deep learning. (paper looks cool but i'm still not sure if these "single-cell foundation models" are all they're cracked up to be) couple more thoughts below:

it's a great point, and the reason they won't do this is because they truly think they are driving the economy. they think they are the key actors in american life. they think they are "job creators" and they are confused and angry that people aren't more grateful

👀

Why is rioter the term we settled on here? J6 was not a riot it was a political act with a goal

asymmetry of information permeates academic science. i'm talking: conferences campus visits grant review peer review the right people can put themselves 6 months ahead of the public record.

how many people are carrying plasmids across international borders? and without MTA, i assume? or there is an institutional MTA but it's too much work to declare the material through customs? but still leaving a paper trail? i'm confused. more to the point: you shouldn't do this!

paradoxically, many cancer researchers already feel this way when competing with better resourced people. that's just what happens when material resources become limiting.

FlowJo: *hides* Honestly there’s a whole industry selling research software to academics, funded by taxpayers. hope they‘re ready to compete with grad students making and sharing this stuff for free

A savvy funding body could produce an alternative at very low cost. There’s even precedent with NIH BioArt, a thing I can hardly believe we actually did

it‘s a common misconception that we grow corn for fuel. Yes it is sold as fuel, but the purpose is to create artificial demand, much like the government buys cheese and milk. It’s a government works program for farmers. We also subsidize them on the front end. Pretty good deal

Bro we assassinated a head of state with a ballistic missile and everyone just moved on

Dude‘s giving us his best Jesse Ventura

Cambridge professor giving a keynote address on "Failing in science" 🙃

1. he got a good deal because they can't sell 'em 2. this post could very well have been part of that deal

damn would be a shame to throw all that away by ignoring serious constitutional offenses then selfishly running for re-election when everyone knows you are sundowning.

democrats are really unpopular and running on "I am not a Republican" is a terrible campaign message. but it's the promise they can deliver (most of them, most of the time, that is)

incredible stuff from this group in the last five years. enzymes aren’t always the answer but they can do things that organic synthesis can’t even touch

The internet and social media created communities for everything. absolutely nothing was done to counter the obvious negative consequences. The rest is history

Very funny that LLMs are far more helpful for grant writing than doing physical experiments. So if there is any advantage, it will be in “grantsmanship“ before actual scientific progress. Great parallel for our “PIs + their ”trainees”” model of biomedical research