Prof. Michael Lin

Stanford Neurobiology and Bioengineering
Precision molecular design / synbiochem.
Also @michaelzlin

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

(We'll see how many get the reference)

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

Turn it up to 11!

[simuron @z51001785]

大事なA0ポスターをバスに忘れて、A4で発表する志村先生

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

9 Unlock phone
10 Open Duo app, click okay
11 On computer, confirm this is your phone
12 Click view PDF
13 Click download button
14 Select desired folder
15 Open in an app that shows two pages side by side so you can actually look across pages without scrolling
16 Read paper

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

How to read a paper in 16 easy steps

1 Click link
2 Check verify you are human box
3 Click non-dismissable cookie settings button
4 Select no advertising cookies
5 Confirm
6 Click access through your organization
7 Search for organization
8 Click ok to library proxy
continued...

[Andrew Akbashev @Andrew_Akbashev]

Journals can’t find peer reviewers. Preprints aren’t taken seriously. Garbage papers slip through peer review. Meantime, AI is slowly taking over.

This situation is getting worse & worse:

1. Reviewers are overloaded. Fatigue is epidemic. Few scientists have time for it. As a result, manuscript turnaround times become unpredictable and painfully slow.

2. Grant proposals demand massive peer review too. They push the system even further.

3. Review quality is decreasing. Rigor is inconsistent. Technical aspects are poorly assessed.

4. Bias in peer review is real. W all know how manuscripts are rejected due to competition & jealousy. It causes a growing dissatisfaction among scientists.

❗️ PAID PEER REVIEW is a possible solution.

The best example I know is this:

Prof. Dan Gorelick pays $280 per review.

He’s the editor-in-chief of Biology Open. It’s a not-for-profit community-oriented journal. Made by real scientists. Well-known in the field.

They showed that time to editorial decisions drops HUGELY:
- Unpaid reviews: 38 days.
- Paid reviews: 5-6 days.

__

I talked to Dan about why he dislikes unpaid peer review, publication fees (esp. at Nature), how AI can review papers, and so on. This is just WILD:

https://t.co/KWmu9JIRCa

At last, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.

__

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

Deadline 9/30. Sorry for the rush; not quite sure why

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

We're searching for an assistant/associate professor in Bioengineering at Stanford!

If you're using cutting-edge engineering approaches to understand or control biological systems in useful ways (medical, environmental, etc), we'd love to hear from you!

https://t.co/hFeXPXBVj8

[David J Glass MD @davidjglassMD]

One of the worst phenotypes among scientists is what I call "Figure 1 people." These are often smart young scientists who do some work in the lab, and then get incredibly excited by the very first thing they find - but then think they're done... when they've actually just started

[Jay Van Bavel, PhD @jayvanbavel]

Cornell just produced a massive new report on higher education noting that companies have a “jarring” skepticism of higher ed thanks to a new generation of degree holders who lack key skills like handling uncertainty, compromising, and absorbing feedback.

Faculty also report that incoming students, despite four years of undergraduate education, are “underdeveloped” in these relational or interpersonal skills.

This is a serious crises in higher education and the report calls for a greater need for conflict-resolution training. We need to do a better job training our students to deal with these issues.

These are traditionally the skills students developed in higher education. I loved college because it challenged me, sparked debate, and required me to grapple with complexity. This should be an essential part of college--inside and outside the classroom.

https://t.co/qvTg2hB7HO

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

Much too simplistic to say "simply"

In chem bio we see a lot of reinventing of wheels made by biochemists (the same thing) decades ago. Being aware avoids repetitive work later confined to low-visibility journals. Maybe having experience + new ideas in the same lab is useful

[Adam Rochussen @AdamRochussen]

In 1980, 21% of NIH-funded principal investigators were under age 35. By 2015, this proportion was 3%.

The dramatic ageing of independent scientists is bad because old people are simply worse at science than young people.

Latest meta-scientific deep-dive from me 🧵 ⬇️

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

@AdamRochussen Much too simplistic to say "simply"

[Sergiu P. Pasca @Sergiu_P_Pasca]

Here’s a short summary of our recent #xenocortication article in @Nature, including the rationale, approach, key findings, initial applications to disease modeling, and current limitations.

A tremendous effort led by Konstantin Kaganovsky, Kevin Kelley, Tilo Gschwind, and Paul Harary.

Link to the article below

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

Please repost!

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

@ChristiansonLab @JHUCompSci notice the grant award amount is in the headline but not what the talented faculty member does

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

@jdpereira You notice the headline has the money amount but doesn’t mention what the person works on

If the university wants to promote this faculty member, they are not doing it right

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

@jdpereira Because I believe in Kant and this came across my news feed. My reaction is, no way universities should do this for every R01

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

@jdpereira No most do not

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

@bimald Thank you

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

@ChristiansonLab @JHUCompSci No, we don’t do it for a R01. And most departments at JHU don’t either

[Prof. Michael Lin @MichaelLinLab]

@jdpereira Okay so we should all push our universities to have a press release for each R01