I look forward to a day when public attention to important discoveries in biology and medicine don't feature discussions of which journal did or didn't accept the paper describing them.
Not to be a crankypuss, but awarding a Nobel for work that suffered from not being taken seriously for decades only *after* it proved to be of incredible value is not a triumph of prizemaking - it's a complete condemnation of it and the entire culture of modern academic science.
I keep hearing this logic, so I want to dispel it: nothing about getting a PhD makes one smart. A non-negligible number of people I know have PhDs, and I don't trust their judgement/intellect on anything remotely to do with work or daily life. 1/3
No-one has ever been able to replicate Gregor Mendel's observations of pea plants.
They're a little "too perfect", lacking even random statistical noise that would have been expected from small sample sizes.
Was it scientific fraud?
I often disagree with the approaches and conclusions from the Plachta lab. I usually discuss this in reviews. This paper is different though since many clinicians will read it and may adjust their practices. This could have real life consequences… 🧵
https://t.co/dMDD88qXmK
We are recruiting! 2 PhD positions @UMCG_ERIBA to study how the inflammatory response induced by genomic instability can be used to battle cancer. Come join us! RTs are very much appreciated. @researchumcg https://t.co/rYR1y1j9nT
@FromPhDtoLife Older committee member strongly encouraged me to go abroad for a postdoc, while everybody else said “ it will be too hard to come back.”….I never came back 😀
Yuck. Cold Spring Harbor Lab meeting "celebrating" 50 years of recombinant DNA is a #manel#YAMMM
With a history of issues in sexism (e.g. Watson) at CSHL this is sad. And bonus featuring Lander w/ his own history of issues as session chair & panel discussion leader
@JuliaBauman2 Good thread, indeed setting a solid foundation for a project. I would add that a great project has valuable/interesting/publishable outcome regardless of the results.
Most people don't have a problem with how much they make. They have a problem with how much they spend. From the day we are born, society bombards us with ads that make us want to spend all our money on things we think will make us look and feel good. All we do is give all our money to make others rich. That is why I love people who are fanatical about brands. I can buy a company like $AAPL or $TSLA and get rich because others feel compelled to spend all their money trying too look cool. If you want to make the most money in the market, you want products people will spend all their money on making you rich. If you want to be an investor, then jump off the endless wheel of spending all your money on things you think you need to make you look good. I have never bought a new car in my life. Each new car can be worth over $1 million dollars if invested over the long term. You got to start looking at the time value of money. Each dollar spent today on anything that doesn't appreciate in value could be $5 or $10 or $100 in the future when invested. If you want to change your circumstances, you first have to change your attitude toward money. Stop spending money on wants. Focus on needs. Try to reduce costs. Eliminate spending money on those things that feel great now, but have no value after. I drive a used car I bought for $4,000 and use a cell phone I bought for $100. I never had a problem with either. They do everything that the fancy new cars and phones do my fiends spend 10x more on.
Silence Therapeutics announced that @AstraZeneca has nominated the 1st product candidate under our siRNA collaboration, triggering a $10 million milestone payment. Learn more: https://t.co/byTUoFsFQm #SilenceIsGOLDen $SLN
There are so many falsehoods in this tweet, I don't know where to begin. The (subscription) system was not disrupted (by OA) to provide access to lay people - it was to provide access to the many people who require access to the scientific literature who were being denied it.