Michael Eisen

I don't really have a direct answer, but I think the ROI discussion is bogus. Pretty much anytime the government spends money it has a positive ROI in terms of economic activity.

this is the most insane paragraph ever written

This spot is always empty

Red and Green Macaw

Ecuadorian Amazon

I just took maybe my favorite wildlife photo ever

I do not find their argument particularly convincing, nor does it currently contribute to my own mental map of the probability of different possible origins of COVID, but I have not seen any reason to think it's fraudulent.

Imagine how I feel.

It's obviously not the case with COVID, but the apotheosis of vaccines - one that is widely deployed and highly effective with rare lethal side effects - could end up killing more people than the disease it prevents.

With inclusion efforts under threat in the US, It’s nice that France are giving worm researchers exposure to a real animal.

I went to grad school.

The most compelling data prior to the inclusion of ancient DNA pointed to an older origin as well.

Some people spend their lives saying they care about others but when given an actual opportunity to, don't.

No. I just wish I hadn't been right.

No. Starting July 1, academics can no longer be complicit in paywalling publicly funded research.

x.com/mbeisen/stat...

And yes. This shit is very bad - and is exactly why we should fight ALL political interference in publishing and efforts to silence the free exchange of scientific ideas.

The dog didn’t eat the receipts you dick - I got fired from the job and don’t have access to my emails.

LET'S GO YOU FUCKING GUNNERS!!!!!!

I still don’t get why you insist on representing my decision to review the paper as an endorsement. My intention was - as it is was with every paper - to center reviews of the work. And had the process reached its conclusion it would have.

Come on. If we rejected papers based on hyperbole in cover letters there would be no published papers.

There is a long public record about how we decided on which papers to review at eLife. But you know that. Since you are now obviously choosing to ignore that public record in favor of scoring debating points, I don't see any point in continuing to engage with you.

The fact that Oded is still heralded as a scientific leader says all you need to know about science IMO.

As you know, I was not privy to those conversations.

As I've said 18 gazillion times, if I had had my way EVERYTHING would have gone out for review, conditioned only on our ability to find an editor and reviewers for the paper. You can play gotcha all day long. My answer - backed by the public record - will be the same.

Authors are told the existing criticism on bioRxiv would be used in the review and their responses/lack thereof would factor into the assessment.

My goal in reviewing the paper was to synthesize all of this criticism, have it in the record, give the authors a way to respond, and render an opinion on it. For unrelated reasons this didn’t happen. I just don’t understand why you are trying to have the paper’s flaws on me.