Why?

I guess for me it was a choice to be overrun by illegal immigration or the country turning into a monarchy. I chose the former.

I wish there was a party in the center I could vote for.

This was not the only piece of data that allow them to deduce the structure. Also needed was base ratios, dyad symmetry that Crick understood, interp of Patterson maps, etc. So, yes, they got a boost from Franklin data, but it alone did not allow the solution of the structure.

I don't bother reading papers from mainland China.

Yes, sounds like patronage to me, which is not good. However, I will submit an alternative hypothesis: he may have been one of the few candidates who will not tolerate a woke narrative, which is very important to admin right now.

I like the idea, I hope you are right!

N2 tank dry

Bunnies are awesome.

I've been in academic science a long time. I see that it is very important that people in authority (like you) have their views challenged when needed. So here we are:

://web.archive.org/web/20000816184126/http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/

Good points made in the video. If Calley was trying to make the point that diet influences cancer rates, I think there is evidence for this with rhesus monkeys on calorie restricted diets.

I think "humans" is inclusive of both men and women. Saddened, but not surprised, that you wrote the comment off as sexist, you airhead.

Well, at least they got the charge of the silver ion right. Assuming it is an ion.

Ending DEI is not becoming a right wing theocracy, needless to say. Just allows people to compete fairly, and not based on race and sex. You should know better.

*sigh*. SCOTUS will kill it, finally, as it is illegal. Problem is, colleges will find ways to sneak it back, even if it means breaking the law. Makes admins feel good about themselves.

If he admitted the number of Covid deaths, that would go against his former assertion that most of them were due to the Covid vaccine. He isn't stupid, but apparently a true believer in his false narrative he's pushing.

Pretty cool. Ha-ha.

If you have talents elsewhere, then yes. If you are a one-tricky pony (like me), get moving. The school (or whatever institution your at) paid you to get grants. You could be in Cameroon.

Yes. Next paper; the taxpayer funded your research, they need to know what you did.

Grant: you are probably making a shot load of money. Earn it with writing a grant.

Dislikable people can have good quotes that are correct. I dont think we can discount everything someone says because that person has an unattractive philosophy. Ex: RFK Jr, a really contemptable guy overall, but maybe correct about microplastics and pesticides.

x.com/sapinker/sta...

Its quotas, dude. You guys wont be happy until 11% of all faculty are black, 33% are hispanic, and 50% are women. That isn't merit based hiring; Its race and sex based, which is illegal. Not go make your wife dinner and don't burn it this time.

You dont understand how it works in the context of a faculty hire.

We will see if this exciting study can be reproduced. There is a 70% chance that at least a part of the study won't be, or positive results are not as strong as first suggested.

You clearly need to improve your ability to explain yourself, hence why you may not get grants instead of what you think: where you are located, race, or sex.

Pulling the "are you aware of who I am?" thing, eh? No one gives a shit where you got your degrees from. What the school cares about you have good ideas, not the name on your silly degrees.

You appear to have a definition of DEI that most do not have, and for this reason you've done a good job sowing confusion or are hiding your true intentions.

You dont help them by saying "oh hey, its a woman or underrepresented minority in the middle of nowhere, so let's give them money!" Extremely unethical. I am for limiting the number of RO1's that a PI can receive but what you are suggesting is reprehensible.

...awarding primarily based on race and sex to achieve quotas is highly unethical, and, in my opinion, reprehensible, and make things a heck of a lot worse than they already are.

You may have reviewed multiple years but I suspect with great bias, as you appear to be resentful of institutions that get a lot of grant money based on ideas of merit. Its not a perfect meritocracy and there is a lot of fraud in the system (pubpeer) but suggesting to fix it by...

Tier 3 gets grant money (U WY, U KY), as well as PUI's throughout the country. They got money before DEI, so you are apparently wrong. My guess the money they got is in proportion to the amount of good idea's they had. DEI tried to up end that by giving money based on race and sex. Think about that.