Dana Zeid

It’s a great that the rat genome is finally being updated but the crazy differences between analyses run with rn6 and GRCr8 do not make me feel secure in my results. Like just how bad/off was rn6?? I miss the mouse genome :(

Sex, lies, and iron deficiency: a call to change ferritin reference ranges

AND iron testing is only ordered in response to symptoms AND when ferritin is actually tested, (often) the laboratory reference ranges have a ridiculously low lower bound. :(

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

Annual ferritin testing should be standard for pre-menopausal/menstruating people, often only serum iron is tested. Low iron/anemia can be actual life ruiners and they’re devastatingly common - but so easily treated! I’d bet a significant % of CFS cases are actually chronically depleted iron

Aka we do have the money to do better, it’s just been tied up in bullshit

I think one of the things we’re most scared to say is that we ARE in fact wasting a fuck ton of money as a consequence of stupid incentives -

and no, it doesn’t have to be this way, and of course the solution isn’t this fucked up demolition of science

I think one of the things we’re most scared to say is that we ARE in fact wasting a fuck ton of money as a consequence of stupid incentives -

and no, it doesn’t have to be this way, and of course the solution isn’t this fucked up demolition of science

Many of the criticisms being used to justify our dismantling are based in truth, even if they’re warped into weaponized falsehoods. Part of fighting back is confronting these issues, whether or not we have a perfect solution

The Journal of the Academy of Public Health won’t be the last -it’s peer reviewed & seemingly edited by reputable medical experts.How does it sound when we scramble to explain why THIS one is different? To public it sounds like partisan cherry picking.It’s NOT but who can blame them for thinking so?

We fucked ourselves over by making out peer review to be the “gold standard” for good science. Peer review can be great but what do you tell people when shitty work comes out of peer reviewed journals? The continued loss of public trust is unsurprising and obviously has been devastating for science

Defending science in public we often talk about 'peer reviewed science'. But could this framing contribute to undermining trust in science and holding us back from improving the scientific process? Instead, let's talk about the work that has received the most thorough and transparent scrutiny? 🧪

There's so much that’s out of our control right now, but what's within our control? I think we’ll find that the work that desperately needs to be done within our own “territory”(science) is inextricably intertwined with the issues that precipitated this chaos. We can’t confront one without the other

"While some might say that now is not the time for self-reflection, I argue that we must recognize that current events serve as a social stress test for science, revealing its many underlying fragilities."

Report on Reproducibility in Condensed Matter Physics We present recommendations for how to improve reproducibility in the field of condensed matter physics. This area of physics has consistently produced both fundamental insights into the functioning of...

This film in many way goes beyond the Conference Report. You can hear the community speak in their own words, trying to figure out how to work together to fix a problem that has been a taboo for decades.

arxiv.org/abs/2501.18631

YouTube video by Sergey Frolov Documentary: Reproducibility in Condensed Matter Physics

Bluesky Premiere: Documentary on Reproducibility in Condensed Matter Physics

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfpW...

A project by @ancurlija.bsky.social

6- I am still establishing my understanding of some of these issues, so I am very appreciative of your engagement. I hope to keep an open mind and refine my opinions based on the expertise and data coming from the metascience/open science community!

5-But eLife is perhaps another example of bold & creative action. The response and partial rollback was disappointing, I would hope to see academics ecstatic that SOMEONE was doing something different - out of scientific curiosity, if anything.

4-When these young scientists were told no,they demanded change anyway and labored for their cause. So I guess the idea is going beyond the boundaries of our infrastructure to create what we need. I did admire eLife’s experimental approach even though I didn’t necessarily agree with the fine details

3-However, I believe the net sum of current reformist & regressive forces is stagnancy, if not further decline. I mentioned grad student unionization because I think that type of action is needed on a large scale (and I think the issues are related).

2-Change will be painfully slow no matter what - but I would rather slow change than the stagnancy that I believe we currently have. Integrity is as important as ever, of course, and efforts to engage in open science are critical.

1-Yes, I think it’s important that I clarify I don’t really mean “radical” in the colloquial (?) sense. I am opposed to the idea of accelerated/destructive/thoughtless rebellion. I think that being careful, intentional, and vigilant to potential harm will be an essential part of meaningful change.

Hello! I agree, although there’s much more to be said about how to handle individual actions. I don’t have a settled opinion on the matter myself, so these conversations are helpful. Thanks for your response!

The "allowed" actions available to us, like OA publishing, preregistration, etc. are clearly not sufficient on their own.

There is also hesitation to engage in "radical" actions - radical in the sense that they lie outside of the gamut of choices we are "allowed" within our institutional structures. The recent wave of grad student unionization is an example.

I find it often boils down to resource scarcity - i.e., In the end, we don't have enough money to do things the right way. I don't think this has to be true, for various reasons.

They probably observe that these conversations typically spiral into resignation. But the next step isn't to just stop having the conversations - it is figuring out what is limiting the efficacy of our actions and how we can actually challenge those agents.

The author (rightfully)encourages scientists to ACT in ways that improve the system. But I strongly oppose their cynical tone & assertion that talking about bad incentives while you're "on the inside" is unhelpful (I know their focus is on excuses for malpractice, but they also speak more generally)

It's true that it's unproductive to keep naming the skewed incentives without acting to correct them, and of course it is important to hold ourselves accountable for malpractice, but I don't believe moralization of science is the productive alternative.

Peter Higgs: I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system Physicist doubts work like Higgs boson identification achievable now as academics are expected to 'keep churning out papers'

www.theguardian.com/science/2013...

Peter Higgs: "Today I wouldn't get an academic job. It's as simple as that. I don't think I would be regarded as productive enough."

6. Arguments against demanding meaningful change boil down to scarcity of resources.

7. The environment of exhaustion, desperation, and negligence created by artificial pressure to produce leads to massive amounts of waste – much more than should expected within a reasonably functional system.

5. We are rushed. Negligence is a consequence of rushing. The effects of scientific negligence are widespread and devastating.