Mark A. Hanson

The reprosci site is set up for any organism/field to do the same effort. Qed seems like it could be a great way to populate the major/minor claims, perhaps with a bit of crowdsourced wikipedia-like editing to ensure important nuance. 2/2

Qed seems interesting! Have you seen @brunolemaitre.bsky.social 's Reprosci site?
reprosci.epfl.ch

It's paired to preprints on fly immunity, but functionally it's a database of papers, their major/minor claims, and annotations of whether these have been supported by follow-up research. 1/2

Today my @nytimes.com colleagues and I are launching a new series called Lost Science. We interview US scientists who can no longer discover something new about our world, thanks to this year‘s cuts. Here is my first interview with a scientist who studied bees and fires. Gift link: nyti.ms/3IWXbiE

And that same message came up earlier in the thread from someone else (can't find it while typing on phone), which emphasizes how universal that sentiment is.

Bees? 🐝 Bee ethics are messy. Even reared bees interact with nature, wild bees, etc... Laboratory fruit flies? Nah.

2/2

It's worth saying too, one of the first things I tell students (learned from my supervisor) is: "The flies here have a very good life. They live parasite/predator free, have plenty of food, etc... we just need a few of them every now and then for experiments."

1/2

Pictured: Shine-GAL4. An image of a fruit fly has been activated genetically on the eye of a fruit fly. Each dot is a cell expressing a cyan fluorescent protein(?). The precision of this cell pattern can be achieved because only cells exposed to certain wavelengths of light turn on/off gene expression. The utility of this tool is you can turn any gene on/off with the same light-based activation. You can even introduce genes (eg human cancer oncogenes) into the fly in tissue-specific ways. Or you can dissect the way neurons connect and mediate behaviour. Now imagine that boundless potential and multiply it by ~1000 similarly precise tools for gene expression, and you begin* to get a sense of why we use flies for genetic research. Their value as tools for biological study dwarfs the insignificant value one might ascribe to their individual 60-day simple lives by multiple, multiple orders of magnitude. ~1000 might be an underrepresentation by an order of magnitude itself, to be honest... it depends how nitpicky I might want to be.

It would be unfeasible to rear only the flies prescribed by power analyses (which can be flawed..).
The power of flies is we can do anything we want without thought for the ethics (see alt text). Not because we're amoral, but because we long had this convo & realised its irrelevant to our work..
2/2

Like, @loreandordure.com , a vial of fruit flies produces hundreds of offspring within two weeks. Just one vial.

We rear them en masse precisely to make them available in numbers when convenient. We dispose of the tens of thousands of excess flies in 70% EtOH morgues weekly.

1/2

Yes, the truly uncomfortable (for some) question is to ascribe different values to the lives & comfort of different creatures.

I'm quite happy to ascribe little value to the lives of flies. They're used precisely because we don't constantly ascribe them value. It would ruin their utility to do so.

But just putting things in perspective: the generation time/genetic distance of Drosophilidae, and species diversity, rivals class Mammalia.

Just Drosophilidae.

Conversations to ascribe subjective qualities to "insects" is a non-starter to me. It fundamentally asks the wrong questions.

2/2

r-selected*

See where we might disagree is: I think that's probably optimal. I don't think systematic coordination will be useful here. I do think it raises real risks of conflated conversations, and so time wasting and the long-term threat of admin bloat. 1/2

So I tend to have a very strong knee-jerk reaction to these conversations. It's not that we haven't had the difficult conversation yet - we have. Just don't see a tangible difference on the other side...

Not to mention "insects" is an immense group to make generalisations about: 🐝 =/=🪰 =/= 🐛

3/3

But I do genuinely worry on the admin harm that stricter ethical controls will impose on model research. Ex: fly research processes >100,000 individuals per paper. If fly researchers were regulated more, it'd be a huge admin bloat with no tangible difference in outcome. 2/3

I've never met anyone who actually thinks insects can't feel pain, even appreciating the nuance of pain (interpretation) vs a negative stimulus (aversion). I think it's more just that many insects are already an alternative model, k-selected & short lifespan. Biology can't really go vegan... 1/3

Like...this is the biggest corruption scandal the NIH has experienced in its entire history and its not even close. Half of a BILLION dollars to a single project as a result of political spoils. That's the equivalent of several hundred R01s.

Yes to the attention score method of determining when to do peer review!

This is something I've suggested a few times in the past.

Good overview of scientific publishing, and some current issues, by Guardian podcast featuring @hansonmark.bsky.social

Coming soon...

Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken? Podcast Episode · Science Weekly · 02/10/2025 · 18m

Thanks @iansample.bsky.social at @theguardian.com podcast for chatting #ScientificPublishing.

This pod follows from The Strain on Scientific Publishing & reports of publisher profit margins rivalling Google etc...

Paper: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

Pod: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/s...

Yes, fair clarification! Will leave as is since Bluesky doesn't allow edits and don't want to undo reskeets.

A bit mad. Take a struggling industry whose core problem is relying on intl student fees for funding instead of stable funding... and tax that revenue to... pass it on to the uni's domestic students? The uni already sets domestic fees per what they can afford based on intl fee collections..

This seems a bit mad. Take a struggling industry whose core problem is relying on intl student fees for funding instead of stable funding... and tax that revenue to... pass it on to the uni's domestic students? The uni already sets domestic fees per what they can afford based on intl fee collections

Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken? – podcast Scientists warn academic publishing needs reform in order to retain trust in research system. Ian Sample talks to Madeleine Finlay and Dr Mark Hanson proposes potential solutions

Guardian's @scienceweekly.bsky.social podcast produced probably the best succinct discussion and overview of what's happening in #ScientificPublishing — a fully blown crisis, featuring @hansonmark.bsky.social co-author of a seminal paper on special issues 👇
🎙️ www.theguardian.com/science/audi...

The bizarre part of hybrid journals at my own institute is that their OA fees are covered by Read & Publish agreements. So actually, they're the best option to publish OA in.

If we use a Gold OA-only journal, it is paid for from a separate pot of money than the R&P agreement and costs us net more.

If you'd like to read more on this, see @iansample.bsky.social 's article.

Article: www.theguardian.com/science/2025...

Paper: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges Abstract. We aim to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Spri...

See two really key papers

Butler et al.: publishers are profiteering immensely off scientific journals, and it has to stop. direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

Hanson et al.: the strain scientists feel is real, & it's because too many papers coming from #PublishOrPerish pressures
#ResearchIntegrity

Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken? Podcast Episode · Science Weekly · 02/10/2025 · 18m

Thanks @iansample.bsky.social at @theguardian.com podcast for chatting #ScientificPublishing.

This pod follows from The Strain on Scientific Publishing & reports of publisher profit margins rivalling Google etc...

Paper: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

Pod: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/s...

This moment from our latest episode with science writer @edyong209.bsky.social is 🔥

We asked Ed — how do we talk up the benefits of science in the face of government cuts? He told us that's the wrong approach. 🧪

Listen wherever, or watch on Spotify 👇

open.spotify.com/episode/7Evh...

Very interesting! Thanks for the thread. Happy these mutants can continue to be so full of surprises.

Esp. interesting that the axenic behave like the conventionally-reared. Would've expected at least some effect (from WT or from GrC), but only based on a hunch (that turns out to be wrong - neat).

Mutations in antimicrobial peptides differently affect sleep and plasticity Molecules implicated in host defense can, independent of their roles as immune mediators, regulate sleep. In mammals, cytokines such as Tumor Necrosis Factor α (TNF α) and Interleukin 1β (IL1 β) promo...

Happy to share our lab’s first preprint! ‘Mutations in antimicrobial peptides differently affect sleep and plasticity’. Led by @rahulkumar211.bsky.social, with help from many in the lab. In collaboration with @evoimmunoimroze A thread 1/n www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...