S. Scott Graham
LightNews LightNews
banner
sscottgraham.bsky.social
S. Scott Graham
@sscottgraham.bsky.social
770 followers 430 following 420 posts
Writing about health, ethics, COI, rhetoric, AI, and anatomy museums (usually only 2-3 in any given act of writing) at UT-Austin. https://sscottgraham.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
sscottgraham.bsky.social
S. Scott Graham @sscottgraham.bsky.social · Apr 3
Sharing a little bit more about my NEH-sponsored research on anatomical museums today. I have no idea if this project will retain funding, but I am incredibly grateful for the NEH program officers and reviewers who have made so much humanities research possible. sscottgraham.com/archives/911
Entrance to Musem Vrolik. White brick corridor with fat trim black outlined doorway. Blue sign of museum name and posters of anatomical specimens on the wall.
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
brendannyhan.bsky.social
A staggering statistic: "North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year." What are we doing?
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 2d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 1:58 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
AI- induced busy work in article proofing:

AQ1: You cite Le Puma et al. in the text, but there is no corresponding reference.

AQ2: You cite La Puma et al. in the references, but there is no corresponding citation.

If we still had human copy editors, they would know exactly what happened here.
November 12, 2025 at 2:20 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
cait.bsky.social
a few months ago I said "having generative AI handle absolutely anything with regards to healthcare is a nightmare and should be banned" and a bunch of people made fun of me and called me stupid. anyways,
r/ExpectationVsReality u/Additional-Simple858 • 3d Join Al 'doctor' said my back pain is depression, not a slipped disc. Now physical therapy won't get approved. Al Expectation We are reviewing claim #& submitted on 09/28/2025. Our records indicate the claim was filed under diagnosis code F32.9 (Depressive disorder, unspecified), while the corresponding prescription and referral history list treatment for lumbar disc herniation (back pain). Re: Incorrect Diagnosis in Record Hi Thank you for reaching out. We have reviewed your visit documentation and can confirm that the notes in question were generated using our Al scribe system. It appears the Al tool assigned diagnosis code F32.9 (Depressive disorder, unspecified), while your visit notes and treatment plan reference lumbar disc herniation (back pain). Per compliance policy, certain Al-generated fields cannot be manually updated by clinic staff and require vendor correction. We have escalated this to our vendor support team and opened ticket # . We'll notify you once we receive confirmation or correction from the vendor.
November 10, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
carlelliott.bsky.social
The pharmaceutical industry spent decades manipulating the country’s top drug regulator into rubber-stamping its products. The Trump administration is making matters worse.

www.levernews.com/science-for-...
Science For Sale: How Drugmakers Captured The FDA
The pharmaceutical industry spent decades manipulating the country’s top drug regulator into rubber-stamping its products. The Trump administration is making matters worse.
www.levernews.com
November 9, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
loadofbunk.bsky.social
Was it history or philosophy of science that had to make alimony payments after the divorce? Did they ever discuss staying together for the kids, Indy and Pitt? Who got to stay friends with Stephen Toulmin? Too many unanswered questions in HOHAPOS.
November 8, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
ut-hi.bsky.social
🔔 Reminder

Applications for the 2025–2026 Humanities Research Awards are due November 15, 2025.

The HRA provides valuable resources for faculty and graduate students pursuing research projects that intersect with the humanities.

Learn more: bit.ly/humanities-research-awards-2025
Reminder graphic for the 2025–2026 Humanities Research Awards. The image highlights that the application deadline is November 15, 2025. It includes a link for more information: bit.ly/humanities-research-awards-2025. A note at the bottom states that the HRA provides resources to faculty and graduate students for research projects that intersect with the humanities. The design features orange and blue colors, with icons of bells to indicate the reminder.
November 3, 2025 at 8:21 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
March 2023: Paper submitted
(radio silence)
March 2024: Query letter sent
(apology followed by radio silence)
April 2025: Paper withdrawn
(acknowledgment of withdrawal)
October 2025: Reviewer reports and rejection received
October 31, 2025 at 3:52 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
histloneliness.bsky.social
I'm really excited to finally be able to share this after months of work - our new Project EPIC report on the epistemic determinants of health. With over 20 contributors, we make the case for incorporating this new framework into existing determinants of health models:

bci-hub.org/documents/ep...
The Epistemic Determinants of Health
Health and illness are significantly determined by knowledge and its communication. At first glance, this might seem obvious; people use healthcare systems when they suspect that something might be wr...
bci-hub.org
October 21, 2025 at 1:07 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
jensfoell.de
Award-winning pain researcher here. This is not something that can be done. Hope this helps.
hypervisible.blacksky.app Hypervisible @hypervisible.blacksky.app · 29d
“In nursing homes, neonatal units, and ICU wards, researchers are racing to turn pain—medicine’s most subjective vital sign—into something a camera or sensor can score as reliably as blood pressure.”
AI is changing how we quantify pain
Artificial intelligence is helping health-care providers better assess their patients’ discomfort.
www.technologyreview.com
October 15, 2025 at 2:02 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
Just got falsely accused of using AI for something I worked hard on. Stop doing this! I know you think you can tell, but I promise you can't.
October 14, 2025 at 9:10 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
While it's certainly true that LLMs will never stop hallucinating, that doesn't mean prompting can't reduce hallucination rates. Medical researchers, in particular, are very used to provoking improvement empirically & measuring responses, all under the expectation that perfection is unattainable.
Trapping LLM Hallucinations Using Tagged Context Prompts
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have led to highly sophisticated conversation agents. However, these models suffer from "hallucinations," where the model generates fa...
arxiv.org
October 14, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
aktange.bsky.social
My latest: "Numerous studies show that majors in the humanities—typically, in departments of English, history, philosophy, religious studies, classics and languages—lead students to employment and life satisfaction outcomes as positive as those for majors traditionally championed as 'practical.'”
Counterpoint | Minnesota humanities graduates thrive in meaningful careers
"The stereotype of the underemployed history major is simply not true," professor Andrea Kaston Tange writes.
www.startribune.com
October 12, 2025 at 11:14 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
bleary.off-the-records.com
If anyone needs me I will be in the museum, lying down next to the bog bodies.
Did people really memorize phone numbers before cell phones, or is that just a movie thing? 2? Questions I was watching some old shows from the 90s and noticed people would just dial numbers from memory - like they'd call their friends or family without looking anything up. Made me wonder if that was actually normal back then? Did people genuinely have all their important numbers memorized, or did most folks keep a little address book or written list nearby?
October 13, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
profgoldberg.bsky.social
👀

I love being an AE for a journal that has SIs like this!

(I am the AE for Law & Bioethics at this journal but have absolutely nothing to do with this SI; I just think it’s cool!)
reginamueller.bsky.social Dr. Regina Mueller @reginamueller.bsky.social · Oct 11
We’re excited to share a CfP for a Special Issue “Bioethics and Structural (In)justice” in Bioethics! We invite articles from all disciplines. Deadline: September 1, 2026
We can’t wait to read your contributions!
Regina Müller, Mirjam Faissner, Isabella Marcinski-Michel & Stefanie Weigold
October 12, 2025 at 2:54 AM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
axdouglas.bsky.social
I wonder if Dutch philosophy departments in the 1630s were only hiring in the philosophy of tulips.
saraluckelman.bsky.social Doctor Logic @saraluckelman.bsky.social · Oct 11
One might also say "hiring committees".
October 11, 2025 at 8:34 AM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
This is giving me flashbacks to 1991 when every news story about the breakup of the USSR featured b-roll of breadlines.
drewharwell.com Drew Harwell @drewharwell.com · Oct 11
Military families on day 9 of the shutdown lining up at the food bank
October 11, 2025 at 12:15 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
melissaterras.bsky.social
Job! Postdoc in Digital Cultural Heritage: Data Ethics & Software Ecosystems, on new EU funded grant. 3.5 years, @designinf.bsky.social, Edinburgh. Design ethical processes, & evaluate open source tools for Digital Cultural Heritage Objects, with me! elxw.fa.em3.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/Candid...
Postdoctoral Research Associate (Digital Cultural Heritage Data Ethics & Software Ecosystems)
We are looking for a Postdoctoral Research Associate in Digital Cultural Heritage Data Ethics & Software Ecosystems to join the Institute for Design Informatics, Edinburgh College of Art.
elxw.fa.em3.oraclecloud.com
October 10, 2025 at 9:52 AM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
I love this story with my entire heart and soul. www.bbc.com/news/article...
US scientist Dr Fred Ramsdell was on the last day of a three-week hike with his wife Laura O'Neill and their two dogs, deep in Montana's grizzly bear country, when Ms O'Neill suddenly started screaming. But it was not a predator that had disturbed the quiet of their off-grid holiday: it was a flurry of text messages bearing the news that Dr Ramsdell had won the Nobel Prize for medicine. Dr Ramsdell, whose phone had been on airplane mode when the Nobel committee tried to call him, told the BBC's Newshour Programme that his first response when his wife said, "You've won the Nobel prize" was: "I did not."
October 8, 2025 at 1:46 PM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
Many faculty are confident they can identify AI submissions. The data mostly says otherwise. Some students are confident they can identify AI-generated faculty feedback. Anyone seen any studies on this yet? I suspect this might be easier since the individualization gap is probably greater.
October 5, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
jsnyder.bsky.social
Great piece on the massive conflicts of interest when private equity firms own IRBs that they then use to assess drug trials for their own companies.

@hollylynchez.bsky.social: "If you are just focused on turnaround time, that doesn’t tell you really anything about quality.”
How Private Equity Oversees the Ethics of Drug Research
www.nytimes.com
October 4, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Reposted by S. Scott Graham
numb.comfortab.ly
Bluesky feed is like

------------------
we're doomed
------------------
we're doomed
------------------
we're doomed
------------------
cute kitty!
------------------
we're doomed
------------------
we're doomed
------------------
[adult content]
------------------
we're doomed
------------------
October 2, 2025 at 1:35 AM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
This is the next iteration of “participants were 138 undergrads looking for extra credit it psych 102”
jamiecummins.bsky.social Jamie Cummins @jamiecummins.bsky.social · Sep 18
Can large language models stand in for human participants?
Many social scientists seem to think so, and are already using "silicon samples" in research.

One problem: depending on the analytic decisions made, you can basically get these samples to show any effect you want.

THREAD 🧵
The threat of analytic flexibility in using large language models to simulate human data: A call to attention
Social scientists are now using large language models to create "silicon samples" - synthetic datasets intended to stand in for human respondents, aimed at revolutionising human subjects research. How...
arxiv.org
October 1, 2025 at 11:20 AM
sscottgraham.bsky.social
I've defaulted to "The Shituation"
pardoguerra.bsky.social This skeet will self destruct @pardoguerra.bsky.social · Sep 29
The This-Is-Fine-cene
tressiemcphd.bsky.social Tressie McMillan Cottom @tressiemcphd.bsky.social · Sep 29
“The current climate” etc.
September 29, 2025 at 9:30 PM