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 :(

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

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

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."

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

Bluesky Premiere: Documentary on Reproducibility in Condensed Matter Physics

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

A project by @ancurlija.bsky.social

1. Currently, we publish research in historically high quantities.

2. The act of publishing in high quantity is not incentivized by any facet of the scientific method.

3. The act of publishing in high quantity is in opposition to the objectives of the scientific method (see next).