Lars Eirik Bø
LightNews LightNews
larseirik.bsky.social
Lars Eirik Bø
@larseirik.bsky.social
70 followers 320 following 4 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
snoen.bsky.social
Det kastes bort utallige spaltemetre/prat på stadige nye runder med spekulasjoner om fredsplaner i Ukraina ved å ikke ta inn over seg et grunnleggende faktum: Inntil «facts on the ground» endres kraftig i en av partenes favør, er det umulig å konstruere en plan som begge parter vil godta. 1/2
November 24, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
andersskyrud.bsky.social
Det er noe… «faglig» som skurrer litt for meg i denne nyhetssaken og debatten som har fulgt siste uka, og skal prøve å forklare hva. www.vg.no/i/lngVKy?utm...
Internasjonale forskere vil ha tiltak mot ultraprosessert mat
Global forskning viser helseutfordringene ved ultraprosessert mat og etterlyser tiltak på nasjonalt nivå – også i Norge.
www.vg.no
November 23, 2025 at 6:25 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
jonlien.bsky.social
Dette er et av de viktigste argumentene for formuesskatt
rbreich.bsky.social Robert Reich @rbreich.bsky.social · 9d
Around 70% of the U.S. economy depends on consumer spending. As wealth concentrates in the richest 10%, the rest of America can’t afford to buy enough to keep the economy running.

This is a huge problem — and even America’s most powerful CEOs are starting to sound the alarm.
Our Economy Is in Danger. Here’s Why
Robert Reich
youtu.be
November 23, 2025 at 7:28 AM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
kcklatt.bsky.social
Honestly, it's wild to watch the nutrition community continue to get behind a term like UPF (defined by looking at a ingredients and giving a 'bad' label by the presence of an 'industrial' additive) while this exact, scientifically hollow tactic is being rolled out to scare folks away from vaccines.
thelancet.com The Lancet @thelancet.com · 12d
Ultra-processed foods – what’s the impact?

In a new Lancet Series, experts warn a global rise in #UPFs presents a growing public health threat.

Read the evidence & policy recommendations ⬇️
spkl.io/63327AduhR
Part of a Lancet Infographic summarising the findings from the Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health. Part of a Lancet Infographic summarising the findings from the Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health. Part of a Lancet Infographic summarising the findings from the Lancet Series on Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health.
November 22, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
gidmk.bsky.social
My new piece is on the deeply worrying problem of fraud in the obstetric and gynaecological space and what's being done about it.

gidmk.substack.com/p/the-terrif...
The Terrifying Problem Of Fraud In Women's Health
A scientific issue impacting pretty much every person with a vagina.
gidmk.substack.com
November 19, 2025 at 11:20 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
mortenmorland.bsky.social
Thursday’s @thetimes.com cartoon times.newsprints.co.uk/morten-morla...
November 19, 2025 at 8:49 PM
larseirik.bsky.social
Smått utrolig at det går an å bli rektor ved @uio.no uten å ha fått med seg noen av de store utfordringene vitenskapelig publisering står overfor. Ragnhild Hennum kan gjerne starte den store jobben med å oppdatere seg med å lese denne nylige tråden.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 20d
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 17, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
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 Lars Eirik Bø
pwgtennant.bsky.social
I only review for not-for-profit publishers. Yet even these seem intent on fueling the publication explosion.

We need to consider creating (and supporting) new, community owned, diamond access journals.
pengzell.bsky.social Per Engzell @pengzell.bsky.social · 19d
Pushing for open access is not enough. We need a push to end profit.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 20d
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/...
November 12, 2025 at 9:54 AM
larseirik.bsky.social
www.adressa.no/debatt/i/o3J...
Prostatakreft: Velmenende tiltak kan gjøre jobben vanskeligere
Åpen for alle: Kreft er ikke alltid kreft.
www.adressa.no
November 7, 2025 at 10:21 AM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
odarygh.bsky.social
Jeg skjøpnner ikke at noen er sjokkert: "Voldtatte må bære frem barn" er det eneste mulige policy-utfallet av KRFs abortståsted, som de fremmer som grunnlovsforslag jevnlig. Voksenpartiet altså, ikke en sprek ungdomspartileder.

Det finnes ikke noe annet policy-utfall av det ståstedet.
October 28, 2025 at 7:08 AM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
unnieikeseth.bsky.social
God ytring av historiker om korleis boka «Gutten i den stripete pyjamasen» kan bidra til eit feilaktig bilete av Holocaust: www.aftenposten.no/meninger/deb...
Derfor burde ikke «Gutten i den stripete pyjamasen» brukes i undervisning
Les innlegget.
www.aftenposten.no
October 29, 2025 at 11:56 AM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
scientits.bsky.social
The German company that makes the mechanical ladder used in the Louvre heist has used the image to advertise, with the text 'When you need to move fast'

10/10 response, no notes
Image of the mechanical ladder outside the Louvre Text below says WENN'S MAL WIEDER SCHNELL GEHEN MUSS (When you need to move fast) Underneath is more German text which translates as "The Böcker Agilo transports your treasures weighing up to 400kg at 42m/min - quiet as a whisper."
October 24, 2025 at 8:27 AM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
kilstihals.bsky.social
frøya bare: 🎤👋
October 13, 2025 at 5:43 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
mark-bray.bsky.social
I teach a history of antifascism course @ruhistorydept.bsky.social and figured I'd start an ongoing thread this semester to share some insights from course readings and recommend some great works on antifascism.

🧵
September 30, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
kcklatt.bsky.social
So many papers are clearly written to sex up impact and claim translatability, at the expense of accuracy - that's a gift to pseudoscience. We need to be training the next generation of scientists to be honest and media literate.
September 26, 2025 at 11:32 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
rebeccarhelm.bsky.social
I get that the news cycle is packed right now, but I just heard from a colleague at the Smithsonian that this is fully a GIANT SQUID BEING EATEN BY A SPERM WHALE and it’s possibly the first ever confirmed video according to a friend at NOAA

10 YEAR OLD ME IS LOSING HER MIND (a thread 🧵)
September 24, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
codendahl.bsky.social
“Queuing in pubs combines the worst elements of communism – yes, the very worst elements – without any of the good stuff, like free housing or hastily built nuclear power stations.”
September 20, 2025 at 1:16 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
andersskyrud.bsky.social
Når vi forventer at antibiotikaresistens en gang i framtida skal ta livet av ellers friske folk som bare vandrer bekymringsløst på gata rundt oss, maskeres den enorme sjukdomsbyrden. Resistens hos mikrober er trolig allerede en av de vanligste dødsårsakene i verden. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...
Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis
To our knowledge, this study provides the first comprehensive assessment of the global burden of AMR, as well as an evaluation of the availability of data. AMR is a leading cause of death around the w...
www.thelancet.com
September 19, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
sigve.indregard.no
Eg skjønner godt at dei som faktisk kan noko er varsame med å peike på teoriar. Men no er vi på nytt i situasjonen der uærlege opportunistar får sitt narrativ på forsidene i tre dagar før sanninga blir ein notis på dag fire pluss eit essay i Morgenbladet neste fredag.
September 13, 2025 at 12:26 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
mediablikk.bsky.social
Hele syv ganger later Senterpartiets Emilie Enger Mehl som om hun ikke har oppfattet spørsmålet fra programlederen.
Pinlige politikere med egen virkelighet
Kleinere blir det knapt – når ellers oppegående politikere later som om fakta ikke eksisterer.
www.nettavisen.no
September 7, 2025 at 6:57 AM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
kthftw.bsky.social
Alle studiene på sånn prosessert vs uprosessert virker å bestå av å gi en gruppe Grandiosa og rødcola og den andre gis ihjelkokt torsk og grønnkål og av en tilsynelatende uforklarlig grunn gikk første gruppe opp i vekt
skattebu.bsky.social Julie @skattebu.bsky.social · Sep 4
Jeg mener
September 4, 2025 at 2:01 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
mghov.bsky.social
Denne kommentaren treffer godt. Kommer i papiravisa til DN i morra.
@terjeerikstad.bsky.social
August 31, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
fjeld.bsky.social
I dag lærte jeg at Nicolai Astrup (H) vil få seks millioner kroner i skattekutt med Høyres politikk, mens vanlige folk kanskje får 12000, samt at Astrups formue har tredoblet seg fra 2014 (196 millioner) til i dag (624 millioner).

Hvem skulle trodd.
August 29, 2025 at 8:38 PM
Reposted by Lars Eirik Bø
magnusforsberg.no
Ulempen med å tilhøre en politisk fløy som fører en politikk som ikke gagner så veldig mange, og dermed må lyve en del om politikken sin, er at man av og til glipper og sier det man faktisk mener.
August 29, 2025 at 6:38 PM