Maz
@taghioskoui.bsky.social
Exploring Mass Spectrometry & the Origins of Life: Is Life a Common Cosmic Phenomenon?
Reposted by Maz
This is part of the reason that I’m working on a fully open-source MS instrument. It’s targeted for atmospheric monitoring rather than proteomics, but it’s a step toward making MS hardware much more accessible. Hoping to have it ready to unveil at ASMS 2026.
November 3, 2025 at 9:49 PM
This is part of the reason that I’m working on a fully open-source MS instrument. It’s targeted for atmospheric monitoring rather than proteomics, but it’s a step toward making MS hardware much more accessible. Hoping to have it ready to unveil at ASMS 2026.
Happy to help with the project. An open source MS is an amazing initiative.
November 3, 2025 at 11:54 PM
Happy to help with the project. An open source MS is an amazing initiative.
Reposted by Maz
The history of science is filled with examples of serious consequences for those who chose to compromise integrity. Your peers are always watching, scrutinizing your methods, your data, and your conclusions. That level of accountability is part of what keeps the system honest.
August 2, 2025 at 5:04 AM
The history of science is filled with examples of serious consequences for those who chose to compromise integrity. Your peers are always watching, scrutinizing your methods, your data, and your conclusions. That level of accountability is part of what keeps the system honest.
Yes, will email you to chat!
September 25, 2025 at 12:58 AM
Yes, will email you to chat!
Devin, congratulations on the great publication! Is Super Mass Spectrometry on your radar?
September 24, 2025 at 2:22 PM
Devin, congratulations on the great publication! Is Super Mass Spectrometry on your radar?
Now, imagine you’re a 60 year old billionaire funding biologists to help you live forever. Instead of progress toward immortality, they show you how many proteins they can ID.
August 5, 2025 at 12:40 PM
Now, imagine you’re a 60 year old billionaire funding biologists to help you live forever. Instead of progress toward immortality, they show you how many proteins they can ID.
In business, money is the metric of success. In academia, it’s citations.
August 5, 2025 at 10:46 AM
In business, money is the metric of success. In academia, it’s citations.
But the sudden interest of billionaires in biology, longevity, and anti-aging seem to reflect desire to overcome mortality.
August 5, 2025 at 5:00 AM
But the sudden interest of billionaires in biology, longevity, and anti-aging seem to reflect desire to overcome mortality.
Aside from what you mentioned, I think he has a valid point. Don’t take the statement personal. Anyone with a laptop can create software, but biology requires expensive equipment that’s often only accessible to an elite class. Compared to electronics, progress in biology has been astonishingly slow.
August 5, 2025 at 4:36 AM
Aside from what you mentioned, I think he has a valid point. Don’t take the statement personal. Anyone with a laptop can create software, but biology requires expensive equipment that’s often only accessible to an elite class. Compared to electronics, progress in biology has been astonishingly slow.
Not sure how we ended up here. And I’m not sure how it gets fixed. But I do know it can’t go on like this.
August 4, 2025 at 6:50 PM
Not sure how we ended up here. And I’m not sure how it gets fixed. But I do know it can’t go on like this.
These days, you can almost always guess which technique is reported to outperform the rest just by reading the conflict of interest (COI) statement.
August 4, 2025 at 12:13 AM
These days, you can almost always guess which technique is reported to outperform the rest just by reading the conflict of interest (COI) statement.
And the same statement on the ASMS poster.
August 2, 2025 at 5:09 PM
And the same statement on the ASMS poster.
The cited grant (3R35GM118110) is not even relevant. The grant is for CryoEM+MS work & specifically defines the scope as "In particular we propose the addition of surface-induced dissociation (SID) and activated-ion ETD (AI-ETD) to the mass spectrometer used for grid preparation."
August 2, 2025 at 4:55 PM
The cited grant (3R35GM118110) is not even relevant. The grant is for CryoEM+MS work & specifically defines the scope as "In particular we propose the addition of surface-induced dissociation (SID) and activated-ion ETD (AI-ETD) to the mass spectrometer used for grid preparation."
What’s not great in this situation is that both groups used NIH funding to do overlapping work. At the very least, there should’ve been some collaboration, if not for science, then to save NIH money. Especially now, when NIH itself is under fire. I’m sure you’re both following the news.
August 2, 2025 at 5:24 AM
What’s not great in this situation is that both groups used NIH funding to do overlapping work. At the very least, there should’ve been some collaboration, if not for science, then to save NIH money. Especially now, when NIH itself is under fire. I’m sure you’re both following the news.
Even with credible data, science is under attack in Washington. Imagine if there were real evidence of widespread bad data or misconduct—they’d use it as an excuse to shut entire science agencies down. We’re all accountable and we are all responsible.
August 2, 2025 at 5:13 AM
Even with credible data, science is under attack in Washington. Imagine if there were real evidence of widespread bad data or misconduct—they’d use it as an excuse to shut entire science agencies down. We’re all accountable and we are all responsible.
Your peers are watching, and that’s a good thing. If you slip, they’ll call it out, because the damage isn’t just personal. You can bring down trust in an entire field. Just look at Theranos.
August 2, 2025 at 5:07 AM
Your peers are watching, and that’s a good thing. If you slip, they’ll call it out, because the damage isn’t just personal. You can bring down trust in an entire field. Just look at Theranos.
The history of science is filled with examples of serious consequences for those who chose to compromise integrity. Your peers are always watching, scrutinizing your methods, your data, and your conclusions. That level of accountability is part of what keeps the system honest.
August 2, 2025 at 5:04 AM
The history of science is filled with examples of serious consequences for those who chose to compromise integrity. Your peers are always watching, scrutinizing your methods, your data, and your conclusions. That level of accountability is part of what keeps the system honest.
Reposted by Maz
“…creates pressure on researchers to produce impressive results”
I think this is key. Is there not pressure to produce impressive results for private funding too?
With decreasing NIH funding, one could argue that scientists are at their most vulnerable, and that might compromise their integrity.
I think this is key. Is there not pressure to produce impressive results for private funding too?
With decreasing NIH funding, one could argue that scientists are at their most vulnerable, and that might compromise their integrity.
July 29, 2025 at 8:03 PM
“…creates pressure on researchers to produce impressive results”
I think this is key. Is there not pressure to produce impressive results for private funding too?
With decreasing NIH funding, one could argue that scientists are at their most vulnerable, and that might compromise their integrity.
I think this is key. Is there not pressure to produce impressive results for private funding too?
With decreasing NIH funding, one could argue that scientists are at their most vulnerable, and that might compromise their integrity.