Lizzie Wall
LightNews LightNews
wall-e2.bsky.social
Lizzie Wall
@wall-e2.bsky.social
50 followers 120 following 4 posts
Clinical geneticist
Posts Replies Media Videos
wall-e2.bsky.social
One of the world’s major megacities is about to completely run out of water. Why isn’t this a bigger news story?!
November 29, 2025 at 2:13 PM
Reposted by Lizzie Wall
wanderinggaia.bsky.social
The BBC has so thoroughly culled its science team that the national broadcaster is now using journalists from other corporations as correspondents on its flagship Inside Science show, rather than the wealth of specialists I was able to draw from. What a sad loss
November 25, 2025 at 10:35 AM
wall-e2.bsky.social
~$2.5bn in profits, ~35% profit margin
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 21d
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 14, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Reposted by Lizzie Wall
peaseroland.bsky.social
For 61 years the #BBCWorldService has been broadcasting the latest in science via its weekly Science in Action programme. That dies in the next half hour, with this final edition, reflecting on the fall in trust in expertise driven by malign interests over recent years.
October 30, 2025 at 8:20 PM
Reposted by Lizzie Wall
michaelemann.bsky.social
For years Roland has worked tirelessly to inform BBC listeners about societally-relevant science. This is exactly the WRONG time, BBC, to be letting him go! 😠
October 30, 2025 at 8:44 PM
Reposted by Lizzie Wall
alexblakes.bsky.social
The headlines?

1) Variants on both copies of #RNU4-2 cause a recessive neurodevelopmental disorder with prominent speech delay
2) One of the hallmarks is distinct white matter changes on MRI
3) It is clinically and genetically distinct from #ReNU syndrome

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...
Biallelic variants in the non-coding RNA gene RNU4-2 cause a recessive neurodevelopmental syndrome with distinct white matter changes
Genetic variants in RNU4-2, which encodes U4, a key non-coding small nuclear RNA (snRNA) component of the major spliceosome, were recently shown to cause a prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) ...
www.medrxiv.org
August 18, 2025 at 11:23 AM