Everyone is always talking about spider silk as ropes. What about DNA huh? Mass strawberry extraction for a DNA space elevator when?

Absolutely not true. Fungi are weird but not this weird. Citation please

Open access credits is a fantastic idea. Unfortunately it goes against the business model of these parasites. Ultimately, these businesses provide little to no actual value except siphoning taxpayer money. I really prefer eLifes current model but it would be great if it was cheaper. arXiv, Biorxiv provides a better service than most journals IMO

Also I agree with the reviewing seriously and twice as often as publishing. Many people leave academia so reviewing more can cover them.

QR code for the DOI would be better IMO

Prion vaccines would work for sure. Their rarity makes it not all that worthwhile as a public health measure

Cations are pawsitive? Nawwww

That’s why you get a theoretical degree in physics

The Omelas generator

Depends on the publishing method you choose. If you want free for readers, authors pay. If you want free publishing, readers pay. Reviewers never get paid. Editors get paid shit. Journals profit massively for doing barely anything. Terrible in all directions. Preprint servers are the future

Truly the missing link

From my readings, I don’t think this is the case. Lignin degradation evolved rapidly with terrestrial plants. Coal and petrified wood is more due to geological events and swamps for example. Evolving ligninases is trivial for bacteria and fungi.

Tbh once I started using electronic pipettes I cannot go back. They are so good

Totally unnecessary and is not how science works.

If you make data public before analysis, labs will get scooped with their own data. No one would invest in data collection.

Often things are found or worked out during the process, which can change week to week or month to month, iteratively. Experiments don’t go to plan, data is cooked and can only be used in reduced ways etc. Researchers are meant to share their raw data anyway which should prevent this sort of stuff. Basic statistical analysis on datasets usually reveals tampering.

The issue is the insane academic standards and funding bodies (public grant $) which reward high volume and high ‘impact’ work. These incentives need re-evaluation and people should not be punished for years of low activity. Sometimes science and discovery just doesn’t work the way you think it will, and that’s okay. We need a system which acknowledges that which everyone in science knows.

Photosynthesis by ocean-dwelling cyanobacteria produces around 1/3rd of oxygen IIRC. CO2 causes ocean acidification which reduces their ability to grow, thus limiting O2 production. When it is hotter, plants ability to store carbon and photosynthesise goes down. So not right now, but O2 will be cause for concern in the future if we don’t turn away from fossil fuels.

I read that this was to weed out savvy people. People who aren’t skeptical of poorly written emails or messages are their target audience. Could be wrong though.