FYI Audenz is not egg-based—it’s made in cells: https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/vaccines/audenz-avian-influenza-vaccine
James Smith
Karma: 228
Open science and misuse of biological research
Thanks a lot for the response—can I just ask what WAW stands for? Google is only showing me writing about writing, which doesn’t seem likely to be it...
And how often does RP decide to go ahead with publishing academia?
I’m not sure this meets the ‘spends the money effectively’ criterion—it might, but we don’t really know that yet.
I don’t think there is one
What kinds of research questions do you think are better answered in an organisation like RP vs. in academia, and vice versa?
Is there any particular reason why biosecurity isn’t a major focus? As far as I can see from the list, no staff work on it, which surprises me a little.
Thanks for posting this.
Just a quick note that it confused me a little to see the statement “And differences of 1030 are almost impossible” until I realised it is meant to be 10^30. It might be worth editing the post to make that clear.
Glad that you enjoyed it.
You are right on both counts. This is quite an easy overview of meta-research if you want a starting point: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
I’d also be happy to have a look at anyone’s ideas etc and have a decent idea (I think) of what TED-Ed might like. Just send me a message if I might be helpful.
The method that can “prove” almost anything: A TED-Ed Lesson
Universal flu vaccine development and testing
Do you have any example costs per time for campuspa.com? I couldn’t see any on their website.
Creating a new academic institute—the EA university—that houses a lot of EA research and (somehow) avoids the many issues seen in traditional academia.
Great, thanks for the response.
Thanks a lot, this is useful context. I work in academia so the large lead times are relevant, particularly because other ‘traditional’ funders would require applications well in advance. It would be useful to know whether it was necessary to pursue those other funding routes as a ‘career hedge’ or not, for example, via a commitment to funding.
I am interested to hear if anyone from LTFF agrees/disagrees with Max’s assessment in these circumstances.
Is it possible to apply for a grant when the date you would want the funds is quite far in advance (say, for example, one year)?
A couple of other new publication models that might be worth looking at are discussed here (Octopus and hypergraph, both of which are modular). Also this recent article about ‘publomics’ might have interesting ideas. Happy to talk about any of this if you are thinking about doing something in the space.
A system somewhat similar to what you are talking about exists. Pubpeer, for example, is a place where post-publication peer reviews of papers are posted publicly (https://pubpeer.com/static/about). I’m not sure at this stage how much it is used, but in principle it allows you to see criticism on any article.
Scite.ai is also relevant—it uses AI to try and say whether citations of an article are positive or negative. I don’t know about its accuracy.
Neither of these address the problem of what happens if a study fails to replicate—often what happens is that the original study continues to be cited more than the replication effort.
The link above no longer works but is available here