Germán Bonilla-Rosso
🦠🧪🖥🧬microbial ecology & evolution | agricultural microbiomes | food security | metabolism | 🐝🌺 host-microbe interactions | functional -omics | bioinformatics | salsa | philosophy | equality | UNAM | mSystems / mBio
polyimmigrant! 🇲🇽🇸🇪🇦🇺🇨🇭
- [Not loaded yet]
- No. The Guardian reported at least four research groups raising issues on the methodology. This doesn't implies foul play, but science correcting itself. And The Guardian doing good reporting. They even published the letters of several researchers this week. You engaged in bad faith.
- New research published! I wanted to write about this, because I think the DE-Score *might* be the thing I'm proudest of so far! All my career I have dreamt of finding something so clean. The DE-Score is a way to tell when amino acid data stops being informative. 1/7 academic.oup.com/sysbio/advan...
- Cool paper! Do you know how is the score affected by the inclusion of paralogs or xenologues? are thresholds reliable only with same-function orthologues? Low inter-category changes are expected only if you do not account for neofunctionalization. Could you use it to detect subfunctionalization?
- New research published! I wanted to write about this, because I think the DE-Score *might* be the thing I'm proudest of so far! All my career I have dreamt of finding something so clean. The DE-Score is a way to tell when amino acid data stops being informative. 1/7 academic.oup.com/sysbio/advan...
- 🎓⚕️🧪🔬📰 The way we do science today is very vulnerable to clickbait and sensationalist headlines Remember the microplastics in your brain, in male testes and in your bloodstream? It didn't make sense with what we knew, but it made great entertainment. #BadScience www.theguardian.com/environment/...
- [Not loaded yet]
- Yet you keep posting your own uninformed and biased opinion, and refuse to acknowledge that The Guardian links to the opinion of several scientific groups, not a single individual. This is enough. Bye.
- [Not loaded yet]
- No. The critiques are real and valid, you can follow the links to the letters in scientific journals. This is how science works. It is useless to keep arguing with you if you don't read the source material and you don't understand the field. You seem as biased as a pharma CEO.
- [Not loaded yet]
- I'm not talking about climate change. I feel you're trolling this thread, and that while I engaged you on good faith, you're just pushing propaganda in bad faith. Please stop or I will block you.
- [Not loaded yet]
- and by that I mean you're missing the point. There is no doubts about the existence of microplastics in human tissues. There is a lot of scientific controversies on the amounts, and how they are detected, and so their impact on human health. And this is healthy science.
- No. The journal perfectly mentions (and links to) the relevant literature of at least three independent groups pointing out issues with the research. Not a single individual. You will find that the reply to Materić's critique begins by acknowledging the issues. You should read what you criticise.
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thanks for sharing this. I think my criticism of the vulnerability of science to sensationalist headlines still applies. I do not question the negative impacts on plastics on human health, nor the excessive amounts of plastics poured into the environment. bsky.app/profile/germ...
- The article on the Guardian I posted yesterday got a reply by several scientists. This should be welcomed, and in general they do not deny the issues previously raised, but instead are worried about the public perception on the risk that microplastics pose. 1/🧵
- 🎓⚕️🧪🔬📰 The way we do science today is very vulnerable to clickbait and sensationalist headlines Remember the microplastics in your brain, in male testes and in your bloodstream? It didn't make sense with what we knew, but it made great entertainment. #BadScience www.theguardian.com/environment/...
-
View full threadScience is made by humans, and humans are biased by their experience and history. Acknowledging the inherent biases from the chemical industry or environmentalism does not invalidate the findings, but instead helps us construct a better, complex and diverse understanding of reality. 7/🧵
- Scientists have a responsibility to: (i) communicate their findings' limitations explicitly, (ii) challenge misrepresentation by media & peers and (iii) disclose all conflicts of interest transparently. Scientific credibility depends on it.
