@CDCtravel advisory @SeaTacAirport goes against my understanding of #2019n_CoV. Seems to suggest a parallel outbreak of the virus in “animals” (which species???) and only provides the unhelpful “DON’T be near sick people”.
The outbreak begins with novel mutations leading to increased virulence in humans. These mutations are selected and amplified in humans. Any data on the extent of this virus in animal populations? Any data on tropism?
Basically, is there any reason to interact with “animals” differently than before? Seems like an unlikely source of this virus. Not quite my field, so please correct me if I’m mistaken.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a thread on ENDING TEMPORARY POSITIONS IN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH.
I wrote this in response to some comments. I’m fleshing out my thoughts and shaping my opinions. I share to provoke discussion and introspection. It's ~500 words.
First, it is entirely rational to compete within the current system based on your CV. I recognize this is how I will be judged, and I act accordingly. I don't blame others for doing the same. But, “you get what you select for”; so, are we selecting for CV builders or scientists?
Here is the root cause our dilemma: PhD students, postdocs, and assistant professors are all in *artificially* temporary jobs.
Artificial meaning they are only temporary jobs because we say so.
the most successful grad students have tons of experience *before* starting their PhDs. Essentially, they don't need to be trained, and they flourish in a system that explicitly avoids directly training them.
background:
- went from undergrad after 1.5 yrs great training
- trained mostly by grad students during rotations
- switched labs after 4 yrs (to a way better situation!)
- probably would not have been successful as a grad student in my current postdoc lab
meaning i did not take the gap years that i would recommend. intellectually i was on par with my peers but my lack of experience was evident once i started my own project.
as a biologist who is usually not suuper interested in human health projects and very not interested in rodents, i default to telling those who are that i am a chemist.
it's so much easier than trying to explain my views.
ooofff this is turning into a thread.
i told a Harvard prof (malaria bigshot) that i'm not interested in curing cancer and asked if he's found it difficult to find support and funding for research on various neglected diseases.
he looked at me like i'm fucking crazy and ended the convo.
some prevalence studies exist, like SCAN in Seattle, and some mitigation testing is being done like at Amazon, sports leagues, and certain major transmission chains. 2/4
the barriers to mitigation testing haven't changed since March. 1) cost is very high 2) logistics are extremely complex 3) regulatory hurdles - it's hard to find patient samples, distributed approval/implementation process, new tech not encouraged. 3/4
this error is subtle to non-experts, but it is Day 1 qPCR stuff, and a second major blunder in the CDC SARS-CoV-2 assay after the contaminated standards.
@cdc can issue new DNA sequence design recommendations - will they?
"It is somewhat puzzling that a primer/probe set that is frequently used to determine copy number variation in the human genome ended up as a control for RNA extraction and/or RT efficacy, since it is clear from the design that background gDNA will pose a major problem."
WOW 😮
thanks to the authors for detailing the problem and releasing this manuscript.
This is pathetic. If you were pissed at Angewandte before, this excuse gives you zero reason to submit your articles to this journal. There is no institutional accountability and no self-awareness. Most importantly, there are no steps to prevent further incidents.
In short, you have no reason to believe that Angewandte is not just as discriminatory as their recent article except 1) Dave's words 2) they don't like that guy Hudlicky now, and 3) a couple editors are on leave (but they weren't racist anyway so nbd)
I'm actually ok with the 'we all make mistakes' line, but it's completely hollow without any steps to avoid more 'mistakes'. You could start by articulating exactly how this mistake occurred and how it will be avoided.