So this link to a Mother Jones article on Ethan Perlstein and his "postdocalypse" went through my twit feed this morning. I'm not going to discuss the content here.*
Look at the stock photo at the top of the article. Clearly meant to be an MD. For an article about PhDs.
Really, Mother Jones? Really? That's the best you could come up with?
* Feel free to have at it in the comments if you like.
Since posting this, Elsevier has responded that the images will be removed. Hopefully they will also put mechanisms in place to ensure this doesn't occur again.
This morning via the twits I became aware of two graphical abstracts published by the Journal of Proteomics. You can find them here and here.
What the fuck?!?!?
Who the hell at the journal, publisher (I'm looking at you Elsevier), and European Proteomics Association thinks this is okay?
Stop it. And get rid of those images.
[UPDATE] The Lab and Field has already posted on this. Also, author of those two papers gave this reply to a complaint from @madamscientist.
[UPDATE 2] Jonathan Eisen weighed in on his blog and with a storify.
[UPDATE 3} And based on the journal EIC's response to Joshua Drew, it's not hard to see how these images were allowed to be published. Full text of this nopology here.
Darwin's balls to be specific.
Want to have some fun while supporting some awesome science in schools? Go check out Gerty-z's post on @MyTChondria's #DarwinsBalls NCAA men's basketball bracket competition.
The typical university has but three to five major streams of revenue*:
1) If it's a state institution, state $'s.
3) If it has a medical school, clinical $'s.
4) Indirect cost $'s from Federal grants.
5) Endowment/donation $'s.
If any one of those is insufficient to cover related costs, the other streams are tapped to make up the difference. They can flow in all directions to account for fluctuations in each stream. Simple, right?
Problem is at least three - often four - of those revenue streams are declining at many universities. And one of those, indirect costs, hasn't pulled its weight for a long time, if ever.
Bit of a problem, eh?
* Yes, I know intellectual property income isn't listed. For the majority of universities that doesn't count as a major source of income.
A number of recent happenings (to name just two the PLoS data sharing mandate and tweets that led to @MyTChondria's guest post over at DrugMonkey's joint) have got me thinking...
It really is remarkable how many academics - people who are supposed to be intelligent deep thinkers - simply don't do their due diligence before wading into things. To be fair I've been guilty of this myself sometimes,* but the number of times people have recently made assertions with absolute certainty that they know the TR00TH!!!!!!!! without appearing to have actually thought about and done some rudimentary research into the issue at hand has me shaking my head.
People, think about things. Ask questions. Be informed. It's not that hard. It's what we do for a career. Right?
I'm not suggesting we know every little detail. Sometimes that's well nigh impossible. But at least make the effort to know enough to make informed decisions/comments/arguments.
It's not just that we do this kind of thing for a career. As @MyTChondria has alluded to, sometimes these things determine whether or not we will continue to have a career.
* Likely an embarrassing number of times, but this is my soapbox.