benoitbruneau
-
@ All hail the human kazoo!
about 8 hours ago
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to UncleDynamite
-
and another thing: what the hell is wrong with people? Children! Yeah, really getting my sympathies there.
1:20 PM May 28th
via web
from Santa Monica, CA
-
Bloody hell. Between and , my parental instincts are getting a heck of a workout. I really feel for all those families' losses.
1:18 PM May 28th
via web
from Santa Monica, CA
-
@ @ Jessica, not Lisa, please.
8:05 AM May 28th
via Twitter for iPad
in reply to drugmonkeyblog
-
@ yes, and I know that there isn't the political will to do so, although cutting the time down to 6 months post pub is not crazy.
8:03 AM May 28th
via Twitter for iPad
in reply to mbeisen
-
@ but really, the petition I'd like to see is the one mandating immediate open access.
8:00 AM May 28th
via Twitter for iPad
in reply to mbeisen
-
@ my BBQ has an Internet connection for all to sign. After a couple of beers, I bet everyone will be voting.
7:59 AM May 28th
via Twitter for iPad
in reply to mbeisen
-
Dino fossil! @ Thornhill Elementary
4:34 PM May 27th
via Instagram
from Oakland, CA
-
So basically birds are like baby dinosaurs. Coochie coochie coo little dino! (awesome paper in @)
10:40 AM May 27th
via web
from Oakland, CA
-
@ every day is silent and grey.
7:29 AM May 27th
via Twitter for iPad
in reply to stereoscotty
-
@ @ Yes I know it was known; I remember when the 1st paper came out. New types of editing are novel but contentious.
6:21 PM May 26th
via web
from Oakland, CA
in reply to dgmacarthur
-
@ @ Got it. Glass half full: so they're partly right. Or is that glass 5% full.....
4:57 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to dgmacarthur
-
One of my postdocs pointed out to me the @ policy, and how his enthusiasm dropped when he read the opt-out clause.
3:34 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
-
@ @ Last point: are we SURE the RNA editing fiasco is just that? Done deal or still possibility of sowething there?
2:53 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to dgmacarthur
-
@ @ And not sure a label is necessary/feasible. Although would help noobs. Again, literature corrects itself.
2:52 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to dgmacarthur
-
@ @ Sure, would be great. But lack of citations and papers that don't reproduce or show alternate result do the job.
2:51 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to dgmacarthur
-
@ @ I have tons of examples from my own field, where ppl ended up being wrong, but expts seemed fine.
2:16 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to dgmacarthur
-
@ @ If all expts were done well, and conclusions based on results, why retract? Field will correct. That's science.
2:14 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to dgmacarthur
-
@ @ Example: Bob maps disease to locus, concludes that gene X is culprit. Turns out it's next door gene Y. Retract?
2:12 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to dgmacarthur
-
@ @ To me, retraction is for falsified or non-reproducible results, not for just being wrong.
2:08 PM May 26th
via Twitter for iPhone
in reply to dgmacarthur
|
- Name Benoit Bruneau
- Location San Francisco Bay area
- Bio A Canadian biologist living in Oakland and working in San Francisco
|
