Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh. RNA polymerase II mechanism, classic films, #classiccountdown once in awhile
Craig Kaplan
Loading...
We published an article written by a number of current and former peer review workers in their personal capacities outlining the changes to peer review at the NIH over the last 18 months. It’s a great resource, and we’re grateful to the authors who wrote it! open.substack.com/pub/27unihte...
Hi. As the CEO of a 501c3 and 501c4…this is garbage.
501c3’s can’t endorse or oppose CANDIDATES (which Trump is NOT) and cannot influence legislation as a SUBSTANTIAL PART of it’s activities.
The Heritage Foundation is a 501c3…do what you want with that info.
diabetes.org/newsroom/pre...
Authored by anonymous current and former NIH workers with experience in peer review, this is an overview of all the changes to NIH's peer review over the last 18 months.
This is very interesting - suggests interaction of U1 to RNAs outside of splice sites with consequences for H3K36me3 methylation (only skimmed abstract but is provocative)
25 minutes of Photuris tremulans fireflies in Tennessee's smoky mountains.
BRD4, Mediator, and Pol II form heterogeneous condensates with distinct transcriptional and acetylation-dependent states https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.06.04.729043v1
Guys - this is not good
Craig Kaplan
Alex Wild
bioRxivpreprint
More changes at the NSF, this time to elevate certain (often benign) conflicts-of-interest to the point of disqualifying reviewers from serving on entire panels. A nice write-up from Dan, which includes some quotes from Bluesky's 74th most popular astrophysicist.
It's hard not to see this as a further attack on expertise. Currently, program officers scrupulously check for conflicts, double check with panelists, and reviewers aren't in the room for discussion of proposals where they're conflicted. This feels sufficient for ensuring conflicts aren't a problem.
