![Mitchell Lab Profile](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1407695950391304198/ci9k-Ppp_x96.jpg)
Mitchell Lab
@mitchell_sysbio
Followers
1K
Following
4K
Statuses
662
Systems Biologist untangling Host-Drug-Microbiome interactions | PI at @UMassMed School | Trying to keep the BS to a minimum | @amitchel on the blue place
Massachusetts, USA
Joined July 2016
Why are some non-antibiotic drugs toxic to bacteria 💊☠️🦠? Do they work like standard #antibiotics (ABX)? Our latest work by @MarianaNoto published @ScienceMagazine addresses this fundamental question (1/n)
12
111
333
Credit for this work goes to my former student Dr Emily Lowry. @emily_lowry23 literally submitted the revised version of this manuscript at the very last minute before leaving the lab 🥳 (9/9)
0
0
3
@DrDorSalomon @TanentzapfLab We’re taking this to the comically extreme, in edge cases, the pub ratio at top tier journals per postdoc (over 5 years) is probably 1:3 and the “absent” pi still opens many doors. These are terrible labs for phds, but for postdocs the risk/reward calc is different
0
0
0
Can’t believe we unlocked this level of the #AI hype - huge adds for @AnthropicAI in airports (Boston & Atlanta). Wonder what % of ppl even know what’s the product (<0.1% probably)
1
0
6
@fraser_lab Quid pro quo is a real slippery slope if you take into account that science, like all human endeavors, is the product of flawed human beings. Also we’re better off having reviewers make accept/reject recommendations than any other admin in the pub chain (unless we go @eLife)
0
0
0
@cshperspectives @fraser_lab Very good point, but I still believe it’s the lesser of evils. Under complete anonymity reviews can make unfounded claims and be borderline toxic (a style reviewers would avoid if a couple of peers know who they are)
3
0
1
@fraser_lab At a massive scale, who will actually do this work? X reviewed Y very favorably three years ago, now Y reviews X favorably. Should the editor even ask Y to review X and trust it to be above board?
1
0
1