Andrew Akbashev

Wow. Your microwave = a bacterial ecosystem.
Extremophiles can naturally appear in it too.


📍A new study:

Alba Iglesias and colleagues studied 30 microwaves.

Using Petri dishes, they could see a significant growth of bacteria from the microwave swabs.

Interestingly, DNA sequencing showed 101 bacterial strains. The bacterial population was dominated by Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes. Bacteria that can cause food-borne decease were also found in some cases.

In ‘lab microwaves’ (used in the labs), they also found extremophiles.

These are the bacteria that can withstand extreme environment such as high temperatures and radiation.

Most likely, they appeared because a microwave is cycled to high temperatures and strong radiation.


📍Two interesting points from my side:

1. This study is a good example of the ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking.

Normally, extreme environments are found in hydrothermal vents, deserts, etc.

But the authors decided to search in microwaves (which many assume should kill bacteria).

The study is much easier to do and replicate.

It’s also much more relevant to all of us than hydrothermal vents. :)


2. The paper was published in Frontiers in Microbiology, a journal under the Frontiers Publisher, which is viewed negatively by many.

But still, the study was found. People discuss it.

It’s another example of how important the content of your paper is.

The visibility of your study strongly depends on its quality, uniqueness and relevance to others.

If your study is great, people will find it.


#research #biochemistry #science

A few well-mentored students make a bigger impact than a lot of abandoned scholars.


Many students come with passion and excitement. When PhD is a new chapter in your life, you a would be excited too!


But then demotivation kicks in.

Too many failures. Too much work. Too little outcome.

As a result, disappointment and regrets lead the student’s mind till the graduation.


BUT there are also many students who are super happy.

Who grow.

Whose initial excitement transitions into a matured and strategizing mindset.


What makes this difference?

The advisor’s:
- Encouragement
- Mentoring
- Constant support


Basically… In 95% of the cases, disappointment with a PhD comes from the disappointment with the advisor.

For a PI, it’s very easy to stop looking after a student. Too busy, too many students, too hard to get funded. Or too much focus on self-promotion.


My message is:

Fewer well-mentored students make a bigger impact than a lot of abandoned ones.

Focus on each. Help them grow. Keep them encouraged.

Get that initial excitement going and growing.


#PhD #science #research #chemicalengineering #chemistry

An important message to students who started their #PhD last month:

I often see both undergrad and PhD students misidentifying the main purpose of a PhD and overlooking its #mentoring component. This can have adverse consequences, especially if you want to pursue a career in academia, R&D or entrepreneurship.


What is the key purpose of a PhD in #STEM?
- It’s NOT to learn how to use certain cool instruments (although it might be handy, it is of little help in a long term)
- It’s NOT to write a thesis (very few people will read it)
- It’s NOT to make your advisor happy by contributing to their lab
- It’s even NOT about listening to new courses that are part of the PhD program!


PhD is about #personaldevelopment, creativity and problem solving in a highly dynamic research environment and getting the most out of it.


Specifically, it is about:

- Becoming a highly critical and creative thinker
- Learning how to think independently (against the local or global mainstream)
- Publishing important studies and making discoveries (especially if you plan to stay in academia)
- Learning how to choose and “jump-start” a project and bring it to perfection
- Discovering your strengths while succeeding in a highly competitive environment 
- Trying new things and learning from inevitable mistakes without big consequences
- Learning how to accept failures that real (but do not bear catastrophic consequences)
- Understanding the value of teamwork and collaboration


Of course, there are some “perks” that can be important too, such as:
1. Getting a good expertise in some field
2. Getting some idea about the world of academia and how things work there
3. Learning how to use fancy tools (microscopes, spectrometers, etc)
4. Learning how to prepare nice publications
5. Etc, etc, etc.

However, these are only “perks” and they should not be the main goal of your PhD time.


My message is:

As a prospective PhD student, you should be looking for a good mentor and advisor who can provide a proper research environment and be a source of inspiration in pursuing your dreams, and NOT a person who will be simply assigning tasks to you and supervising your resulting efforts.


[This is one of my older posts that should be repeated again and again]

#research #students #university #engineering

John Hopfield is a rare generalist in science.

He started with solid state physics in 1950s, shifted to the chemistry of haemoglobin in the late 1960s, and worked on DNA synthesis in 1970s.

In 1982, he devised a brain-like network, where interacting particles formed some sort of memory.

It became known as ‘Hopfield network’.

For this, he received a Nobel prize this year.


Nature published an interview with John Hopfield.
So, I want to highlight few points:

1. “My definition of physics is that physics is not what you’re working on, but how you’re working on it. If you have the attitude of someone who comes from physics, it’s a physics problem.”

- This is why a Nobel Prize in Physics can be awarded for machine learning models.

Science is NOT about strictly defined boundaries between fields.

Science does not care!

To a physicist, physics is everywhere.


2. “[In solid-state physics], it was getting harder and harder to find a good problem. I had a friend, Bob Shulman at Bell Laboratories, who’d gone recently from chemistry into biology. I had the idea that maybe the time had come to use the way we studied solid state on big molecules.”

- Being fearless is vital in science!!!

Most professors are afraid to pivot. Even with internal funding and big groups, they keep digging the same field, doing rather mundane research. I think it’s a human nature.

This why I find people like John Hopfield so inspiring.
They are unicorns.
They are deeply hungry for new ideas and challenges.
And so they pivot hugely!
Many times!


3. Advice for PhD students:

“Where two fields are driven apart, see if there is anything interesting in the crack between them. I’ve always found the interfaces interesting because they contain interesting people with different motivations, and listening to them bicker is quite instructive. It tells you what they really value and how they’re trying to solve a problem. If they don’t have the tools to solve the problem, there may be space for me.”

- This is why it's so important to do postdoc in a different field.

This is why it's so important to join the department that supports collaborations (and does not say “you should avoid topics that other faculties work on“).

This is why interacting with good thinkers from other fields can be SO productive.


#science #research #physics #PhD #students

How to pick the right lab for a postdoc:


1. Think of how far you want to deviate from your PhD topic:

- IF you have a strong (!) profile as a PhD graduate, you may gain from doing a postdoc in a different field.

- IF your profile is not strong and IF your postdoc is short (1-2 years) but you aim for a faculty position, your chances are higher in your initial field.

- Diverse expertise can help you stand out during faculty interviews. It will also help you establish a more diverse lab.


2. Identify possible groups in advance. Meet them at conferences. Get external opinions from the faculties in your department.


3. BUT don't trust others' opinions blindly. You may accidentally skip a great group just because you were misled by a colleague.


When emailing possible groups:

4. Prepare a perfect email that describes you, your experience and future interests. Attach a CV. Don't make it too long. NO misspellings, NO “Hi Prof”!

5. Shortly describe WHY you want to do a postdoc in their lab (how will it help you?).

5. Add a short paragraph describing the possible research direction you envision. BUT avoid discussing the details until you get to an interview.

6. TAILOR your email to each specific lab. You must sound as if you have already visited their lab.


Two very important pieces of advice:

7. Avoid being too pushy or blunt about your interests, especially if you don't know the group.

Some applicants don't ask to be interviewed but rather ask for an opportunity to give an in-group SEMINAR about their work. I heard of cases where candidates paid for the visits and eventually ended up with an offer (yes, it’s not supposed to be like this, but this is how it works sometimes).

8. Ask your PhD advisor to send a recommendation letter directly to those faculties. This can help tremendously!!!


During and after the interview:

9. Prepare a perfect talk. Tailor it to the group’s interests.

10. Discuss their interests. Explore how your expertise can help them improve or expand. Make them feel you CARE about their progress as much as you care about your own.

11. Explain your interests and how being postdoc in this group can help your career.

12. Talk to the lab members one-on-one and listen carefully to their experiences & hurdles.

13. Reach out to lab alumni on LinkedIn or by email and ask to have calls with you. Ask about their experiences. Look for red flags.


Keep in mind that a good advisor will be supportive of you exploring and examining different aspects of the postdoc position and the group.


#PhD #science #research #students #chemistry #chemicalengineering

❗ BREAKING ❗
2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to David Baker “for computational protein design” and Demis Hassabis and John Jumper “for protein structure prediction.”

From the Nobel Committee:

“The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024 is about proteins, life’s ingenious chemical tools. David Baker has succeeded with the almost impossible feat of building entirely new kinds of proteins. Demis Hassabis and John Jumper have developed an AI model to solve a 50-year-old problem: predicting proteins’ complex structures. These discoveries hold enormous potential.“


This is the SECOND Nobel Prize for AI-related research this year!


By the way, Demis Hassabis & John M. Jumper are from Google DeepMind.

You don't have to be from an academic institution to win a Nobel Prize.


#chemistry #AI #science #research #biotechnology

Tuitions at MIT are eliminated for students from families with low income.
❤️ BRAVO, MIT!!! ❤️

Education should be accessible regardless of the background.

Overpublishing puts enormous stress on #students and PIs.

And brings tons of money to publishers in #STEM.

A new study shows that the number of papers is increasing FASTER than the number of #PhD graduates.

It’s an amazing work with very useful statistics. Huge kudos to the authors!


Main outcomes:

1️⃣ In 2022 the number of articles is 47% higher than in 2016. The amount of writing, reviewing and editing workload per scientist is increased enormously.

2️⃣ “Special issues” is a strategy for publishing lots of papers with reduced review time. This is possible due to the “publish or perish” pressure and clearly benefits the publishers.

3️⃣ The publishing time varies widely!
MDPI = 37 days. Frontiers = 72 days. Elsevier = 134 days. Springer = 157 days. Nature = 185 days.

4️⃣ The article rejection rates do not seem to correlate with publisher growth. However, rejection rates decline with increased use of special issue publishing.

5️⃣ Certain for-profit gold-open-access publishers create an increasing number of special issues, with uniquely reduced turnaround times, and in specific cases, high impact inflation and reduced rejection rates.

6️⃣ The authors suggest a new metric - Impact Inflation, which is reflected in self-citation within the same journal. For example, MDPI has a high impact inflation due to excessive self-citation compared to other publishers.


Conclusions and my opinion:

- Scientists have to spend a lot more time on reviewing and writing than before (on average).

- The more papers are published, the more the quality is compromised.

- Scientific progress has become partially bound to the business models of publishers and their revenue (a sad reality today).

- There is a huge lack of transparency. Much of these data had to be ‘web-scraped’ from numerous sources in order to get a full picture. We clearly need regulators to mandate open access to publisher’s statistics.

- Reduce the number of special issues! Those typically have low standards.
 

#Science, #publishing and #funding make a trio that is very hard to disentangle.
 
However, research quality is controlled by the community.

This is why preprint + community review can make a big difference.


[the link is in the comment]

#research #chemistry

In 1995, Elon Musk became a #PhD student in Materials Science at Stanford.

After 2 days, he dropped out… Now, imagine that he would have stayed.

As a PhD student, he would be working in a lab, publish papers, go to conferences…

Maybe one day he could even become a professor.

Would he be able to change the world?


❗ PhD is not the only way to become successful.

❗ Aspire to the career you deeply desire.

❗ Take that risk. Even if you fail, it is a very valuable experience.


#research #students #engineering #semiconductor #leadershipdevelopment

📍To all PhD students who write research papers:

Below are 7 quotes from the Editors of ACS Physical Chemistry Au, plus my comments:

1. “Write the kind of papers you LOVE to read. All readers will be grateful for every effort you make to explain your ideas in a clear and informative fashion.“

- Reading should be enjoyable. Ask your colleagues - did they enjoy your article? What is missing? Where do they lose attention?


2. “... keep the writing concise! You want to provide the clearest presentation of your science in the simplest style.“

- Long article ≠ Good article. Conciseness is your biggest friend. Polishing the text means removing unnecessary details and sentences. Move all secondary information to the Supplementary Material if possible.


3. “You might be in the fortunate situation of having a mentor who is training you in this process or even formal courses as part of your studies. But even if you do not, there is nothing to worry about ─ there are MANY resources available to help you get started.“

- Yes, mentors are great to have. BUT many great scientists learned to write papers on their own. You can also do it. Just focus. Find 10 excellent papers online and see WHAT makes them excellent.


4. “You might read for 3 h to write one sentence. You might plot your data three different ways before you understand the clearest, most EFFECTIVE way to show your results. You might take a whole day to make a single figure or 20 min to write a figure caption.“

- Great masterpieces take time.


5. “... write the paper your results support, not the paper you hoped to write at the start of the project.“

- This is central to scientific writing. You must ensure the logic is clear. Don’t seek the outcome you hope to find. Your interpretations should be similar to the conclusions that your peers in the field would also draw based on your results.


6. “You need to manage your coauthors’ expectations and make sure you work in a way that minimizes the chances that you end up with a big job rewriting the paper because your coauthors are not satisfied.“

- First, discuss results and the story. When all agree, THEN proceed to writing. Start with “Results”, then proceed to “Discussion & Conclusion”. Do not write “Introduction” until your central story & conclusions are clear.


7. “Write a paper you are proud of. This paper is the lasting mark of your research in the world.“

- Perfect your work until you feel happy & proud. Great masterpieces stand the test of time.


📍 My ultimate message:

Don't publish a lot of papers that no one will care about.

Don’t publish papers that are hard to read & understand.

Don’t publish for the sake of publishing.

Instead, publish a few that are thorough and deep.

Be proud of your masterpieces!

Make sure they stand the test of time.


[The link to the article is in the comment below]

‘Give us your research money,
And we will not threaten you with legal action.’

‘Give us your research money,
And your students will not go to conferences.’

‘Give us your research money,
And you can put our Impact Factor in your CV.’


The story of Alicia Kowaltowski (Univ. of São Paul) in Science:

They submitted to Molecular Metabolism (Open Access). 
Its IF = 8.5. OA fee = $3810. 
They expected a discount (due to ‘less affluent country’).
They emailed the journal 12 times.
The journal said - NO.
Then, the paper was published.
Now, Elsevier has threatened Kowaltowski with legal action if she didn’t pay the quoted fee. (The issue is still not resolved)

“If you end up paying, then you’re losing funds for other things, like laboratory chemicals” - Kowaltowski.


📍Critical points:

1. Open Access revenue has tripled since 2019.
Half of all publications are OA today.
However, subscription revenues have NOT gone down (according to Science).

Does it mean ‘double income’? We need clarity here.

2. With Open Access, publishers can earn more $$$ than with the ‘old’ way - subscriptions. At least to me this seems to be the case.

3. Scientists from low-income counties have issues with ‘discounts’. This creates inequality in publishing.

4. Premium journals charge premium fees. Nature has become the Lamborghini for the scientific world. 
Want to ride it? Pay $12,290. Just for publishing.

5. Your career depends on where you publish. This is the reality at many institutions. 
So... 
IF you skip Nature because you cannot pay... 
Even though your study is outstanding... 
Your chances of getting a faculty position DROP.


📍My point is:

Open access is great.

But for the price of a car? I don’t think so.


#research #science #publishing #scienceandtechnology

Not every expert will see the novelty in your work.

This is why resilience is everything in academia.

It takes forever to develop it.
But it helps you stay afloat in a storm.


#PhD #science #research

We miss out on the best talents when we do not invest into your current PhD students & postdocs.


Our team members have opinions.

And those opinions hugely influence WHO will be applying to our group next time.

Strong candidates seek great advisors.


Instead of spending months on looking for the perfect candidate, you can help those candidates find YOU.


📍 Just ask your current lab members:

“What can I do to help you grow professionally?”

“How can I ensure you get enough rest outside of work?”

“Do you want to go to one more conference?”


❗ Group happiness = great reputation.

Yes, it takes time to build.

But then, it will pay off for years.


#research #PhD  #university #students

This is why:

1. Funding decisions for PIs must take into account recommendation letters from former #PhD graduates and postdocs. Because funding is used to pay for more students and postdocs, it should be allocated only if the PI knows how to manage people correctly.

2. Universities should hire senior professors only after collecting 5-10 recomm. letters from their former graduates, randomly selected.

3. #Students should get university-level (or country-level) training in how to select advisors and avoid toxic PIs.

4. Universities should create internal funds and programs for the students who need to switch groups or get financial security while they’re trying to find a new employer. It should be mandatory if the #university wants to receive funding from the government (that comes from taxes).

5. Private funders should stop funding “hot #research topics” as much as they do these days. Instead, if they start helping students who are already in crisis (by offering fellowships or other support), they will make A LOT bigger impact on the academic community and entire society.

6. In any department, fellow professors should HELP students who got into toxic groups and need support. Not avoid them.

7. At department meetings, the topics of toxicity and mismanagement must be discussed as often as possible. Believe me, your students don’t care about the “strategic plans for the department”, “teaching rotations”, etc that you keep discussing there. All they care about is wellbeing. Everything else comes second. Ensure you are raising awareness and making the right emphasis on what is truly important for the students.

8. Finally, reduce tenure requirements. A lot of issues stem from the load the young PIs have to withstand. Reduce the load on PIs and you will reduce the load on students and postdocs.


Don’t ignore mismanagement. Don’t ignore toxicity.

Even if it doesn’t happen in your lab.


#science #engineering #chemistry #chemicalengineering #materialsscience

Funding is becoming a lottery. Scientists can’t focus on science and are demotivated. That’s the new academic world on the brink of insanity.


In academia, research money comes from external sources. Everything - from PhD students to infrastructure - depends on that funding.

The problem is - this funding is VERY competitive.


📍 Now, Nature describes how a new spike in the number of applications in 2025 pushes the competition to a new incredible level.

I'm a scientist myself. My proposals were also rejected on many 'curious' grounds - small publishing output, "too young" (yes, that was incredible), science being too fundamental, etc. But when only 10% of proposals are accepted, this becomes the norm!


📍 I call it "over-competition".

It's awful because:

1. It drains us. We put a LOT of energy into grants. Most of this energy is wasted.

2. It demotivates us. Constant rejections of your best ideas are NOT fun.

3. It tells us that our science is not important. When luck determines our research directions, it makes NO sense.

4. It focuses our attention on building a CV. Plus, on how to “flatter & schmooze people”.

5. We can't do long-term deep research that requires sustainable funding.


❗️My point is:

40% success rate is healthy competition.
10% success rate is over-competition.

It traumatizes scientists who want to focus on deep research and NOT on becoming self-advertising, paper-producing machines.

We need more internal funding.
We need fewer ultra-large groups.
We need less obsession with publishing.
We need to stop believing that “PhD is only for academia”.

We need more predictability in our careers.

_____