sorry that went right over my squid-like head the first time

I received this in Aug 2011. We still found ways to write nonsense before AI!

The other five are pretty amazing too!!

Before LLMs we still got many copy-paste materials! My favorite was a CV that started "My squid-like head is a masterful problem solver and I hope that I can bring world domination to your organization." If you google the first phrase you can find dozens! They unwittingly copied a joke C'thulhu CV.

in other news my final exam questions are ready earlier than ever before

our top choice (for ease and convenience, not gold standard) for C. elegans proteins is still expressing tagged versions in S2 cells (which grow 20-25°C) and co-IP, combined with some in vivo evidence like colocalization, localization of A depends on B, etc

This all makes sense to me except (1) the tants should go higher and (2) what does it need with pockets??

Falkor?

where is the Brownian ratchet??

I agree, I think CGC dues us probably the best proxy - hadn't thought of that before

that's good as a high end probably, I think that's more like all the labs that have ever been (minus a smaller number without lab codes). consistent with a guess of around 500-800ish currently?

That's about what I guesstimated but nice to hear you thinking that way too. I got there because I think I remember there were ~200ish R01s ~ten years ago (before R35 shift), some people had more than one, some had NSF/other, many non-US, but ~500-750 (1000 at high end) seemed like a good guess.

Not sure - paper, preprint, or research grant (incl. startup) in last 5 years?

I guess CGC annual dues could be a good estimate too.

I mean, it's pretty clear. It refers to peer review members disclosing any information about the applications being reviewed.

It's clearly not limiting the guidance NIH can provide or the general freedom of people to complain about typos etc as long as it's not connected to the apps they review.

In my view it's 100% a breach of confidentiality and review integrity.

"Confidentiality in NIH peer review prohibits a peer reviewer member from: [...]
Disclosing, **in any manner**, information about the committee deliberations, discussions, evaluations, or documents [...]"

emphasis added

From the lab of Maxwell Heiman discussing the interesting topic of apical ECM and the function of sensing organs and how these ECM proteins can both mechanically and biochemically modulate the organ's functions.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cd...