Steve Russell
LightNews LightNews
steverus.bsky.social
Steve Russell
@steverus.bsky.social
180 followers 230 following 75 posts
Life-long fly biologist, vinyl junkie, Head, Department of Genetics in Cambridge
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Steve Russell
geneticscam.bsky.social
Very excited to share this interesting episode!
atjcagan.bsky.social Alex Cagan @atjcagan.bsky.social · 4d
Thrilled to announce that I'm on Curious Cases tomorrow at 10am on BBC Radio 4!

The episode - Immortal Jellies - looks at some remarkably long-lived species and what they can teach us about ageing. This is a key area of focus for our lab.
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/...
Curious Cases - Series 24 - Immortal Jellies - BBC Sounds
Hannah Fry and Dara Ó Briain ask whether a tiny jellyfish holds the secret to immortality.
www.bbc.co.uk
November 25, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Reposted by Steve Russell
cambridgebiosci.bsky.social
🔬 Experience Research Life at Cambridge!

Applications are now open for the 2026 Experience Postgrad Life Sciences Programme. Gain hands-on lab experience with an 8-week summer placement, in partnership with @corpuscambridge.bsky.social!

🔗 www.exppg.lifesci.cam.ac.uk

#SummerPlacement #Cambridge
2025 summer students in Cambridge
November 13, 2025 at 10:52 AM
Reposted by Steve Russell
gensocuk.bsky.social
Congratulations to Richard Durbin on being awarded our Genetics Society Medal!
November 14, 2025 at 12:40 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
matti.vuorre.com
Everyone involved in scientific publishing should take a look at these papers.

>"The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science; we need [...] to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market."
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 14d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 8:15 AM
Reposted by Steve Russell
cassyvogel.bsky.social
This informative thread is essential reading for anyone in science, in my opinion!
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 14d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 7:53 AM
Reposted by Steve Russell
manuelansede.bsky.social
Ha muerto Antonio García-Bellido, uno de los mejores científicos de la historia de España tras descubrir las fronteras invisibles dentro de los seres vivos: elpais.com/ciencia/2025...
Muere Antonio García-Bellido, descubridor de las fronteras invisibles dentro de los seres vivos
El biólogo, fallecido a los 89 años, deja un legado científico que roza las alturas de los nobeles Santiago Ramón y Cajal y Severo Ochoa
elpais.com
November 11, 2025 at 12:36 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
fly-eds.bsky.social
The European Drosophila Society #flyEDS extends the condolences on the passing of Antonio García-Bellido, considered the founder of the Spanish school of #Drosophila genetics and an influential figure in developmental biology research worldwide. May he rest in peace.
November 11, 2025 at 2:15 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Steve Russell
bookshop.org
Amazon is helping fund a $300 million build of a ballroom for the White House.

Independent bookstores are donating to food banks and organizations that help with food insecurity.

They are not the same.
October 30, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
ledbydonkeys.org
Farage: epic grifter
October 27, 2025 at 12:45 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
odedrechavi.bsky.social
BIG ANNOUNCEMENT📣: I haven’t been this excited to be part of something new in 15 years… Thrilled to reveal the passion project I’ve been working on for the past year and a half!🙀🥳 (thread 👇)
October 15, 2025 at 12:22 PM
steverus.bsky.social
You know what to do!
www.theguardian.com/technology/2...
‘Death to Spotify’: the DIY movement to get artists and fans to quit the music app
Musicians have long criticized the streaming service’s paltry payouts, but a new wave of boycotts is emerging
www.theguardian.com
October 13, 2025 at 10:51 AM
Reposted by Steve Russell
cambridgebiosci.bsky.social
Unlock your potential with a Master's at the University of Cambridge! 🔬 Our MPhil in Biological Sciences offers a unique opportunity for cutting-edge, lab-based research at a world-leading institution.

Explore and apply: www.mphil.bio.cam.ac.uk

#Cambridge #BiologicalSciences #Postgraduate
September 25, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
dromius.bsky.social
Job Advert - Russell R. Geiger Professorship of Crop Science @camplantsci.bsky.social @cropscicentre.bsky.social www.cam.ac.uk/jobs/russell...
Russell R. Geiger Professorship of Crop Science
The Board of Electors to the Russell R. Geiger Professorship of Crop Science invite applications for this Professorship from persons whose work falls within the general field of the Professorship to
www.cam.ac.uk
October 1, 2025 at 1:48 PM
steverus.bsky.social
Football in Japan is great fun (Kobe Vissel won 4-0 tonight).
September 23, 2025 at 12:46 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
sianowen.bsky.social
An inspiring read!
academic.oup.com/genetics/adv...
A beautiful historical perspective on Ester Lederberg's legacy from @ccwendling.bsky.social & @zacharybailey.bsky.social
Pioneer of bacterial genetics: the legacy of Esther Miriam Lederberg
Abstract. Esther Miriam Lederberg's brilliant scientific lifework, from the discovery of phage lambda, bacterial conjugation, and replica plating, provided
academic.oup.com
August 28, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
katjaroeper.bsky.social
If you run a fly lab and have not yet contributed to save FlyBase, please look at our wiki page for the latest information!
flybase.bsky.social FlyBase @flybase.bsky.social · Aug 15
FlyBase needs your help! We ask that European labs continue to contribute to Cambridge, UK FlyBase, whereas US and other non-European labs can contribute to US FlyBase. For more information and how to donate: wiki.flybase.org/wiki/FlyBase...
FlyBase:Contribute to FlyBase - FlyBase Wiki
wiki.flybase.org
August 15, 2025 at 4:59 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
flybase.bsky.social
FlyBase needs your help! We ask that European labs continue to contribute to Cambridge, UK FlyBase, whereas US and other non-European labs can contribute to US FlyBase. For more information and how to donate: wiki.flybase.org/wiki/FlyBase...
FlyBase:Contribute to FlyBase - FlyBase Wiki
wiki.flybase.org
August 15, 2025 at 12:45 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
thetransmitter.bsky.social
FlyBase, a Drosophila database, will lose a third of its team in early October because the Harvard grant that covered the employees’ salaries was canceled. Scientists warn that losing FlyBase could devastate fly research.

By @claudia-lopez.bsky.social

www.thetransmitter.org/community/ha...
Harvard University lays off fly database team
The layoffs jeopardize this resource, which has served more than 4,000 labs for about three decades.
www.thetransmitter.org
August 13, 2025 at 7:32 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
geula.bsky.social
I’m looking for a Postdoc to join my new lab @pdncambridge.bsky.social on an MRC-funded project and explore maternal inter-organ communication with a focus on the mammary gland, using a novel mouse model.

📍 Tenure: 3 years
⏳ Deadline: 15 August 2025

Please RT 🙏
👉 www.jobs.cam.ac.uk/job/51984/
Research Associate (Fixed Term) - Job Opportunities - University of Cambridge
Research Associate (Fixed Term) in the Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience at the University of Cambridge.
www.jobs.cam.ac.uk
July 14, 2025 at 6:48 PM
steverus.bsky.social
This is a masterpiece of explanation and illustration.
alomshaha.bsky.social Alom Shaha @alomshaha.bsky.social · Jul 12
Was chatting to one of my most brilliant Physics students yesterday and he had no idea how mechanical watches work and was fascinated by the fact that they make use of such basic Physics principles and the history of how watchmakers have overcome various limitations on accuracy. Shared this with him
Mechanical Watch – Bartosz Ciechanowski
Interactive article explaining how a mechanical watch works.
ciechanow.ski
July 12, 2025 at 12:30 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
geula.bsky.social
I’ll be recruiting soon - so if you’re interested in lactation biology, developmental genetics or early nutrition, please get in touch or share with someone who might be!
July 7, 2025 at 8:10 PM
steverus.bsky.social
Had to get up early to make the Pasteis de Nata for our street party. Pastry that’s 40% butter is tricky in this weather🥵
June 29, 2025 at 8:34 AM
Reposted by Steve Russell
parramaterial.bsky.social
A plea to companies still using Spotify to create playlists: please stop. Use alternatives.
monorailmusic.bsky.social Monorail Music @monorailmusic.bsky.social · Jun 22
Spotify is a horrible platform in so many ways. People should consider if they're ok using it. We use Tidal in the shop for streaming and are really happy with it. Some of the staff use Qobuz at home. Spotify sounds terrible and their ethics are disgusting.
dadadrummer.bsky.social Damon K @dadadrummer.bsky.social · Jun 22
How did I miss this story earlier in the week…Daniel Ek has “doubled down” on investments in military drones and AI. Original source is FT, here is that article past paywall archive.ph/2025.06.18-1...
June 22, 2025 at 5:34 PM
Reposted by Steve Russell
monorailmusic.bsky.social
Spotify is a horrible platform in so many ways. People should consider if they're ok using it. We use Tidal in the shop for streaming and are really happy with it. Some of the staff use Qobuz at home. Spotify sounds terrible and their ethics are disgusting.
dadadrummer.bsky.social Damon K @dadadrummer.bsky.social · Jun 22
How did I miss this story earlier in the week…Daniel Ek has “doubled down” on investments in military drones and AI. Original source is FT, here is that article past paywall archive.ph/2025.06.18-1...
June 22, 2025 at 4:06 PM