Episode 1: Manuscripts, mushrooms, and methylation


A HUGE thank you to Jai Ranganathan, host of the podcast Curiouser and Curiouser, and to the guys at Science…sort of (especially Ryan!) for help getting this podcast off the ground.

Our fabulous theme song was created by the always amazing Paul Smaldino.

Links from the show


Arxiv.org (the open access system we discuss)

The SciFund Challenge


Mystical Experiences Occassioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin Lead to Increases in the Personality Domain of Openness (link to the article)


Disease-associated epigenetic changes in monozygotic twins discordant for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (link to the article)

What is epigenetics?

Michael Meaney (the professor we discussed who studies epigenetics in rats)

14 thoughts on “Episode 1: Manuscripts, mushrooms, and methylation

  1. Amazing, just amazing. So many things to think and talk about, but if I had to pick one, it would be the last discussion about cross disciplinary discoveries being necessary to allow advancement on a given subject. It reminds me of an idea I first encountered on an episode of the 90′s Outer Limits. In 4×16, Final Exam, the idea is presented that at a given point in history, an advance will be made in a subject, e.g. cold fusion, because the collective consciousness and state of knowledge in the world is right for that advance to be made.

    I have always found this interesting and looking back throughout history, there have been numerous cases of independent scientists making the same discovery around the same time. You mentioned that the thought that an advance in a field you are studying is unknowingly dependent on an advance in another field may be discouraging, but I look at it from the other perspective. One day you may wake up, read an article, and suddenly realize how to make cars fly.

  2. Sorry to take away any seriousness expected on these comments, but… perhaps Bruce Wayne’s parents’ death triggered some sort of methylation that made him have the hero complex he needed to become Batman. Wild Mass Guessing and all that, I suppose.

  3. Ooh, another podcast for me to fall behind on! But this one has +Inf% more Weiners than, say, SGU! Yay for awesomness and brain-altering parasites! (And parasprites; now THOSE are brain-altering for real!)

    Oki, I’m done with the exclamations now. :-D

  4. It’s just weird listening to you guys when I’m just hearing some of the characters from SMBC theater that you guys play.

  5. Zach and kelly
    i happy to hear you two talking about epigenetics. my father is involved in epigenetic research and i could probably get him to talk to you about it further if you would like.
    send me an email and i can probably arrange something.

  6. I’m hearing very similar talk on peer review in many places, and for quite some time now. I tend to think of review as a chore, but I always do it thoroughly. In most cases when I get reports back for my papers, the job done was much less thorough.

    Now it so happens that I enjoy washing up, which is a chore too, but it gets shared fairly anyway. ;)

    Perhaps one thing to do would be to make this fair. Similar to what is discussed, on uploading a manuscript, I’d like to be presented with a list of papers open for review. You get to choose two or three (depending on how many referees are the norm on a submission). Perhaps some weighting toward those papers that are ageing. i.e. you can review two papers, or one that’s gathering dust.

    Another line of reasoning now… At the risk of giving all of science to Google (and giving up my beloved LaTeX) how about Google Docs as a platform for publications? Image this; Collaborative paper writing, potentially simultaneous editing, along with publication and a system like the above for peer review. Google loves doing graph based metrics and this would be a lot of fun. As long as the papers are free to upload and download, this is a virtually limitless resource. The more I think about it the more advantages I can see. This could be very disruptive. arXiv+

  7. in regards to the discussion about a peer review website/how to balance things out..

    Seems like their could be a way for people who are just not into doing reviews to still ‘cancel’ out the papers they put up: If you are a prolific reviewer/commentator, you have an excess of ‘points’ built up compared to the amount of papers you put out. Scientist A wants his paper on the website submits directly and ONLY to scientist B, who has a large excess of points. Scientist B can read the paper/etc and decide to use his/her own points to ‘post’ the paper, leaving the original authorship intact.

    That being said one can never create a system that cannot be gamed in some way shape or form. I had ideas for this sort of peer reviewed online database stuff a couple of years ago, though I though of a sort of cross-discipline database that would include invention and design as well as theory and studies. Sounds like people who actually have talents are doing it already, which is very cool.

  8. Pingback: Fleen: Home Of The Webcomics Action News Team! » Several Pieces Of Advice For You

  9. Mighty mighty Weinersmiths:
    Awesome! Now I have yet another procastinatory tool. This is awesome :-)
    I wanted to add something to your Arxiv comments:
    Arxiv has massive issues. Whichever Internet Rule states that ‘just because you can doesn’t mean you should’ is not in effect. Now, because I’m in astronomy grad school, I subscribe to the astronomy Arxiv RSS feed. That means I have to wade through over 300 posts a week, and about 5% are crank-y papers. I guess that’s an ok fraction of good to suck, but it still hurts to think that the cranks can put their rantings on Arxiv and then claim they’ve had published papers (technically not a lie…but only technically).

    There is no peer-review requirement to load your article onto Arxiv, which is both good and bad. Good, because peer-review is inherently biased and very conservative; nepotism is rampant, and god help you if you have an interpretation that disagrees with one of your reviewers – no paper can survive a reviewer who knows that their treasured interpretation is right. Bad, because ANYONE CAN PUBLISH.
    I’ve read abstract after abstract that contain poor, not-science, CRANKERY (for example, panspermia cosmology, which totally displaces the wrong LCDM and explains life’s presence EVERYWHERE: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1262 Who knew!)

    So while I approve of the idea of restructuring peer review, I don’t know if a votey system would work all that well. What if the votey gets Pharangulated (or Xtianized or whatever)? The internets are a scary thing…

  10. re: peer review balance

    What you have here are two markets. There is a supply of peer review and demand for peer review: the review market. There is a supply of papers submitted and demand for papers submitted: the submittal market. As I understood your arguments, Zach would like a system where individuals were not compelled to participate in both markets, leaving the good reviewers to review and the good submitters to submit. Also, Kelly would like a system where individuals were compelled to participate in the review market if they participate in the submittal market to prevent a shortage of peer review. This is a problem of free will vs shortage. This is the kind of problem that free markets solve.

    Solution (two commodity version):
    You would need an exchange rate between the two markets, for example: for every paper you submit you must review three papers. (Kelly’s plan) What is important here is to not fix the exchange rate, so that if there is an excess of reviewers, the rate would fall until people could submit without reviewing papers that twenty others have already reviewed, but not so much that all the papers were not receiving reviews. Likewise if there is a shortage of reviewers, the exchange rate would rise until the same temporary equilibrium is met.

    Solution (three commodity version)
    Introducing a new commodity: money. I know, I know, money is the root of all evils that corrupt the research process and such, but hear me out. By having exchange rates between submittal and review listed in dollars (or whichever), we now open up the possibility that individuals could submit papers without needing to review (Zach’s plan). We also open up the possibility that reviewers could spend time reviewing and be paid for their time if the task is as onerous as Kelly believes. Also, anyone who dislikes the idea that money is involved could simply ‘net out’ their account by reviewing enough papers to have a positive balance on their account before submitting their own paper.

    Thanks for the podcast and for listening to a Chemist turned amateur Economist.

  11. I wonder if this DNA-methylation stuff could be at all implicated in the development of multiple personality disorder? Everything I know about MPD I learned from Daniel Keyes, in his book The Minds of Billy Milligan, but if, as Keyes suggests, long-term systematic abuse of a child can trigger this kind of dissociative syndrome, could there be some epigenetic effects at work?

    For more on epigenetics, there’s this BBC radio programme, which mentions interesting results showing that epigenetic effects can persist across generations, and even across more than one generation (e.g. a woman’s diet while pregnant can affect her grandchildren, and, surprisingly, epigenetic changes in the FATHER can persist into his offspring).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>