Prisma Bioinnovations

❌👩🏻‍🔬🔬74% of scientific research is not reproducible and this is a big problem. Part of this is inadequate Methods description. Excellent article from @AsimovPress on the History of Methods and ways to improve it. I was a History of Science / Medicine major, so I particularly enjoyed this article, but important for anyone. Separately, I’m working and have developed AI platforms and methods to improve the reproducibility and consistency of lab assays and methods for knowledge transfer in labs and for external lab replication. 👩🏻‍⚕️👩🏻‍🔬👩🏻‍💻🚀✨💫 xitter.gq/asimovpress/status/201…

New Essay: Inventing the Methods Section Many science methods are difficult to understand or replicate. The U.S. alone invests ~$28 billion annually in irreproducible biomedical research. How have methods evolved over four millennia, and how can we make them better? By @Andrew_C_Hunt. Read: press.asimov.com/articles/me…

New project idea I’ll propose to ARPA-H or some kind of NIH SBIR or NSF — 🌟to accelerate and improve grant submissions and funding process. 🌟 🌟The first step of grant review should be tabula rasa just based on content and merit, not institution or PI or other demographics / factors unrelated to science. People *say* they want new investigators, but then it’s always said: This person and research is “not proven”. And then tenured faculty and they always say person has decades of experience and $7 million in funding, ideas must be good. Not always true ideas or research is better I’m going to run grants tabula rasa through multiple LLMs and see how the AI grades them and can compare to the human review. Let me know if you’re interested in colloaborating or having your grant review tabula rasa; especially if rejected. I bet it will have a higher score when confounding factors like prestigious institution or prior funding are taken out..