Read on Twitter
My (possibly useless) take on “scientific inclusiveness”, a (possibly) very long thread..
#RealTimeChem
1/20
#RealTimeChem
1/20
I’m not in policy, not a social scientists, not in a position where I can do or advice in policy. I’m an experimentalist, so what I can do for making science more inclusive?
2/20
2/20
In recent years I’ve seen a lot of “the more complex is my method, the fancier it will look and the higher the impact factor”. Which is kind of true, but that’s impact factor and possibly far far away from any real impact. 3/20
Many labs and researcher in the world are cut off because of low funding and/or lack of knowledge. What can I personally do to change that? What can I do for making my research more inclusive? 4/20
You can (and should) lower the research entry bar for new scientists, independently of their previous knowledge or how much money they have available for research. 5/20
I started doing enabling technology few years ago with opening the microfluidic field to practically anyone. No need of fancy machines, nor knowledge of micro fabrication. With this, you can literally do a PDMS microfluidic chip at home 6/20 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.201500125
The paper, the video deacription, the experimental part, everything is open access. And if you’re one of the (many) people who sent me an email for the method, you know how happy i am to help you, independently by who you are or where you work 7/20
DNA detection using LAMP device with arduino? Open access, open hardware, free-to-use software 8/20 https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-018-3197-9
Micropatterning of surfaces, which is usually quite complex, we managed to do it in very simple steps 9/20 https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/cc/c9cc03791h#!divAbstract
Last collaboration was with 2 biological lab, where they had no clue about microfabrication, now both of them have acquired a 3D printer and are using it for fabricating muscle on a chip in house 10/20 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/admt.202000344
But honestly, if you see what I’ve published in the last few years is always with the aim of open science. And that’s because as I am not in position of changing policy but I am able to make research itself more inclusive. And this should be my duty as scientist. 11/20
With my research I try my best to lower the entry bar for new scientists, lowering the costs of the research and making the method as simple as possible. Using, doing research and teaching on open hardware and open software, enabling technologies such as 3D printers. 12/20
This because my idea of scientific inclusiveness should be reflected in my research. I understand that it is impossible in some fields (if you need a synchrotron, there is nothing to do there(unless you want to build a LEGO one, which would be amazing)). 13/20
But if you are in method development, please take some time in thinking if everyone can use your method. Use open source and free software, provide well described methods, provide the source code, the STL files, make it as open as possible. 14/20
I know it’s not a lot and it will not change the world, but as experimentalist I think it’s our duty to make our research more inclusive and more democratic. 15/20
Now, all of this is very gratifying because you know (and see) that your research is being used and opened the doors to scientists who were excluded because of money or previous knowledge 16/20
But on the other hand, either your university supports you in this or you’ll hit a wall of “your Hindex is too low”, “you don’t have a Nature”, “you need to publish more” in your face 17/20
And don’t let me start with editors and referees, as for some of them lowering the bar with chi rap and simple me thy odd is not scientific enough to justify a paper.
Well, for scientific inclusiveness, cost and simplicity are a fucking important point! 18/20
Well, for scientific inclusiveness, cost and simplicity are a fucking important point! 18/20
You thought I could do a thread without swearing? Well, think again :D 19/20
And I was sure I counted 20 tweets.... good lord I’m bad at math (or I missed a tweet somewhere) 20/20
