Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
DeSci Office Hours
Recorded: July 7, 2025 Duration: 0:59:09Space Recording
Short Summary
In a recent discussion, participants explored the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, emphasizing trends towards transparency, open access, and the impact of public funding on research dissemination. The conversation highlighted the need for a shift in how scientific knowledge is shared, advocating for a more democratized approach that aligns with the values of the crypto community.
Full Transcription
Thank you. GM, GM.
GM, GM.
Kehoe, how's it going, buddy?
Can you get me now?
Yeah, I can hear you.
Awesome, awesome, man.
I'm doing good. How are you?
Can't complain.
Start of a new week.
You know, I am in lab currently doing a little bit of
co-IP, so looking at some protein-protein interactions in our model organism.
Nice. Co-IP. I think I've heard of this technique, but I completely forgot.
Yeah, co-immunoprecipitation. It's basically tagging proteins with a specific tag that you can find an antibody for,
and then sort of incubating it in the same sort of solution with another protein,
sort of solution with another protein to see and then pulling down with that same
tag to see if those proteins you know form a direct connection with one
another. Got it yeah I have done this. Yeah it's been kind of the bane of my
existence for my entire PhD but I've kind of figured out the the secret knock
on wood to getting them to work pretty well.
Awesome. Awesome.
But that's a trade secret. I'll never tell.
Yeah, I worked on a commercial trap, a GFP trap.
Oh, yes. Yes.
Yeah. So it was quite easy. You have money, you can do it faster, buddy.
Yes. Yes.
But then if you're working with something very specific, then you need to make your own stuff.
Yes.
The problem with our stuff is that you can't use endogenous proteins very well.
There's not a lot of antibodies that work that well in the endogenous system, so they have to be tagged.
So it's a little bit difficult because you're making sort of...
They're in vivo, but they're sort of outside of
what is probably happening in
normal biology.
Awesome.
But yeah, how about
we get into the show today?
Yeah, feeling
boosted, Asriel.
We just had our sync.
Yeah, we did.
We got our marching orders for the week exactly yeah all right uh
what's up um this week last week we had governance this week we have a new
today we are working on mondays from now on and it's gonna be desai hot takes
because i think i i received a lot of feedbacks from last call that people really enjoyed it
okay cool or at least tuned they really enjoyed it and they wanted to have more of this.
So I'm happy in the direction that we are going and keeping it candid and organic.
Hell yeah.
We got pretty real last time.
Exactly.
Yeah.
It was really real.
Shout out to Joe.
Let's kick this off.
Let's do it. I'm Kiho. I'm Par kiho i'm reporting from india half past 8 p.m
and uh the weather is 26 degrees celsius and yeah it's a it's a normal day quite breezy
beautiful and i'm carlin i'm reporting from Chicago 10 a.m. can't tell you the
exact temperature right now but it's a pretty sunny day nice and nice and cool
but when the Sun hits you just right it feels perfect
great yeah what do you want to discuss today carlin and uh people who are uh in the chat sorry sorry
uh in the space what do you guys want to come up and then give us a topic or you want to just
listen to us going uh free fall you know yeah yeah we have hours and hours to discuss, and this could be a podcast too, but then we want to keep it true to its name, Office Hours.
So super happy to, you know, let you guys on stage if you have any specific question or just want to, you know, come say hi and then have a nice chat.
I think the first thing that comes to my mind is publications.
Uh-huh. I think the first thing that comes to my mind is publications. And the sort of, you know, new ways that we're trying to like, you know, revolutionize publishing.
And maybe what we think works about the way that it's done traditionally too.
Any experience with publishing queue i did i think i have
three to four publications and uh and one of that is in dsci so i had couple of experimental
like sort of a research publication and one review publication
of a research publication and one review publication. Yeah, my journey was not so unpleasant
because most of the unpleasant things were handled by my PIs and, you know, senior up
the level who had to, like, give answers to everything. My role was kind of limited in
terms of collecting data and organizing it. Yeah.
Yeah, because I was just an undergrad.
Not so much the decision-making.
Exactly, exactly.
So I didn't have a lot of unsavory stories,
but then I can really get the frustration and heat from my team,
you know, who are publishing paper.
Yeah, they were kind of, you know,
traumatized by the experience that they had to go through when they planned to publish a paper.
But then I think let's dig it from the foundation level to discuss what is a publication.
So why do a scientist publish something?
scientist uh publish something what do you think i mean to me a publication is sort of the like
Why do you think?
town town announcement to like the world what you've been working on and sort of like the
cool result that you've come up with in a you know hopefully way that is uh legible and is able to be understood by like the broader community.
Just sort of a way to, you know, other than, you know, a poster or a conference,
tell people in the written form what you've actually been working on.
So then what's the intention behind it? If I can read from your description on publication is just
to communicate what you have been working on one what sort of cool
inventions or findings has come out of your research so the intention is to
really communicate and wanting other you know your peers and general public to you know to look at your recent findings
but then there are you know like some sort of what do you say read between the lines because
where you don't really disclose like those critical key informations for example you said
you are doing a technique called CoIP, something that is
part of your experiment. But then if there is something really, really interesting on how you
conducted that experiment, would you share that in a publication?
You know, I think people wouldn't in a more traditional sense, but I personally would appreciate if people did that.
I feel like I've, through my graduate career, read a lot of papers that, you know, like you were saying, do the methods shown in, you know, so-and-so paper from 1982.
you know so and so paper from 1982 um so then you go back to that you have to go back to that
paper and it's you know sort of a russian doll of you know finding the actual like methods and
stuff like that so i you know i don't think that people see it as a chance to like talk about maybe
their secret special uh techniques but i wish that they would use it a little bit more for that.
Why do you think it is this way?
Why do you think people don't want to share their findings?
If the intention is to share their findings,
why don't they want to share it?
I think that that brings it around
to what the other part of publishing is for. I think traditionally publishing is also a way of staking claim on and saying like, these are the results from my lab sort of the any future, you know, future innovations or changes to come from you
and not from someone else. But, you know, that protects maybe your IP, but it doesn't necessarily
lead to the most conducive, like, you know, flywheel of innovation that we're all kind of
searching for. But then it's sort of contradicting, right?
Like once you publish something, you cannot patent it.
Yeah, exactly.
Then the idea of the publication or publishing something is to go public about what you did
and how you did it.
But then if you are not doing it in a publication,
do you think it really stands to that definition of what it has to be?
Yeah, it literally cannot be a publication.
Yeah.
So it's basically a paradox.
Yeah.
We are not doing what we are conundrum.
Yeah, conundrum.
And if you a little dig deeper like i think
we also have non-science audience uh listening to it uh let's let's dig from the perspective of uh
you know a common man uh right why do i why should i care about this publication or any research
publication or any scientific knowledge that's getting coming
out of these academic institutions and how is it affecting me or what it has to do with me
so this is a general question that any common man would have in regards to publication but then to them uh to people who are asking those questions i wanna
uh you know give you a chance to think uh from the point who is funding the science in the first
point first point right like where does the researcher gets uh the funding from and then because you need funding to do something
to do a scientific you know endeavor like exploration you need someone to sponsor you
and this money has to come from someone and that money is basically coming from us taxpayers
right and that money is kind of collected by any sort of central agencies like the state, the
government or the funding granting agencies like NIH or NHS.
So there are different granting agencies.
It's basically our money that's going to these academic labs for scientists to do science that would one day help us or
help the country or help the nation or help the world to take the next step with valid
scientific information.
But then the problem is, if you look from from a perspective you are kind of an indirect sponsor to that scientific publication but then once this paper gets published once this interesting research
that you funded get published uh do you guys know that you need to pay again to get access to this
research so that's that's where the the the third pillar of you know traditional science comes in
that's where the third pillar of traditional science comes in,
the publishing houses.
So these publishing houses kind of creates a paywall
where literally if you see,
they have no stake in any part of this research,
apart from having a website, an outdated website
where they just showcase all these papers but then
you know they kind of hold the power to hold the key to the vast knowledge that's been
kind of disseminated by public funding what do you think about this carlin
yeah i think that you know it's kind of been discussed in the DSA space quite a bit,
how the publishing houses are, you know, the, not a, you know, they make a lot of
private money off of like public knowledge, which I think is very, you know,
not what you would want. And there's really at this point, nothing that I can see that,
you know, people could necessarily, you know, like do to directly take them down other than
like, you know, a sciencewide pack to not publish in nature but
that's just not going to happen um so it's definitely interesting but there's i'm i'm not
necessarily seeing a way to you know overcome the like almighty thumb of the publishing houses but
what do you think could be a way to sort of overcome that, Kehoe?
Yeah, I think this has been a bigger problem. I think the best way is to go to, I think the step should be taken by scientists
because they are finally making the decision on where this collective knowledge
that they have accumulated throughout a period of time
has to go public on.
And if they choose to do it on a public site,
which gives them, you know,
which is giving open access to readers or general public.
And I think scientists should choose that over any sort of you know highly
reputed or highly you know pay walled sites so i think the first step has to come from scientists
by asking these questions you know like what am i Like, you know, this is a public funded project.
And if this knowledge has to go public and help my peers to really develop this field,
then I need to really make it public so that everyone can read it without any sort of restrictions.
So I think this should first start from the publishing scientist.
And then the next is the scientific community as a whole has to think, you know, has to create that affirmation.
Okay, publishing in such open source journals or open spaces or public spaces where it is you know
accessible for the general public is a norm because a norm is something that is socially
accepted or socially you know this is sort of read between lines or a hidden accepted rule right
so something becomes a norm once a lot of people starts to follow it and a lot
of people starts to recognize it so i think this could be the first step and we have bunch of
examples we have archives we have the bio archive as a publishing platform and we have a bunch of open source platforms.
And we also have research hub, which is more sort of a web three decentralized platform where you could go publish your scientific literature and make it more accessible for the general public.
and make it more accessible for the general public.
So I think, yeah, there are ways,
but the first step has to start with scientists.
And if that is the problem,
if that is the first step, as we think,
what is stopping the scientists from doing so?
Right.
I'm thinking as you're talking,
I'm thinking of, you know,
once, you know, in an ideal world where everything is open source and publicly available to anybody that would want to access it.
Now I'm thinking, you know, like, what would we need to do to incentivize like the public, the general public to actually read these things that are being, you know, published by these more
open sources.
Because I feel like the problem right now is that, you know, there's plenty of pretty
great articles that are, you know, on these like preprint servers and this, like you said,
research hub, but people maybe aren't necessarily engaging.
And, you know, if they are engaging, maybe they aren't necessarily able to understand
what they're reading or why it matters. So I'm like, is there maybe a way we can incentivize
people reading these, you know, these publicly available articles? Because, I mean, other than like a peer reviewer, you know, who would have to read it, I think that if these, you know, publications are truly creating information that increase, you know, the public's ability to, you know, learn and know things about our biology, then, you know, I think that we should try.
Connection was also. know i think that we should try oh connection was a little
oh can you guys
sorry i couldn't i couldn't hear you uh the last part
Yeah, sorry, what was the last thing you heard me say?
yeah all right where it was the last thing you heard me say
You were saying about...
Can you hear me?
Is it my connection?
Hello?
Hello?
Hello? hello hi check check
you okay it did you can hear me all right all right thanks guys thanks for the sign uh i think we lost carlin yeah we lost carlin he's coming back
all right so until until carlin comes back he was uh asking something that is very interesting
how do we incentivize um you know public or general people who would you know read these
scientific material that's getting disseminated in the forum and this would then really you know read these scientific material that's getting disseminated in the forum and this would
then really you know help researchers go and publish on these you know open uh sites or
open source pages but then i think uh the important question is who is you know uh
the important question is who is you know uh who's the target reader i think for any scientific
publication if you guys go and see it it's very academically written and i think the the target
audience here is a scientist who would then be able to make judgments and and conclusions and
and you know sort of sense from the data
that's been disseminated in these scientific publications.
So I think it's just, again, like, you know, the question is coming back to the scientific
community to really make that step to, you know, improve that deadlock that we are stuck
in, in this publication or the publishing thing
carlin are you back i'm back yo yo can you hear me okay yeah i can hear you now
sorry about that folks university wi-fi it's always hit or miss mostly miss
um so yeah i think as as i was saying before i was so rudely cut off is that we need this sort of like
incentive structure and as you were as I hopped back in Kehoe I was thinking of you know also
this issue that we've seen I don't know if you've seen it, but I've seen, you know, especially since like COVID and stuff, people who can access these, you know, articles, maybe taking results out of context or, you know, coming to a different conclusion than the actual article.
Or, you know, maybe the article was published in a rush. And so it's making some claims that necessarily that it doesn't necessarily support with its own evidence, but people, you know, read the headline or something.
And they take that as what the what the article can mean, or that such and such is a, you know,
cancer accelerant or something like that. And I'm thinking, is there maybe a way we could incentivize scientists then to do sort of the, you know, the more, let's say like technical,
the more like article as we know them, the, you know, figure figures one through seven with
supplemental figures, you know, one through six. And then also an open source version that is a little bit more, maybe not tailored to the public, but in a way, the conclusions are clearly drawn a little bit maybe incentivizing people to lock in on a less complex understanding of the biological mechanisms that we all have to live with.
I think that's also be one of the key missions of decentralized science which
is to take science to you know everyone's every home's doorstep sort of you know to
everyone's daily feed because this has been a real issue because people get excited about netflix series uh things that really you know
keeps their dopamine uh pumping all the time and this is one of the biggest issues of this
attention economy that people cannot uh you know stay on something more than 10 seconds
or even five seconds so the entire algorithm is working towards that but
if you look at science which is out of a way like this is a as a big investment that you have made
and it's sort of kind of shaping the world that we live in in terms of the physical world also in terms of health uh the gadgets that we use the
devices that we use the tools and you know the drugs that we consume and all of that so it's
some way or the other way touched by science right um so i'm thinking the mission of dsai is also to
you know make this knowledge more accessible but also more you know uh fancily
packed you know give it a nice uh fancy package so that people are uh interested and also you know
incentivized to uh read and comment on on those scientific findings i think we should have more uh science communicators
who could translate that heavy tech heavy scientific language into something that is more digestible
by common people right because then you don't have to like really consume a lot consume a lot of information uh from every angle
but then you could just then go inside and pick those topics that really interest you either it
is related to your health or any any daily questions that you have in terms of you know
how should i do this how should i eat this what does it do to my health right so i think it's all about uh how you
present information i think the the other side of the world or or the digital world is uh these
tiktok influencers and the media uh people you know they are they're quite uh handy in doing that
They're quite handy in doing that.
Now our goal is to, you know, bridge those gaps, bringing those influencers, bringing
those people who actively speak science and make this new hybrid version of people who
could do both, you know, talk science more sensationally, but also sticking to that point,
know talk science more sensationally but also sticking to that point you know being truthful
being you know completely honest on the claims and and the sort of statements that we make
so i think this is something that dsai needs a lot of people to come in and help and i think ai
also is going to do a lot of push in this uh if you guys now go on twitter uh like basically
in x and and check like your feed out of first 10 feeds you will find one feed that is a health feed
that's gonna say okay how how should i uh something saying like this right like okay do you know this is killing you silently
you know this one habit is killing you silently or this one ingredient and then if you go then
then they talk about health and all of that because we are all genuinely interested and
you know interested about health that affects us right so in this way i think if we package scientific
literature in a way and that too valuable scientific literature which is not just one
paper that is getting published but then a culmination of knowledge out of 10 different
papers which is then curated by an e-air agent and then it gets presented to someone's you know a personalized feed on what they are
actively sourcing or actively viewing right so i think this needs a lot of push from dsai as an
ecosystem because we just keep talking about you know funding giving access to people and all of
that but the real part of the dsai movement is getting people engaged with the scientific
process because people uh generally like me uh common people like we generally lose sight
of you know what's happening in science because we just think it's it's some mad scientist
working in a lab with white lab coat uh doing bunch of stuff with beakers and stuff we don't know what's going
on there right like it's a it's a black box for most of us we really don't know where it happens
we just think it happens in some labs but then we don't know what is going on there we just see
those surface level uh new inventions which is getting hyped uh in news media or in like, you know, big media. So I think these sort of small scale science communicators,
media influencers, a wave of these media influencers
should come to really take Desai to the next stage.
Your thoughts, Karlin?
Definitely.
I mean, influencing is like at an all time high across social media.
And, you know, why shouldn't they be doing the same for, you know, something as important
as science?
As we're talking about this, I'm thinking of like, maybe this is a segment we'll start
Maybe this is a segment we'll start doing as our agent idea of the week. And so maybe we have a specific influencer agent that maybe has the explain to me like I'm five sort of built in prompt or something like that to break things down to a level that whatever people as influencers know that their target audiences and
doing as our agent idea of the week.
like who watches what they're doing the most, they're able to then like break down the most
important points quickly from that or something like that. But you know, because you know, like
AI is great at scraping through data. And you know, why couldn't they do specific paper searches each
and every day or week for specific topics and then deliver those to
the influencer that is sort of the like expert or you know want to be expert in that specific field
i think that'd be pretty cool
yeah i think uh it's it's definitely uh part of the uh entire agentic future that we are talking about right like a
bunch of agents doing bunch of tasks I recently listened to a TED talk from I forgot the name of
this guy he was he was called as the godfather of AI so he's an academician who who kind of worked in the ai
development for a long time and still is working he said right now all these ai tools the llms
and all of that that we have created lacks one thing which is agency right which humans have like planning and all of that
we have agency uh but the ai don't have an agency right now but then once you give that to an ai
with the kind of capabilities that they have it's gonna be um you know yeah i i I really can't really explain the world how it's gonna be
once AI tools or AI agents will have their own agency deciding what they want
to do with themselves they're there to wipe us out of this planet right so
that's that's their decision maybe it's for the best right exactly but but yeah it's for the best
of course like best of the best for the planet right yeah looking at all all the statistics it
just implies that we are the the real virus in this planet but then i wanna i wanna see it from
more of an anthropocentric view uh hoping that we are the center of the universe and all of that.
From that view, if you think of that, he also gives a solution because now the current AI is basically all the agentic systems and all of that is built primarily based on, you know, venture driven agencies, right?
Like be it open AI or perplexity and all of that.
So they have an interest to please the user to, you know, it can also fake information.
It can do any sort of things to please you.
And they have some vested interest behind the codes of what the AI has to do, right?
behind the codes of right what the air has to do right but then if we create something like a
scientist ai which is just there to do things for good okay it has no user pleasing habit or anything
it just is there to do good you know it's gonna do what is good uh not for the planet but for the
humans but for like you know understanding the human emotions
and all of that so he proposed the science agent and he also like well described uh the way how
it's gonna help us protect us from all those evil ai agents that's gonna come up so i think
we are entering yeah we are entering a phase of uh science fiction to science like all these science fiction turning
into real sometime soon I would say two years stop we'll get to see all of this happening
and it's accelerating way faster than we expected as i said it's like we it's like we
discovered fire for the first time we it could destroy us it could make us tools so we really
don't know how to handle this right now we are trying our best so hope we have uh you know, all these god rails being built by the government and by people so that, you know, it doesn't go south.
Yeah, you think about fire and I'm sure people, you know, the first people to discover it were hurt by their source of heat at first.
So I think maybe it's a, we're in our, like, you got to break a few eggs
to make an omelet scenario. So, you know, in, you know, the coming years, we'll make some,
definitely mistakes will be made, but we'll learn from those and, you know, be able to hopefully
create the ideal fair agent that is not going to turn against us and upload all the versions of like
martial arts to its uh systems uh yeah i think i think that there's a lot of good good use cases
for the ai agents um but i think it's it's all part of the code right like uh code is the law
um and we need to be like really careful in in what sort of uh privileges that we grant
these air agents because um we are basically giving them agency to to do like complete
agency over a certain task right imagine this ai that
we discussed one that's gonna take scientific feeds to uh people um you know what if if it if
it says something that's not true and someone like really believes and tries it and yeah like something happens to that right so the bunch of uh ifs a lot of ifs that we
need to really solve um to get there but then yeah like steering back to the the question of
publication uh right so you you briefly touched about the incentives uh yeah you know and i circled it back again like
uh passing the the ring the the batter to you uh it is all uh up to the scientific community
right like because primarily scientific community is again consuming that knowledge
community is again consuming that knowledge because an academic publication is not meant for
a general public to read it was for an academic person to really read and make sense of those
information right otherwise i would write a a story like an article somewhere yeah one page
or something like that one page or something right like on a web page, right? So then I think it's all up to the scientific community
to really make the decision
on what's going to be the accepted standards
and what are the primary goals
that a publication should really protect and really ensure like in terms open
sourcing it so that everyone gets access and gets you know hands on these interesting protocols and
can build on top of that if you look physics as a field specifically astrophysics it's a very small
field and a niche field where
people are really open about what sort of new findings that they make like you know new star
invented or or a new image that's been taken up by the telescope they are they're working basically
on the open source uh sorry open science so it's kind of yeah it's it's it's moving way faster
So it's kind of, yeah, it's moving way faster than it could be.
But if you look at biological sciences, we have been dragged.
We have been dragged by this one big problem that biologists or researchers in life sciences are not ready to share their precious protocols and all those experimental nitty gritty details.
The question is, how can we get this out?
How can we get this information out?
I'm not talking about anything that is private funded
because once you get in private investment,
then there is a vested interest to multiply that investment.
So sure, I'm not forcing people to really publish a public publicize their work that
that's been private funded but then if something is getting funded by public money like grants and
you know grants that is coming from nih or nhs or these central agencies uh i think it should be a
mandate that you should publish it on an open source uh or like an open access uh journal what do you think
yeah i think that that would be a good idea um how exactly are you envisioning that working
i think it should be a mandate it should be a mandate that coming that comes along with the
money once you get the money almost like a the contract itself kind of establishes that by agreeing to use this funding, you're agreeing to that it's now available in an open source form. that's the rational approach, right? Once you put money into something,
then the rational approach is to, you know,
to have access to that.
And I would want to have that.
Even if I read it or not read it, it's fine.
But I want this to be open.
Open for humans to read.
Yeah, and I guess that maybe the issue that would arise then if that were to be the case would be that sometimes money that you receive for one project might end up getting
used for a different project and so i guess that that does a solid for the public in that it ensures
that you know what their fund, what they,
their public funding is going towards is what it says it's going towards. But I think in a way it
hampers the, um, the scientists because a lot of the time research doesn't go the way that you
initially plan when you like first submit a grant, change you realize that results um weren't where
she thought they were going to be or that you know there's a new exciting avenue that you want
to go down and so maybe adjusting grants themselves to be a little bit more um open-ended
on the on the front end so that people so that you know uh the research teams themselves don't feel boxed in by what they initially set out to do.
And they also don't have the pressure of delivering on a project that was never going to work in the first place.
Which I think as we do more of this open stuff, I'm hypothesizing what happened less and less
because the more open things are,
the more, you know, negative data is provided, the more proper methods are published, the more,
you know, good, you know, repeatable science can be done. You know, there's less
failed premises from the start, I would hypothesize.
Yeah, I think open science is definitely a positive sum game.
You don't have to really work on things again and again.
It saves a lot of resources.
Imagine you had your perfect co-IP protocol from the papers that you referred.
You didn't have to really go search and try a couple of methods before you figured out what works for you.
Or at least it could reduce that kind of resource loss.
And the answering your question, you wanted to,
you thought it would then put scientists in a box
to, you know, answer only those particular questions,
not to be really open and all of that.
I think the question could be open-ended of that I think the the question could be
open-ended you know the grant question could be open-ended but then the only clause is that
make sure whatever getting published is published in an open access journal where yeah exactly
that's the only clause I think if you would add that clause to the any any public grants that's going
out i think that's enough that's that's well and good uh you would solve at least one of those
uh publication problems but then like it has deeper problems as well yeah what if you're the
the private you know a private funder that wants to come in on a project that has produced some like exciting public results and you are like, I was going to invest in that, but now everything's already
going to be public. I don't have any, you know, cards up my sleeve with this project.
I would say starting from that point forth, whatever comes out, it can be private, right?
But until that point which is
getting funded by the public money it should be public that's the most
rational yeah yeah it doesn't make sense right so yeah my my thing is that like
we need to really keep it open not being very idealistic here uh but then i think it it should be the
case i think this will also help uh as i said reduce a lot of uh resource laws and replication
crisis um and uh yeah what i think it's it's it's the best possible step next step that we should take because if you look
deeply the pop the problem that this publication creates within the the hierarchy of science or the
the functioning of scientific process is it creates this publish or perish model right
i got it on a mug in my in my office exactly if you don't publish you are not a
scientist anymore you you're just gone out of the system right but this pressure if you if you look
deeper is coming from that funding agency which is setting a criteria a kpi a metric to measure
the funding right like let's say if i funded 100k grant i want to see six papers or seven publications coming out
of that research that i funded so they said that pressure and then that pressure trickles down to
everyone in that scientific group right from the uh the principal investigator or the professor
to the postdocs to the doctoral students to the graduates and undergraduates so this is how the pressure
trickles down uh for so that everyone is in the race to just publish publish publish rather than
doing science that really matters i think one good publication coming out of one phd project
should be enough i think whatever you whatever you could say in that, you know,
or two, maximum, if you have more findings,
right? Like, I think one is enough.
One is plenty.
Yes, exactly. With all that's involved
in writing a publication, one
should be plenty, I think. Exactly.
So, I think
everything, so there are two
ways to solve this. One,
a top-down approach, a mandate coming out
from the top, which is funding the grant agencies.
And then the other is the scientific community,
as we, as a community, could take that step
in choosing to publish in these sort of alternative journals
like Research Hub or BioArchive
or any sort of open access journals.
Yeah, so as we're talking about this, what's maybe one way we could try to support these, you know,
existing DSI adjacent, more open, smaller publishing units?
What do you think we can do to, like more get more people to check it out you know
engage with these with these alternatives it's matter of uh onboarding uh key
scientists to the platform to make it more uh a norm because if if more you know, the sort of higher league scientists or professors
coming in and publishing their papers in these sort of alternative journals, I think then
that will create a norm that, okay, this is fine.
Yeah, we can also publish here, right?
I think this step has to be taken from top
down like bottom-up is really hard it's it's not gonna happen it's it's
faster yeah it's faster if you know people you know like legendary
scientists could come in and publish their one of their publications here
that would really create that push attracting a lot of people to to come and publish there yeah
it's a great idea yeah so this this is one of the i think like uh in dsai publishing is one
of the key problems and uh it's an endless issue like this could once we fix that uh problem right
like i would imagine having something like a github for life sciences you know cool where you
can keep some of your protocols private some of your code private uh shared with peer groups who
really either are your collaborators or your peers or someone who's a sponsor who paid you
Then I can share and the rest I can keep it public kind of show
You know what sort of things that I have invented I think yeah Google Scholar is you know
It's it's not doing it
It's not enough the the ice code the whatever scores that
you use to uh you know track the metrics the citation the impact factor and all of that
is not even you know it's all like fabricated dude like it's all made up made up yeah yeah
real value comes when people start to use it. I think GitHub is a very good example that I would like to see something like a GitHub for science because GitHub is very practical.
It is. And it's super, I don't know, its use case is really broad. So I think that it could encompass a lot of the different realms of science as well yeah yeah so if if any builders out there listening to this podcast if
you guys want to build the next github for life sciences please reach out a
couple investors you got a couple investors right here exactly all right uh i think that's a very traditional office hour that we did uh digging more into the
the issues of trad sci absolutely yeah we're always down to talk talk mess about trad sci
yes you know big up d sci but be real you know about it at the same time so yes yeah so always great to talk to
you kiho same here man i think setting up the tune uh and the tone for the uh audience right like we
we would not generally a lot of speak a lot of uh hyped stuff here because the idea is to be
more self-critical and then question the methods and question the real issues within DSA and also within TradSci.
Also sometimes beyond science, something that appeals to the general public.
So this is going to be the tone, right?
Like we are also, we are always going to talk about stuff that's very basic, fundamental, but is problematic.
We are always going to talk about stuff that's very basic, fundamental, but is problematic.
So there's going to be very less hype stuff.
Or if you are looking for which token, when token or which coins going up and down or what is the next cool project that I invest into.
This is not the place as of now.
But in future, if you guys want'll bring a couple we'll bring a couple
of cool projects exactly but uh you know the norm is we're we're trying to look at ways to make
things better than they already are not not saying that we've hit the goal yet because we really
haven't you know so let's keep pushing desai and let's all keep pushing ourselves to, you know, put out the best possible, you know, materials that we possibly can.
Awesome. Yeah. Well put. All right. With this, I would like to close the session. If there is any questions from the audience, please come up, request to speak.
come up request to speak i'll and we have vexa here we have kelly we have jeff we have axel
moona um anyone who wants to speak this is your time uh just request for speaking i'll let you
guys up uh yeah yeah and if you don't feel like speaking or, you know, want to drop some other comments or suggestions for what we should talk about next, you know, just comment those below with the little comment sign and, you know, add us.
us i'm at andre bio 16 and we'll happily answer some questions or you know talk about whatever
you want us to talk about in the next session yep okay it seems like there's no uh questions
so we all learned everything we needed to this week, I think. Awesome. Yeah, thanks for tuning in again.
Oh, we have a request.
Is it a request?
Dexa, what's up, girl? I think she didn't come up.
It says connecting on mine, but yeah yeah i'm not able to hear her yeah i can wait i can wait a couple of minutes for her to come say hi yeah a regular
attendee and she is a dsai maxi max absolute maxi this is if you're looking on
what to be who to be like in the space look to vexa she is crushing it yes hosting a space like
every day how you doing vex great to see you hello carleen hello um it's been a long time like i'm not listening to you guys on the team a couple weeks we missed you
i missed you guys too so i'm happy i'm happy i got here i wasn't like really listening
but i heard about research and yeah i hosted a space and we talked about tokenization of research work. I hosted Dira.
So I think we'd love to know, like we'd love to get to have more.
We need more IRL events, but we need to take this side message
to people who actually need it.
Like, yeah, the students, doctors, the medical students
in schools, the science students,
we need to take it to them.
Because most of them, they don't really
work on research topics that are quite hard.
They just work on easy ones that will just get them grades.
Most of them just want to go to the university
and then look for something else to do.
But if they actually know
that they would get rewarded for their research work,
I think they'll do more groundbreaking researches.
So I just wanted to say hi to everybody,
Kijo, Kaleen, the Molecule team,
and I just want to say I missed you guys
and I've been on your YouTube channel
and it's been amazing
you guys should keep putting out content
there because I really love listening to the podcast
thank you so much
thank you
thanks for coming
beautiful
alright
we are top of the hour and thanks everyone for joining.
Sorry, I have a question. Please, Moleku, when is the cohort starting the Desai Edu cohorts?
Soon. Soon. We are kind of prepping up for the next cohort.
We are just collecting a bunch of, you know,
like looking back at the feedback that we received for the cohort one.
So we are working on it.
We are improving our course modules.
And then, yeah, it's going to be a big cohort.
That's what I could say.
And a very big cohort. That's what I could say. And a very big cohort.
we're going to focus more
globally, everywhere.
Africa,
APAC, LATAM,
Northern Hemisphere,
Western Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, wherever.
Even to Antarctica.
So, let's see.
Ooh, I like that.
Should we get a competition going to see which region
can get the most people excited
about the next DSI EDU?
I think we should do it.
I think we should do it.
Let's do it.
Let's do it. Awesome.
So, answer to your question, Vexa,
very soon.
I can't wait. I'm already
excited.
Yeah.
See you on the course.
Yep.
All right, guys. Thanks everyone for joining
tomorrow's
DCI Hours. And we'll
have our next office hours
and our regular office hours
on Monday every week.
5 p.m. C.A.D.
So stay tuned.
Bye.
Adios, everybody.
Thank you so much for listening.
Thank you so much.
Bye.
Bye-bye.
