Laboratory Head in Biomedical Data Science Job in Melbourne VIC - SEEK Lead a biomedical data science lab, secure funding, publish research and collaborate globally to drive impactful cardiometabolic outcomes.

We are recruiting a PI in biomedical data science at @bakerresearchau.bsky.social in Melbourne!

A fantastic opportunity and do get in touch if any q's! www.seek.com.au/job/91619982...

When you use AI to do your writing, you are telling your audience: “I deserve your attention, but you do not deserve my effort.”

I believe the frame that minoritized scholars are helped by unethical tech is a trap to avoid. We better fight the system of inequities ourselves & not buy into industry frames trying to sell their discriminatory, polluting, and exploitative tech as "inclusion".

bsky.app/profile/iris...

Refusal to Review I wrote the below email, when invited to review a paper that was partially processed by ChatGPT. As I imagine the email could be useful inspiration for others, I decided to make it available. Feel …

“Feel free to adapt and reuse. No attribution needed (…) If you make an adaption that you also want to share, I’d love to know about it, too.”

irisvanrooijcogsci.com/2026/04/08/r...

Friday was my last day at NHGRI. After 10 wonderful years, my lab is headed to Johns Hopkins University
genomeinformatics.github.io/movingday/

Budding infectious disease modellers:

We're running our intermediate-level infectious disease modelling short courses at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Each course is 4 days, and we're running them over the first two weeks of September.

I don’t think guidance on rewrites impacts you if you’re developing something new… in that case these guidelines don’t apply… but they do lay out how you might expect the community to treat the thing that you develop.

Yep all responsibility falls on the person using AI. Which is why best practice guidance etc is useful, to expose to people what the issues are that they should be considering.

Hmm so that’s an issue about ensuring credit and attritibution. But once you publish the package it will be open source?

But I agree with @bioturbonick.net and think many ppl enter this space with no understanding of how these programs are deployed or the implications for broader software ecosystem (& all that rests on it) could use some guidance and what matters, how to have impact vs efforts being labelled slop, etc

I agree with @lpachter.bsky.social that we should be welcoming people who want to enhance (and ideally, more meaningfully, develop) bioinf software and AI assist can be a positive here if lowering barriers to entry for actual humans.

Hmm I’ve not seen any example of that, nor proposal of. Can you point to one? I have not seen anyone proposing academic driven sci software move away from open source code and permissive licensing. To me the Q is how do we keep moving forward in this direction, without AI interference ruining it.

In all fairness this straying a million miles from what rewrites.bio is doing

In case anyone thought “Nature” Scientific Reports was still a legit journal…

👍 I don’t think changing approach to licensing is needed or helpful. 👶🏻🛁
But setting out principles of what is and isn’t good practice (at least in academic circles) is helpful, so overall I think the rewrites.io effort is good (noting it’s a starting point for an important convo, not an end).

Oops typo, I meant someone else puts out kallisto vX, ie same name rewrite

Absolutely agree
bsky.app/profile/kath...

thinking a lot about this cartoon this week...

WHY DID I AGREE TO THOSE REVIEWS??

Both are fine under the license terms but quite different implications for users, and academic integrity (for those operating in that world which is not all… but how will you grade a student project that is in category 1 rather than 2?)

2) Hey everyone, here’s rullisto v1.0, my super new tool based on implementing methods first developed in callisto… but faster, quicker, and with new features XYZ.

1) Hey everyone, here’s Callisto v10.0 which I got Claude to make last night in rust… (output is basically the same but changes the meaning of a few of the input params and output fields 👋)

Totally legal, not great for the community of users, highly problematic if authors are academics seeking to 📖

With all respect I think you’re talking at cross purposes… rewrites is specifically about, well, rewrites.
And encouraging good practice in this for a functioning open source community that can continue to be open.
Quite different reusing/adapting code, and what’s legal or not.

Excited to share our new paper out today in @science.org 🎉

We show that HGT via natural competence drives diversification of chromosomal integrons in V. cholerae 🤩

Below a 🧵 on key findings incl. background on natural competence in V. cholerae 1/
#microsky #phagesky
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

It’s not paper-worthy… but that will not stop people submitting papers, clogging the journal system, Eds & reviewers will need to notice and care that’s what the paper is actually doing. Result is confusing the literature & user community, taking away cites from actual methods+software developers.

Reviewers! They're just like us!

Also I appreciate the points under “stewardship” but I don’t see any mention of engaging with the creators of the methods/code you are rewriting. If you need to track changes to the original & check/update your rewrite, that suggests the authors are doing useful work that warrants more than copying.

From a totally academic POV here… bioinformatics software papers are not about the software implementation, they are about algorithmic/method development. If you vibe-code a rewrite of someone else’s method, that does not warrant academic publication. Journals, Eds, reviewers need to 👀 for this

Interesting that rewrites.io does not seem to mention anything about “academic integrity”. It seems to imply that it’s 👍 to take an existing bioinformatics method (implemented by the creators in software), have AI re-implement same method in a newer/faster language *and then publish a paper on this*

The way I usually frame this is that while "AI can be incredibly powerful in the hands of experts, it won't make anybody an expert".

It's important to understand the difference and it's why Altman's comment that ChatGPT was like having a "Ph.D. level experts in your pocket" is total hyped nonsense.

Did you know?

🧵 1/3