Advertisement · 728 × 90

Posts by Heidi M McBride

Preview
Canada’s research and scientific spending is declining relative to other nations, report says Low rate of R&D investment plays key role in productivity crisis, according to Council of Canadian Academies

Canada’s research and scientific spending is declining relative to other nations, Council of Canadian Academies report says, by @ivansemeniuk.bsky.social www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/scien... via @theglobeandmail.com

5 months ago 19 8 1 1
LRRK2G2019S RAW macrophages show changes in iron homeostasis.

LRRK2G2019S RAW macrophages show changes in iron homeostasis.

Single cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) and flow cytometry show increased neutrophil presence in colonic lamina propria of LRRK2 G2019S mice following infection.

Single cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) and flow cytometry show increased neutrophil presence in colonic lamina propria of LRRK2 G2019S mice following infection.

New CRN Team Desjardins #preprint and #publication!

⬅️ LRRK2(G2019S) disrupts iron balance in macrophages, blocking ferritinophagy under iron overload bit.ly/47VzxvC

➡️ LRRK2(G2019S) mutant mice show stronger gut inflammation post-infection, linking gut immune changes to early PD bit.ly/3LVKlCk

5 months ago 7 1 1 0
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below.

1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.

A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.

A figure detailing the drain on researcher time.

1. The four-fold drain

1.2 Time
The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce,
with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure
1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material
has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs,
grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for
profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time.
The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million
unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of
peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting
widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the
authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many
review demands.
Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of
scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in
‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow
progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to
volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier,
local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with
limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging
with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks
intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.

A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.

A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below:

1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.

A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.

The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised
scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers
first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour
resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

5 months ago 643 453 8 66
Post image

Montreal #mitochondria lovers! Come and join us at the next MitoClub!

5 months ago 17 1 0 0

The Manx pub corner bank and Frank.

5 months ago 1 0 0 0
Post image

CRISPR screen by @mitodynamics.bsky.social & colleagues identifies Mitochondrial anchored protein ligase (MAPL) as a regulator of gasdermin-mediated release of mtDNA from lysosomes, driving pyroptotic cell death; Depletion of MAPL, LRRK2 or VPS35 blocks cell death
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

6 months ago 8 2 0 0

Thanks Marco! It all came from a genome wide Crispr screen so we were surprised too!

6 months ago 1 0 0 0
Post image

Mitochondrial anchored protein ligase (MAPL) induces pyroptosis through an inflammatory pathway involving mitochondria and lysosomes @natcellbio.nature.com
@mitodynamics.bsky.social @mitocollier.bsky.social @mcgilluniversity.bsky.social
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

6 months ago 3 1 0 0
Post image

New paper - MAPL strikes again! Interested in mitochondrial signalling, inflammation, lysosome biology, pyroptosis, and Parkinson's disease? Have a look, there's something for everyone! Feeling grateful! @mitocollier.bsky.social Funded by #CIHR, @asapresearch.parkinsonsroadmap.org.
rdcu.be/eKKz1 🇨🇦

6 months ago 67 22 4 3
Advertisement

Yes! That’s what I was talking about so I agree 100%!

10 months ago 0 0 0 0
JCS poster ‘Mitochondria–membranous organelle contacts at a glance’ 
Antigoni Diokmetzidou, Luca Scorrano

JCS poster ‘Mitochondria–membranous organelle contacts at a glance’ Antigoni Diokmetzidou, Luca Scorrano

Also in this Issue:
- Editorial from Ana Garcia-Saez & @mitodynamics.bsky.social
- Interviews with Tom MacVicar, Samantha Lewis & Heidi McBride
- Mitochondria–membrane contacts poster
- Quality control of un-imported mitochondrial proteins poster
- Mitochondrial cholesterol transport Perspective

11 months ago 4 3 1 0

Thank you to everyone who submitted and reviewed! And to Seema and the editors for making it a seamless experience. Keep sending your work to JCS - it’s a fantastic journal and a science family that cares.

11 months ago 17 3 0 0
Canada’s Role in a Shifting Global Order — with Mark Carney | Prof G Conversations
Canada’s Role in a Shifting Global Order — with Mark Carney | Prof G Conversations YouTube video by The Prof G Pod – Scott Galloway

youtube.com/watch?v=V11q...
The election in Canada is so important. Please give this thoughtful interview a listen before you vote. Canada can provide leadership and vision through this tumultuous period if we put Carney the helm.

1 year ago 4 0 0 0
Preview
a man wearing a canada jersey and a beanie is laughing ALT: a man wearing a canada jersey and a beanie is laughing

So happy to see the swell of science activism today! Never forget the power you have. US innovation is second to none - use it now! We may boo your dear leader but we’ve got your back!

1 year ago 17 1 1 0

Thanks Alex. It is so horrifying to imagine the callous insanity in your White House. I know you all have a lot to deal with but these threats are shaking the foundation for all Canadians, and the world. Stay strong! We shall overcome. We must.

1 year ago 3 1 0 1

Congratulations Anu! Such an important need for this.

1 year ago 2 0 0 0
Advertisement
Post image

In Melbourne for Aussiemit2024! Grateful for the invitation and excited to catch up with the awesome Aussie science.

1 year ago 14 0 0 0
Preview
Recreating a hallmark of Parkinson's disease in human neurons Scientists use stem cells to follow development of protein bodies characteristic of neurological disease Lewy bodies are a hallmark of Parkinson's disease (PD) and other related neurological condition...

www.mcgill.ca/neuro/channe...

My laboratory discovered a mechanism to make Lewy Bodies in dopaminergic neurons. Lewy Bodies are a hallmark of Parkinson's disease. The key? Immune challenge, demonstrating a role for the immune system in Parkinson's

1 year ago 4 2 0 0
Preview
a bald man in a blue suit is making a funny face and pointing at something . ALT: a bald man in a blue suit is making a funny face and pointing at something .

People working on #cancermetabolism, #mitochondrialbiology, #metabolism, please reach out! Share this so I can follow who is here! I will share paper on cancer metabolism, but anything else related to mitochondria and metabolism.

1 year ago 82 42 6 3

Hello! Just migrating over in search of some good science, cell biology, mitochondria, and all things new and exciting.

1 year ago 29 1 0 0