
Bacterial Genetics and Evolution Lab
1.7K posts

Bacterial Genetics and Evolution Lab
@BalbontinLab
We use forward, reverse and molecular Genetics to study bacterial physiology, interactions, and evolution (including AMR) @unisevilla. Opinions are Roberto's








✅ España se incorpora a @OpenResearch_EU, la plataforma pública de publicación científica en acceso abierto impulsada por la Comisión Europea. 📖 @cienciagob representará a nuestro país en la plataforma a través de la @FECYT_Ciencia. ciencia.gob.es/Noticias/2026/…








@Miriam_Junne El pueblo arabe-palestino sufre por Hamas, no por "sionistas". Cuando dejen de glorificar el martirio y acepten coexistir, quizás exista paz. Pero seguir gritando "jamás perdonaremos" mientras Hamas usa Gaza como base terrorista... qué conveniente narrativa, ¿eh?




🔴 #DIRECTO | El Gobierno rechaza la apuesta de Von der Leyen por la nuclear: "En España se invierte en renovables" dozz.es/l6sc22

🇺🇸🇮🇷 “¿Por qué no capturamos el barco? ¿Podríamos usarlo? Me dijeron que no, que era más divertido hundirlo”. La banalidad del mal en estado puro. Trump se burla de las más de 140 víctimas del IRIS Dena y decenas de periodistas le ríen la gracia. Eran jóvenes cadetes que apenas superaban los 20 años. Regresaban de una feria de exhibición en la India. El buque estaba desarmado. Y a pesar de todo fue hundido sin previo aviso por el torpedo de un submarino de guerra estadounidense. Es un crimen de guerra que solo puede ser contado como un chiste por un psicópata.


For decades, peer review has been treated as the gold standard of scientific validation. Yet many scientists know the reality: the system is far from perfect. Peer review is broken and sometimes even corrupted. The process can be slow, inconsistent, and vulnerable to bias. Reviewers are sometimes asked to judge work outside their true expertise. In other cases, they may be evaluating ideas that challenge the very paradigm in which they were trained. And occasionally, reviewers are simply competitors. Ironically, the most prestigious journals can also be the most conservative. Truly new ideas are often met with skepticism, while safer work that fits the current narrative moves more easily through the system. Increasingly, papers are judged less by the originality of the idea and more by the volume of data, the sophistication of statistics, and the beauty of the figures. Science risks becoming data-rich but idea-poor. But there is an important reality to remember: journals do not ultimately decide the impact of scientific work. Impact is decided later, by the community. By the scientists who read it, test it, debate it, and cite it. In the end, citations and ideas determine the legacy of a paper, not the impact factor of the journal that first published it. Science has always advanced by questioning assumptions. Perhaps it is time we also question the system that filters scientific ideas.


What “Western Civilization” Really Means: Enlightenment, yes; Christianity, not so much. An important reminder from @FukuyamaFrancis open.substack.com/pub/persuasion…















