Peter Deak

23 posts

Peter Deak

Peter Deak

@Deak_Lab

Immunoengineer and Assistant Professor at Drexel University Chemical and Bioengineering Department We work on poking Dendritic Cells with chemistry!

Philadelphia, PA Katılım Kasım 2022
6 Takip Edilen4 Takipçiler
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@slavov_n I have a hard time taking your skepticism of this paper at face value, as these trends favor groups like yours. In an absence of an alternative hypothesis of the data, I believe an interpretation that aligns with my own experience and understanding of human behavior
English
0
0
0
19
Prof. Nikolai Slavov
Confounds are hard to fully rule out with the covariates available. When such results are presented in a prominent way, I wonder to what extent they influence readers. Can we adequately account for the caveats ?
English
1
0
5
741
Prof. Nikolai Slavov
Interesting associations, but they need to be interpreted with caution. All evidence is observational and trends are correlational — "significant disadvantage" for certain author groups or topics reflects associations after controlling for measured variables. 1/
Prof. Nikolai Slavov tweet media
English
1
4
20
6.6K
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@CathyTie Just because an IRB gave approval doesn't mean it is moral. Scientists doing this work should study moral philosophy. What does it mean to be human? If that question isn't carefully considered, this work is tremendously dangerous.
English
1
0
4
442
Cathy Tie
Cathy Tie@CathyTie·
IRB approval secured. Origin Genomics begins human embryo gene editing experiments in the NYC lab.
English
20
12
152
24.5K
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@drugmonkeyblog Interesting analysis. I think the NOT is calculating total available $ not # of RPG and assuming an average total award size of $675k per year to calculate total RPGs. I wonder if they threw in contract awards and SBIRs and just forgot to mention that.
English
1
0
0
115
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@chorye While not tenure everywhere, yes I agree two r01s is not unusual but having a cap of 3 is reasonable
English
0
0
0
82
Emma J Chory
Emma J Chory@chorye·
@Deak_Lab True, but 2 R01s is not a megalab, it's a minimum tenure requirement.
English
1
0
1
123
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@anshulkundaje @hsalis @viriditax Wholeheartedly agree with most of these. Especially the larger more flexible grants. The problem as always is how to implement these goals and overcome the scientific cultural inertia
English
1
0
1
25
Anshul Kundaje
Anshul Kundaje@anshulkundaje·
@Deak_Lab @hsalis @viriditax - Teaching, training, outreach should be rewarded. - Reproducible, re-usable open science should be rewarded a lot more. - Restructure & revamp publicly funded data silos to drastically focus on and improve data re-use.
English
1
0
1
243
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@hsalis @anshulkundaje @viriditax Some data would be helpful. And to be clear, the NIH is asking for opinions, not arbitrarily making a cap decision. But if an appropriate analysis justifies a cap at say 3, why do you need to trust the NIH? Trust the data. Administrations change. We need to work the problem
English
1
0
0
57
Howard Salis
Howard Salis@hsalis·
@anshulkundaje @Deak_Lab @viriditax The economist approach would measure the marginal increase in research productivity for a marginal increase in funding / FTEs Does the 21st FTE in a large lab equally contribute to pubs, patents, etc as much as the 20th? But I don't trust *this* NIH to properly cap anything.
English
2
0
1
106
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@anshulkundaje You should read the post from the nih. They are asking if 2 3 or 4 is a cap. I agree 2 is not enough for some labs. I voted for 3. And if you feel this pressure, maybe reconsider if you have to do that type of work? It sounds stressful
English
2
0
3
313
Anshul Kundaje
Anshul Kundaje@anshulkundaje·
@Deak_Lab Am in favor of setting reasonable ceilings (with options to appeal in exceptional cases). 2 grants is not a viable ceiling in any universe. Y not eliminate funding allocated to publication costs completely. Wud save billions! Y not incentivize collab. grants across states / labs?
English
1
0
0
342
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@viriditax @anshulkundaje This doesn't set a lab size. You can always get non NIH funding. Have a co advised lab with two PIs. Get fellowships. Collaborate with industry. There are lots of options. We are not owed NIH funding.
English
1
0
0
59
oddgoo
oddgoo@viriditax·
@Deak_Lab @anshulkundaje why would we want to set a cap or standard lab size in any field of research? some topics or capabilities are best addressed by teams of 5, some by teams of 30+, and the more they can collaborate the better
English
1
1
4
456
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@chorye This is one reasonable concern that I have as well. The cap should have grace periods allowing for controlled contractions to protect students. However I do not think a contraction of a mega-lab is an objectively bad thing.
English
1
0
0
167
Emma J Chory
Emma J Chory@chorye·
I get it, but you think the solution is for well established mid career faculty with productive research groups to just all of a sudden layoff 75% of their team? This would kill collabs, R03/R21s, & core grants. Selling it as equitable reallocation is just another way to make destruction of science seem more palatable.
English
1
0
2
467
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@anshulkundaje I am not claiming all labs must be 5 members, but asking if we need to have such large labs. Small labs can do a lot. Collaboration can help. Can you effectively manage 10 people? I know i wouldn't want to
English
2
0
2
354
Anshul Kundaje
Anshul Kundaje@anshulkundaje·
@Deak_Lab Just do the math with the numbers I provided and see whether we could even support 4 people with 2 R01s. Are you seriously claiming that all academic labs should be restricted to have upto only 5 lab members? What is the scale of science that is feasible with such constraints?
English
1
0
2
513
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@drugmonkeyblog It is a soft incentive to encourage domestic collaborations. No money comes without strings. But no one is forcing anyone to take the NIH's money.
English
1
0
0
23
Drug Monkey
Drug Monkey@drugmonkeyblog·
@Deak_Lab Perhaps you missed the part where this applies to collaborations in which no NIH funds go to the foreign partner?
English
1
0
1
48
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@3DiMMUNE If the disease score is lower clearly the regulatory subsets are doing their jobs and this is a worthy translational approach
English
0
0
0
98
David Usharauli
David Usharauli@3DiMMUNE·
An increase in Foxp3+ Tregs is not sufficient evidence, since other T cell subsets may also expand. A Treg-specific readout requires tracking MOG-specific, Foxp3-deficient donor cells in an antigen-irrelevant TCR-transgenic host. #science #immunology biorxiv.org/content/10.648…
David Usharauli tweet mediaDavid Usharauli tweet media
English
1
4
20
2.1K
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@silvirouskin Put on your postdoc hat and do the experiments yourself! If you see someone coming with administrative duties, just run away
English
1
0
1
114
Katayoun Ayasoufi
Katayoun Ayasoufi@KAyasoufi·
What do you do when all three grant reviewers say the project is highly innovative and significant but they give you just enough of a bad score in approach to tank the whole grant and you only have until the end of the year to survive?
English
4
2
20
10.8K
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@JustinPerryPhD @Nature @NIH That is the state of science. But the people with multiple r01s are on the standing members. Still be grateful. I see multiple foundation awards, a dp2, multiple fellowships for students...I could easily run my whole lab on just a dp2.
English
1
0
0
629
Justin Perry - Perry Lab
Justin Perry - Perry Lab@JustinPerryPhD·
Step 1: spend startup etc to make new mice, develop new tools, etc Step 2: submit for R01 (x2) - ND & non-funded Step 3: publish paper in @Nature Step 4: get prestigious Foundation grant (more soon!) Step 5: submit similar grant, but as @NIH R01. Result? Not discussed 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️
Justin Perry - Perry Lab tweet media
English
12
3
43
13.6K
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
@silvirouskin Technically 300k to 475k in direct costs per year. I would prefer more awards and less direct costs personally. I could easily make due with 300k per year to run my lab.
English
0
0
1
844
Silvi Rouskin
Silvi Rouskin@silvirouskin·
I just found out that the DP2 award is now double the money then what it was two years ago when I got it 😭🤯. I mean it’s GREAT to support young scientists and high risk high reward research , perfect job NIH! But also: where do I file a grievance for emotional damages and missed millions, asking for a very underfunded friend 👀.
English
3
0
37
10.6K
Peter Deak
Peter Deak@Deak_Lab·
HIV virion capturing liposomes for therapeutic vaccination - ScienceDirect Our study on virus targeted adjuvants is out in Biomaterials. This strategy allows for therapeutic vaccination without knowledge of viral antigens, has potential for immune evasive infections, like HIV
English
1
0
0
245