Ruslan Dmitriev 

#PublicationAlert #FluorescenceTuesday Our paper (see the tweet below) has been published in @LightSciAppl ! Enjoy! rdcu.be/eApyk

@MrEwanMorrison 'Wake up, - time to die' (Blade Runner)

This is not true. PhD students who write with AI are unable to defend their thesis in Viva presentations as they haven't worked through the processes of reading, learning, internalisation & argument formation. Academics need to throw LLMs out, not 'wake up' & accept them.

@OdedRechavi Well, 2 weeks is a bit too much to ask, seems like editors believe that we don't have anything else to do. I normally reply and ask for 4 weeks

Journals: "We need you to work for us for free, but only under our conditions" oh and please send the reviewed manuscript back in less than two weeks, we have a business to run

@MrEwanMorrison Excellent, how could I miss it? If you look at this through Google Scholar, you can also follow the papers citing this (500+ already), some are quite relevant for effects on education

Let's redefine "AI hallucinations" with the less anthropomorphic and more accurate descriptor: "AI bullshit" .

@LuizaJarovsky Fully agree (will join), thanks for summarising

@HorrorGorl exactly

Let it Collapse!!!

#FluorescenceFriday a result of not successful session this morning, second harmonic generation (SHG) image of the collagen I gel, - depending how you look at it - either a dog or some sort of triceratops relative @microscopyUGent #Multiphoton #SHG @FlImagin3_DN

@MrEwanMorrison I also tend to think that nothing comes for free, - you cut the end somewhere then be prepared to pay back on something else

@MrEwanMorrison totally agree, in research the more you think and the slower you do it, deeper you may go. In writing (of e.g. research paper introduction), doing it yourself also pays off. In reading research papers again, no one needs randomly extracted bits&pieces etc. Good things need time

For those who say "AI saves time". Time for what? If it's replacing time spent working in the arts then it's killing the slow intimate process artists love to be immersed within. Time to do what? Time to confront existence? Or to distract yourself with scrolling through slop?

I think often of a tweet I saw that was like "if your kid actually reads books, they're gonna be one of the smartest people in like ten years" arxiv.org/abs/2601.20245

This #FluorescenceFriday I am highlighting our recent article in @JHCnews where we used #FLIM to validate #STED #immunofluorescence & Antibody specificity in localising TIE2 protein in kidney @microscopyUGent : doi.org/10.1369/002215…

@BestMovieMom one of my favorites (if not the top) from this director

Bong Joon-ho designed the creature in The Host (2006) to be physically incompetent. He hated perfect movie monsters and specifically instructed the animators to make the beast trip and slip to make it feel like a mutated biological error.

@FlimLabs hey are you planning to attend Biophysical Society 2026? :)

In #FLIM, the real challenge isn’t hardware — it’s calibration. Reliable #Phasor data depends on it, and that’s why we built a kit to solve this Calibrate with confidence. Measure with precision. 👉 SPIE Photonics West 2026 | Booth #4103 #FLIMPhasors @SPIEtweets

@OdedRechavi precisely :)

Independent research fellows

@BobWeir RIP Bobby, we will miss you dearly

It is with profound sadness that we share the passing of Bobby Weir. We send him off the way he sent so many of us on our way: with a farewell that isn’t an ending, but a blessing.  A reward for a life worth livin'. bobweir.net/bobby/ 📸 Chloe Weir

@DrAllyLouks @justalexoki in my experience as well, they 'review' and then don't do anything. Classical example is the hate speech.

@justalexoki They don’t in a lot of instances, I’m afraid. Even in more severe cases than this.

The thing that concerns me most about this so-called “trend” is the complete inability for the relevant regulators and governing bodies to get a handle on it.

@OdedRechavi Maybe it is just a general decrease of interest in science, I feel that AI/anti-AI sentiment or climate change topics are more popular at the moment, not speaking about "other noise". LinkedIn got a bit better for science but seems to already have reached its peak

Two options: 1. The @X algorithm is just broken 2. The algorithm intentionally ignores scientists (news, tech & entertainment less effected) It’s probably #1. We heard that they were going to fix it (@grok), but this didn’t happen. Exposure to science is down >90%.

@MrEwanMorrison 'improve user experience' they say...

Link: irisvanrooijcogsci.com/2025/08/12/ai-…

Well worth a read: "The AI generated texts on ScienceDirect spread misinformation and pollute the scientific knowledge infrastructure. This harms science, researchers, lecturers, students, and ultimately also the public."

@artisbrutal2021 @MrEwanMorrison yes, unfortunately

@MrEwanMorrison Lol. The scientific community is just waking up to the AI problem?

@arjunrajlab definitely

@PhotoBioLab Better to wait until conditions are more favorable?

Blog post: Just quit Quitting projects in science is hard, but we should be doing a lot more of it. We spend a lot of time as scientists thinking about how to choose a project—and that is, of course, critically important to success. But… no matter how carefully you try to pick out the most groundbreaking, innovative project imaginable, the simple truth is that not every project is going to be awesome. Consequently, just as important as the skill of choosing a project is the skill of knowing when to quit a project. In my view, we should quit far more often than we do, for the simple reason that time is so very precious. Here is possibly the scariest diagram of all time (from Wait but why): That is not a lot of weeks. Each scientific project can take up 2-4 ENTIRE COLUMNS. As mentioned, the success of a project is way more probabilistic than we care to admit. So you have to sample, and that means rejecting many samples. Do not let this precious time go to waste. Sometimes, you just have to quit. Why is it so hard to quit in science? Here are a few top reasons, all of which are based on fear: Fear of the unknown. It’s in many ways easier to keep going with the devil you know. Sunk cost fallacy. Don’t finish bad projects. A project typically takes 2-10x as long to finish as you think (and that’s even when you’ve already factored in the 2-10x). Do you really want to “just tie up a few loose ends” on a crummy project for the additional years required? Falsely estimating the value of future and past time. People often worry about how long a new project will take. Let me tell you, finishing a project you don’t like will usually take way longer than one you do like. Also, time as you become more trained is worth much more than untrained time, especially for graduate students, so don’t waste precious time in the future on ill-spent time in the past. Bad advice. Beware: other people typically value your time far less than you do. That’s not necessarily bad mentoring or anything sinister, just a very human reality. “Sure, do that extra control to kill the project”—sounds reasonable, and maybe it is, but it’s a lot easier to say when it costs very little to whoever says it. Feeling like a quitter. We have been socialized in science to have a certain “stick-to-it-iveness” that I think is often counterproductive. What can you do to make quitting easier? Frame quitting by time, not results. It is practically a mantra in scientific management to say “I don’t care about time, I care about results”, and we pride ourselves on making decisions based on data. The problem is that there’s always “one more experiment” to do to see whether something will (or most likely, will not) work. Why spend time trying to do the experiment to kill a project you hate when you can just… stop working on it? Set a time, perhaps a week or a month or six months in the future, evaluate then based on whether you’re really getting where you imagined, and move on. Do the control you’re scared of. Often, you know the go/no-go experiment you should do, but you put it off because you’re scared of the result. You know what I’m talking about. Just have to do it. Don’t chase wishy-washy results down the rabbit hole. When things work, they work. When they seem to maybe work, they usually don’t actually work. Get some honest external feedback. Find someone that you really trust to give you honest feedback and ask them whether the project is worth pursuing. Sometimes, getting that negative signal from the outside is far more convincing than from your advisor/trainee. Imagine the future of the project. Envision the title/abstract of the paper you imagine writing. Is that something you really want to spend potentially years writing the rest of? Often, people begin with a starter project in the lab, which can have a habit of turning into way more than a starter. If you’re just not that into it, quit. And finally, just listen to that voice in your head. You probably already know you should quit, so just do it. I have quit projects many times in my career—grad school, postdoc, professor—and while the alternative is unknowable, with hindsight, it certainly feels like those were almost invariably the right decisions to make.