Cathy Abbott
LightNews LightNews
banner
cathyabbott.bsky.social
Cathy Abbott
@cathyabbott.bsky.social
4.4K followers 1.9K following 680 posts
Professor, eEF1A2/neurological disorders. Mostly talks about research, EDI (tries hard to be a good ally) but sometimes veers off into crafts and photos of Scotland. She/her, views own.
Posts Replies Media Videos
cathyabbott.bsky.social
Execllent meeting yesterday. Highlighted the pretty dsimal stats for progression for women academic staff but countered with a fantastic engagement session (I am barely visible above the monitor ☺️) and really superb talk from Omer @bayraktarlab.bsky.social
edinunineuro.bsky.social Edinburgh Neuroscience @edinunineuro.bsky.social · 8h
Another great EN-PM: ECR flash talks, public engagement, and a thought-provoking key note from Omar Ali Bayraktar @bayraktarlab.bsky.social (@sangerinstitute.bsky.social), ‘Mapping the rules of human brain disorders with multi-omics: lessons from autism and glioblastoma.’
February 13, 2026 at 11:47 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
edinunineuro.bsky.social
It's international day of women & girls in science. Whilst there's lots to celebrate, there remains much work to do to increase representation of women in science. At our event on Thurs, we'll reflect on barriers to career progression and the lack of parity at senior levels.
#WomenInScience
February 11, 2026 at 12:55 PM
cathyabbott.bsky.social
Even aside from the immediate issues around this specific vaccine, imagine the chilling effect this will have on R&D in future. What drug company is going to take this level of financial risk, only to be undone by some sort of pathological political lunancy?
enirenberg.bsky.social Edward Nirenberg @enirenberg.bsky.social · 2d
It is absolutely outrageous that Moderna’s flu vaccine was met with a “refusal-to-file” even after their approved their protocol with FDA and carried out the trial as agreed. This vaccine works better in older adults than the current flu vaccines.

apnews.com/article/mode...
Moderna says FDA refuses its application for new mRNA flu vaccine
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is refusing to consider Moderna’s application for a new flu vaccine made with mRNA technology.
apnews.com
February 11, 2026 at 1:05 PM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
adorrego.bsky.social
The International Day of Women and Girls in Science is definitely one to celebrate. We have come a long way, and the future is bright and hopeful. But to get there, we need to keep acknowledging the systemic biases that sadly still exist nowadays 👇🏻
February 11, 2026 at 10:00 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
scurry.bsky.social
A year of inaction: why has the Royal Society allowed itself to be hollowed out by Elon Musk? occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2026/...
A year of inaction: why has the Royal Society allowed itself to be hollowed out by Elon Musk? | Reciprocal Space
occamstypewriter.org
February 11, 2026 at 8:21 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
sejordt.bsky.social
#neuroskyence #neurosci #PainResearch 🧪💊

By @physoc.bsky.social

A brilliant scientist and leader has left us. I taught about Dr. Dolphin's work on calcium channels and gabapentin in our pharmacology curriculum.

Remembering Annette Dolphin (1951 – 2026)
Annette Dolphin (1951 - 2026)
The Society is deeply saddened to share the news that Annette Dolphin, our former President, died early on the morning of 26 January 2026.
www.physoc.org
February 5, 2026 at 7:43 PM
cathyabbott.bsky.social
I know it's not really funny but there's something irresistable about this 😀

(assuming they do stick to their own preprint servers, of course)
February 6, 2026 at 1:22 PM
cathyabbott.bsky.social
So now we have it- not only the reduction from 12-13 to 3 grants from each board recommended for funding but the budget for applicant-led research to be reduced from £200 million to £113 million per year. This is appalling, Especially given all that is happening with medical research in the US.
February 6, 2026 at 10:04 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
eicathomefinn.bsky.social
'The report, by Katharine Hubbard, director of learning enhancement and academic practice at Buckinghamshire New University, calls for “systemic change” in the Teaching Excellence Framework “to provide clear focus on racial equity and representation”.' 1/2
February 5, 2026 at 12:41 PM
cathyabbott.bsky.social
I just finished reading this fantastic, refelective piece of advice on doing a PhD by Constantinos. I usually read these things thinking "yes, but..." but this is absolutely spot on- please share! 👍
@sidb-edinburgh.bsky.social @edinunineuro.bsky.social
celefthe.bsky.social Constantinos Eleftheriou @celefthe.bsky.social · 10d
It's been a couple of years now since I finished my PhD at the @sidb-edinburgh.bsky.social ... and looking back at the experience, I think most of the things I learned had little to do with neuroscience.

I list a few of them in my latest blog post at celefthe.com/blog/2026/a-...
February 5, 2026 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
dozenoaks.bsky.social
The peer reviewed and updated version of this work is now online (although not quite the fully formatted version). We had an existential crisis about kinesin-1 regulation while developing this work, but we are super proud of everything we put into this project. www.cell.com/iscience/ful...
February 4, 2026 at 10:14 AM
cathyabbott.bsky.social
Fantastically thoughtful and reflective analysis of UKRI direction of travel from Kirsty...
kirstygrainger.bsky.social Kirsty Grainger @kirstygrainger.bsky.social · 9d
Some thoughts on the select committee appearance by the boss of UKRI, Ian Chapman yesterday. It’s a long watch but can be seen here: parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/...
Thread 🧵
Parliamentlive.tv
Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
parliamentlive.tv
February 4, 2026 at 12:30 PM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
eicathomefinn.bsky.social
'to treat peer review as a throughput problem is to misunderstand what is at stake. Review is not simply a production stage in the research pipeline; it is one of the few remaining spaces where the scientific community talks to itself.' 1/3
AI is not a peer, so it can’t do peer review
If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines, says Akhil Bhardwaj
www.timeshighereducation.com
February 3, 2026 at 8:17 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
yorkbioimaging.bsky.social
Unleashing live-cell imaging for the masses!
Adapting the OpenFlexure Microscope for Affordable Live-Cell Imaging www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
Fits into existing incubators for time-lapse experiments & feeds into existing bioimaging analysis pipelines.
Thanks @wellcometrust.bsky.social funding
image of the OpenFlexure Microscope on the left. On the right, our adapted live-cell imaging openflexure microscope with cradle to negate vibrations inside an existing incubator
February 3, 2026 at 2:49 PM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
robinsall.bsky.social
I think Ian Chapman's focus throughout this process has been excessively PI-centred and ignores early career researchers and training.
A big funding pause doesn't cause them to worry about their jobs. It causes them to lose their jobs. And to be unable to get new ones. Their careers will be ended.
robinbisson.bsky.social Robin Bisson @robinbisson.bsky.social · 10d
"I realise that this causes upset, it causes uncertainty, it actually causes people to actually worry about their jobs"

"It’s my organisations fault for that, we have not managed that process well enough"
February 3, 2026 at 11:36 AM
cathyabbott.bsky.social
Hands up who understands the difference between a cost reduction and a budget cut (at least in this context)??
robinbisson.bsky.social Robin Bisson @robinbisson.bsky.social · 10d
Given that STFC's executive chair Michele Dougherty said that the council will be "ceasing or reducing investments in many of the projects that STFC currently supports", that sounds like cuts

Chapman clarified: "we’re having to make cost reductions, it’s not a cut in budget"
February 3, 2026 at 11:51 AM
cathyabbott.bsky.social
Oh great
chrishavergal.bsky.social Chris Havergal @chrishavergal.bsky.social · 11d
Further cuts to UK science initiatives will be announced in the next few months, UK Research and Innovation’s chief executive has warned, adding that there are “tough decisions” ahead for the funding agency www.timeshighereducation.com/news/more-to... via @jgro-the.bsky.social
More ‘tough decisions’ on science spending ahead, warns UKRI head
Further funding cuts will be announced in coming months after STFC savings and research council funding pauses, says Ian Chapman
www.timeshighereducation.com
February 2, 2026 at 12:53 PM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
kirstygrainger.bsky.social
Some initial reactions to the 'published on a Sunday afternoon' letter from the CEO of UKRI. 🧵

www.ukri.org/news/open-le...
February 1, 2026 at 6:38 PM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
dozenoaks.bsky.social
And now it's obvious why our research leaders aren't speaking up, they are protected. From Liz Kendall’s speech last night - "I’m delighted to announce that the MRC Lab for Molecular Biology, in Cambridge…will receive 10-years of guaranteed funding."

www.gov.uk/government/s...
January 30, 2026 at 2:05 PM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
robinbisson.bsky.social
The MRC has asked each of its grant review boards to recommend no more than 3 applications for funding, RPN has heard from multiple sources

Normally, boards recommend an average of 12-13 bids, so the success rate this year will be tiny

This affects applicant-led calls which closed in 2025...
January 30, 2026 at 7:59 AM
cathyabbott.bsky.social
🎉🎉🌋
January 30, 2026 at 10:37 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
robinbisson.bsky.social
...UKRI's line is that "a
period of transition is underway, and some existing arrangements are under review"

But some are clearly worried. The head of research at a Russell Group university’s biomedical sciences unit said the apparent drop in applicant-led funding was "of grave concern"...
January 28, 2026 at 8:56 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
kirstygrainger.bsky.social
Raised at work, they're ditching the Give to Gain campaign, using the UNWomen's theme instead 💪

Outrageous a corporate with no apparent link to the UN International Women's Day is unilaterally deciding a theme, promoting it, creating resources for people to buy and as far as I can see cashing in.
kirstygrainger.bsky.social Kirsty Grainger @kirstygrainger.bsky.social · 18d
I posted about #IWD2026

Bluesky peeps taught me the corporate '.com' site is bull****, unconnected to the UN or feminist movement, they unilaterally decide a theme (different to the UNWomen's campaign)

www.unwomen.org/en/news-stor...

www.kcl.ac.uk/internationa...

Avoid the Give to Gain campaign
January 27, 2026 at 8:09 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
laurencepearl.bsky.social
This is my father’s first cousin Zalman Smolevic who was murdered in Auschwitz along with >40 other members of our family. His parents survived, and were reunited after the war.
January 27, 2026 at 8:40 AM
Reposted by Cathy Abbott
robinince.bsky.social
When I was a freelance BBC science presenter, I wrote in support of Professor Dorothy Bishop and was then told I should not be critical of the Royal Society. Now I’ve resigned, so I can say I think @profrachelgan.bsky.social is making an important point here.
profrachelgan.bsky.social Prof Rachel Oliver @profrachelgan.bsky.social · Jan 12
Following coverage over the weekend of Sir Paul Nurse's comments that suggested that the only reason that a Fellow should be expelled from @royalsociety.org is scientific misconduct, I have written to him to explain the risks such an attitude poses of increasing sexual harassment in STEM.
Dear Sir Paul, Re: Royal Society Code of Conduct I am sure that many scientists have written to you about the specific question of Elon Musk’s Fellowship and whether, under the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct, his retaining that Fellowship is appropriate. I will not rehash these issues. Instead, as a female scientist with extensive experience of activities aiming to increase equality, diversity and inclusion in the engineering and physical sciences sector, I am writing to you (in a personal capacity) to ask you to reconsider the statements you have recently made in this context to the UK press about the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct and how it is applied. A 2018 report from the joint National Academies of the United States of America, concluded that “sexual harassment is common in academic science, engineering, and medicine” and that “greater than 50 percent of women faculty and staff and 20–50 percent of women students encounter or experience sexually harassing conduct in academia”. This report described codes of conduct that make clear that sexual harassment is unethical and will not be tolerated as a “powerful incentive for change”. The authors also noted that sexual harassment can have significant and damaging effects on the integrity of research. In my own praxis, I have found that clear and consistently-implemented codes of conduct that address these issues make female scientists and engineers safer, and allow them to focus more effectively on their research. For codes of conduct to have such a positive effect, it is vital that sanctions for actions which transgress the code are meaningful and substantial. I was hence aghast to realise that in an interview with the Financial Times published on 9/1/26, you appear to have suggested that the Royal Society “should only expel fellows if their science proved “faulty or fraudulent or highly defective””. Moreover, in a further interview with the Guardian on 11/1/26 you suggested that the code “may need to be looked at again”, with the implication that your aim would be to remove the option of sanctions on Fellows for reasons not strictly related to faults or defects in their research. I suggest that changing the Royal Society’s code of conduct so that the likelihood of serious sanctions for sexual harassment is reduced, would directly endanger women who interact with the Royal Society at events or otherwise, and would provide a licence to harass to the already powerful people on whom the Society bestows fellowship. The implications of your words - that under your leadership the only infringements of the code which are likely to receive the sanction of the Fellowship being removed are those related to research misconduct - already risk empowering harassers. You stated, in the Financial Times interview, that “there’s many bad people around, but they have made scientific advances”. Given this awareness of the possibility of bad actors in our scientific community, it is wholly irresponsible to suggest that the Royal Society would not act to sanction these people if they harass more vulnerable scientists. I am hence writing to request that you retract any suggestion that the Society’s Code of Conduct should be changed so that the only reason a Fellow might be sanctioned by the removal of their Fellowship is “faulty or fraudulent or highly defective” research. This action is necessary to safeguard female scientists, a requirement placed on the Society by safeguarding legislation and UK statutory guidance. Yours sincerely, Professor Rachel A. Oliver.
January 14, 2026 at 9:19 AM