Dr Benjamin Sharpe
LightNews LightNews
banner
bsharpenotflat.bsky.social
Dr Benjamin Sharpe
@bsharpenotflat.bsky.social
85 followers 140 following 4 posts
Cancer cell biologist and methods development scientist: organoids, histology, imaging and image analysis. Postdoc at University of Southampton Cancer Sciences with @timfenton10.bsky.social
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Dr Benjamin Sharpe
cellmorphosero.bsky.social
We have a multidisciplinary PhD position on offer, through a BBSRC funded doctoral training program, open to UK and International students at Bath Uni. Microfluidics, microscopy, mechanobiology and epigenetics!
www.findaphd.com/phds/project...
SWBio DTP PhD Project: Mapping the epigenetic landscape in cells under compressive forces at University of Bath on FindAPhD.com
PhD Project - SWBio DTP PhD Project: Mapping the epigenetic landscape in cells under compressive forces at University of Bath, listed on FindAPhD.com
www.findaphd.com
November 19, 2025 at 5:29 AM
Reposted by Dr Benjamin Sharpe
gabrielaughey.bsky.social
Always shocking to see these kinds of data collected together. "[publishers made]US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024" - That's $12 billion diverted away from actual research or materially supporting the community - these are disgusting numbers.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 15d
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/...
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 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.
November 11, 2025 at 1:20 PM
Reposted by Dr Benjamin Sharpe
peiferlabunc.bsky.social
If you're a scientist our journalist writing a piece about Watson and his "complex and nuanced character", you're deliberately ignoring the fact that his views made him one of the most extreme racist and sexist scientific "leaders" of his time.
liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/j...
James Watson in his own words
“Some anti-Semitism is justified” “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them” “Japan should be bombed for d…
liorpachter.wordpress.com
November 8, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Reposted by Dr Benjamin Sharpe
bioimaginguk.bsky.social
🔬 UK Researchers: Up to £5K for bioimaging access now available!

Access state-of-the-art facilities at 6 leading UK sites:
🔬 Francis Crick Institute
🔬 ESRIC Edinburgh
🔬 King's
🔬 Liverpool
🔬 Oxford Brookes
🔬 York

First deadline: 9 Dec 2025 📅
Apply: www.rms.org.uk/user-access-fund

Please re-post!
October 22, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Reposted by Dr Benjamin Sharpe
ijayas.bsky.social
🤖 If you use LinkedIn, please be aware that they automatically use your profile to train their GenAI. To turn off, go to Settings > Data Privacy > Data for Gen AI improvements.
Screenshot of LinkedIn’s menu: “How LinkedIn uses your data”. Near the bottom, is the option to turn off “Data for Generative AI improvement”, shown with a red arrow.
October 11, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Reposted by Dr Benjamin Sharpe
robjohnnoble.bsky.social
Besides the fact that "unfunded" research often yields the greatest breakthroughs and generates necessary preliminary results for "funded" research, this idea is analogous to the FA proposing to cease supporting football outside the Premier League. Chip away at a pyramid and the pinnacle also sinks.
September 12, 2025 at 8:45 AM
Reposted by Dr Benjamin Sharpe
timfenton10.bsky.social
We’re launching @thebacr.bsky.social webinars! Register to attend for free via MS Teams using the QR code below.
thebacr.bsky.social The British Association for Cancer Research @thebacr.bsky.social · Apr 9
Announcing the first BACR Webinar
April 9, 2025 at 8:01 AM