Replace Peer Review with “Peer Replication”

October 13, 2021 at 1:35 pm | | literature, science and the public, science community, scientific integrity

As I’ve posted before and many others have noted, there is a serious problem with lack of adequate replication in many fields of science. The current peer review process is a dreadful combination of being both very fallible and also a huge hurdle to communicating important science.

Instead of waiting for a few experts in the field to read and apply their stamp of approval to a manuscript, the real test of a paper should be the ability to reproduce its findings in the real world. (As Andy York has pointed out, the best test of a new method is not a peer reviewing your paper, but a peer actually using your technique.) But almost no published papers are subsequently replicated by independent labs, because there is very little incentive for anyone to spend time and resources testing an already published finding. That is precisely the opposite of how science should ideally operate.

Let’s Replace Traditional Peer Review with “Peer Replication”

Instead of sending out a manuscript to anonymous referees to read and review, preprints should be sent to other labs to actually replicate the findings. Once the key findings are replicated, the manuscript would be accepted and published.

(Of course, as many of us do with preprints, authors can solicit comments from colleagues and revise a manuscript based on that feedback. The difference is that editors would neither seek such feedback nor require revisions.)

Along with the original data, the results of the attempted replication would be presented, for example as a table that includes which reagents/techniques were identical. The more parameters that are different between the original experiment and the replication, the more robust the ultimate finding if the referees get similar results.

A purely hypothetical example of the findings after referees attempt to replicate. Of course in reality, my results would always have green checkmarks.


What incentive would any professor have to volunteer their time (or their trainees’ time) to try to reproduce someone else’s experiment? Simple: credit. Traditional peer review requires a lot of time and effort to do well, but with zero reward except a warm fuzzy feeling (if that). For papers published after peer replication, the names of researchers who undertook the replication work will be included in the published paper (on a separate line). Unlike peer review, the referees will actually receive compensation for their work in the form of citations and another paper to include on their CV.

Why would authors be willing to have their precious findings put through the wringer of real-world replication? First and foremost, because most scientists value finding truth, and would love to show that their findings hold up even after rigorous testing. Secondly, the process should actually be more rewarding than traditional peer review, which puts a huge burden on the authors to perform additional experiments and defend their work against armchair reviewers. Peer replication turns the process on its head: the referees would do the work of defending the manuscript’s findings.

Feasible Experiments

There are serious impediments to actually reproducing a lot of findings that use seriously advanced scientific techniques or require long times or a lot of resources (e.g. mouse work). It will be the job of editors—in collaboration with the authors and referees—to determine the set of experiments that will be undertaken, balancing rigor and feasibility. Of course, this might leave some of the most complex experiments unreplicated, but then it would be up to the readers to decide for themselves how to judge the paper as a whole.

What if all the experiments in the paper are too complicated to replicate? Then you can submit to JOOT.

Ancillary Benefits

Peer replication transforms the adversarial process of peer review into a cooperation among colleagues to seek the truth. Another set of eyes and brains on an experiment could introduce additional controls or alternative experimental approaches that would bolster the original finding.

This approach also encourages sharing experimental procedures among labs in a manner that can foster future collaborations, inspire novel approaches, and train students and postdocs in a wider range of techniques. Too often, valuable hands-on knowledge is sequestered in individual labs; peer replication would offer an avenue to disseminate those skills.

Peer replication would reduce fraud. Often, the other authors on an ultimately retracted paper only later discover that their coworker fabricated data. It would be nearly impossible for a researcher to pass off fabricated data or manipulated images as real if other researchers actually attempt to reproduce the experimental results. 

Potential Problems

One serious problem with peer replication is the additional time it may take between submission and ultimate publication. On the other hand, it often takes many months to go through the traditional peer review process, and replicating experiments may not actually add any time in many cases. Still this could be mitigated by authors submitting segments of stories as they go. Instead of waiting until the entire manuscript is polished, authors or editors could start arranging replications while the manuscript is still in preparation. Ideally, there would even be a  journal-blind mechanism (like ReviewCommons) to arrange reproducing these piecewise findings.

Another problem is what to do when the replications fail. There would still need to be a judgement call as to whether the failed replication is essential to the manuscript and/or if the attempt at replication was adequately undertaken. Going a second round at attempting a replication may be warranted, but editors would have to be wary of just repeating until something works and then stopping. Pre-registering the replication plan could help with that. Also, including details of the failed replications in the published paper would be a must.

Finally, there would still be the problem of authors “shopping” their manuscript. If the replications fail and the manuscript is rejected, the authors could simply submit to another journal. I think the rejected papers would need to be archived in some fashion to maintain transparency and accountability. This would also allow some mechanism for the peer replicators to get credit for their efforts.

Summary of Roles:

  • Editor:
    • Screen submissions and reject manuscripts with obviously flawed science, experiments not worth replicating, essential controls missing, or seriously boring results.
    • Find appropriate referees.
    • With authors and referees, collaboratively decide which experiments the referees should attempt to replicate and how.
    • Ultimately conclude, in consultation with referees, whether the findings in the papers are sufficiently reproducible to warrant full publication.
  • Authors:
    • Write the manuscript, seek feedback (e.g. via bioRxiv), and make revisions before submitting to the journal.
    • Assist referees with experimental design, reagents, and even access to personnel or specialized equipment if necessary.
  • Referees:
    • Faithfully attempt to reproduce the experimental results core to the manuscript.
    • Optional: Perform any necessary additional experiments or controls to close any substantial flaws in the work.
    • Collate results.
  • Readers:
    • Read the published paper and decide for themselves if the evidence supports the claims, with the confidence that the key experiments have been independently replicated by another lab.
    • Cite reproducible science.

How to Get Started

While it would be great if a journal like eLife simply piloted a peer replication pathway, I don’t think we can wait for Big Publication to initiate the shift away from traditional peer review. Maybe the quickest route would be for an organization like Review Commons to organize a trial of this new approach. They could identify some good candidates from bioRxiv and, with the authors, recruit referees to undertake the replications. Then the entire package could be shopped to journals.

I suspect that once scientists see peer replication in print, it will be hard to take seriously papers vetted only by peer review. Better science will outcompete unreproduced findings.

(Thanks Arthur Charles-Orszag for the fruitful discussions!)

Nobel predictions over the years

October 6, 2021 at 1:16 pm | | nobel

2008 Tsien (predicted 2008)

2010 Suzuki & Heck (predicted among others in 2010)

2012 Kobilka (among my 6 predictions in 2012)

2013 Higgs (among my 2 predictions in 2013)

2014 Moerner (among my 3 predictions in 2013); Betzig & Hell (predicted among others in 2010)

2018 Allison (predicted in 2018)

2019 Goodenough (predicted 2019)

2020 Doudna & Charpentier (predicted 2020)

2021 Nobel Prize Predictions

September 16, 2021 at 8:07 am | | nobel

Medicine: Adenovirus vector vaccines

Medicine (alternate): A second Nobel Prize for Ivermectin ;)

Chemistry: Katalin Karikó, Drew Weissman, Ugur Sahin, Özlem Türeci, & Robert Malone, for developing mRNA & liposome vaccine technology.

Peace: Mike Pence, for following his oath of office and standing up to pressure and physical threats to carry out his Constitutional duties on January 6.

2020 Nobel prize predictions

September 20, 2020 at 4:11 pm | | nobel

CRISPR: Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Francisco Mojica, Virginijus Siksnys EDIT: Announcement.

(This year, I’m only predicting the chemistry prize.)

avoiding bias by blinding

July 3, 2020 at 11:15 am | | literature, scientific integrity

Key components of the scientific process are: controls, avoiding bias, and replication. Most scientists are great at controls, but without the other two, we’re simply not doing science.

The lack independent samples (and thus improper inflation of n) and the failure to blind experiments are too common. The implications of these mistakes, especially when combined in one study, mean that many published cell biology results are likely artifact. Generating large datasets, even with a slight bias, can quickly yield “significant” results out of noise. For example, see the “NHST is unsuitable for large datasets” section of:

Szucs D, Ioannidis JPA. When Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Is Unsuitable for Research: A ReassessmentFront Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:390.

Now combine these common false positives with the inclination to publish flashy results, and we’ve made a recipe for unreliable scientific literature.

I do not condemn authors for these problems. Most of us have made one or all of these mistakes. I have. And I probably will again in the future. Science is hard. There is no shame in making honest mistakes. But we can all strive to be better (see my last section).

Failing to perform the data collection blinded

Blinding is just basic scientific rigor, and skipping this should be considered almost as bad as skipping controls.

Blinding samples during data collection and analysis is ideal. For data collection, it is usually as simple as having a labmate put tape over labels on your samples and label them with a dummy index. Insist that your coworker writes down the key, so later you can decode the dummy index back to the true sample information.

In cases where true blinding is impractical, the selection of cells to image/collect should be randomized (e.g. set random coordinates for the microscope stage) or otherwise designed to avoid bias (e.g. selecting cells using transmitted light if fluorescence the readout).

Failing to perform the data analysis blinded

Blinding during data analysis is generally very practical, even when the original data was not collected in a bias-free fashion. Ideally, image analysis would be done entirely by algorithms and computers, but often the most practical and effective approach is old-fashioned human eye. Ensuring your manual analysis isn’t biased is usually as simple as scrambling the image filenames.

I stumbled upon these ImageJ macros for randomizing and derandomizing image filenames, written by Martin Höhne:

More recently, Christophe Leterrier directed me to Steve Royle‘s macro, which works very well:

There are probably some excellent solution using Python. Regardless of the approach you take, I would highly recommend copying all the data to a new folder before you perform any filename changes. Then test the program forward and backwards to confirm everything works as expected. Maybe perform analysis in batches, so in case something goes awry, you don’t lose all that work.

My “blind and dumb” experiment

There are many stories about unintended bias leading to false conclusions. Here’s mine: I was testing to see whether a drug treatment inhibited cells from crawling through a porous barrier by counting the number of cells that made it through the barrier to an adjacent well.

My partner in crime had labeled the samples with dummy indices, so I didn’t know which wells were treated and which were control. But I immediately could tell that there were more cells in one set of wells, so I presumed those were the control set. Fortunately, I had taken the extra precaution of randomizing the stage positions, so I didn’t let my bias alter the data collection. We then blinded the analysis by relabeling the microscopy images. I manually counted all the cells in each image.

We then unblinded the samples. At first, we were disappointed that the wells I had assumed were control turned out to be treated. Then we looked at the results. SURPRISE! My snap judgement at the beginning of the experiment had been precisely backwards: the wells I thought looked like they had sparser cells actually had significantly more on average. So it turned out that the drug treatment had indeed worked. Thankfully, I didn’t rely on my snap judgement nor allow that bias to influence the results.

Treating each cell as an n in the statistical analysis

This error plagues the majority of cell biology papers. Go scan a recent issue of your favorite journal and count the number of papers that have minuscule P values; invariably, the authors aggregated all the cell measurements from multiple experiments and calculated the t-test or ANOVA based on those dozens or hundreds of measurements. This is a fatal error.

It is patently absurd to consider neighboring cells in the same dish all treated simultaneously with the same drug as independent tests of a hypothesis.

If your neighbor told you that he ate a banana peal and it reversed his balding, you might be a little skeptical. If he further explained that he measured 1000 of his hair follicles before and after eating a banana peel and measured a P < 0.05 difference in growth rate, would you be convinced? Maybe it was just a fluke or noise that his hairs started growing faster. You would want him to repeat the experiment a few times (maybe even with different people) before you started believing.

Similarly, there are many reasons two dishes of cells might be different. To start believing that a treatment is truly effective, we all understand that we should repeat the experiment a few times and get similar results. Counting each cell measurement as the sample size n all but guarantees a small—but meaningless—P value.

Observe how dramatically different scenarios (on the right) yield the same plot and P value when you assume each cell is a separate n (on the left):

Elegant solutions include “hierarchical” or “nested” or “mixed effect” statistics. A simple approach is to separately pool the cell-level data from each experiment, then compare experiment-level means (n the case above, the n for each condition would be 3, not 300). For more details, please read my previous blog post or our paper:

Lord SJ, Velle KB, Mullins RD, Fritz-Laylin LK. SuperPlots: Communicating reproducibility and variability in cell biology. J Cell Biol. 2020;219(6):e202001064.

How do we fix this?

Professors need to teach their trainees the very basics about how to design experiments (see Stan Lazic’s book: Experimental Design for Laboratory Biologists) and perform analysis (see Mike Whitlock and Dolph Schluter’s book: The Analysis of Biological Data). PIs need to provide researchers with the tools to blind their experiments or otherwise remove bias. They need to ask for multiple biological replicates and correctly calculated P values. This does not require advanced understanding of statistics, just the basic understanding of the importance of repeating an experiment multiple times to ensure an observation is real.

Editors and referees need to demand correct data analysis. While asking researchers to redo an experiment isn’t really acceptable, requiring a reanalysis of the data after blinding or recalculating P values based on biological replicates seems fair. Editors should not even send manuscripts to referees if the above errors are not corrected or at least addressed in some fashion. Editors can offer the simple solutions listed above.

UPDATE: Also read my proposal to replace peer review with peer “replication.”

unbelievably small P values?

November 18, 2019 at 9:56 am | | literature, scientific integrity

Check out our newest preprint at arXiv:

If your P value looks too good to be true, it probably is: Communicating reproducibility and variability in cell biology

Lord, S. J.; Velle, K. B.; Mullins, R. D.; Fritz-Laylin, L. K. arXiv 2019, 1911.03509.

UPDATE: Now published in JCB:

I’ve noticed a promising trend away from bar graphs in the cell biology literature. That’s great, because reporting simply the average and SD or SEM or an entire dataset conceals a lot of information. So it’s nice to see column scatter, beeswarm, violin, and other plots that show the distribution of the data.

But a concerning outcome of this trend is that, when authors decide to plot every measurement or every cell as a separate datapoint, it seems to trick people into thinking that each cell is an independent sample. Clearly, two cells in the same flask treated with a drug are not independent tests of whether the drug works: there are many reasons the cells in that particular flask might be different from those in other flasks. To really test a hypothesis that the drug influences the cells, one must repeat the drug treatment multiple times and check if the observed effect happens repeatably.

I scanned the latest issues of popular cell biology journals and found that over half the papers counted each cell as a separate N and calculated P values and SEM using that inflated count.

Notice that bar graphs—and even beeswarm plots—fail to capture the sample-to-sample variability in the data. This can have huge consequences: in C, the data is really random, but counting each cell as its own independent sample results in minuscule error bars and a laughably small P value.

But that’s not to say the the variability cell-to-cell is unimportant! The fact that some cells in a flask react dramatically to a treatment and others carry on just fine might have very important implications in an actual body.

So we proposed “SuperPlots,” which superimpose sample-to-sample summary data on top of the cell-level distribution. This is a simple way to convey both variability of the underlying data and the repeatability of the experiment. It doesn’t really require any complicated plotting or programming skills. On the simplest level, you can simply paste two (or more!) plots in Illustrator and overlay them. Play around with colors and transparency to make it visually appealing, and you’re done! (We also give a tutorial on how we made the plots above in Graphpad Prism.)

Let me know what you think!

UPDATE: We simplified the figure:

Figure 1. Drastically different experimental outcomes can result in the same plots and statistics unless experiment-to-experiment variability is considered. (A) Problematic plots treat N as the number of cells, resulting in tiny error bars and P values. These plots also conceal any systematic run- to-run error, mixing it with cell-to-cell variability. To illustrate this, we simulated three different scenarios that all have identical underlying cell-level values but are clustered differently by experiment: (B) shows highly repeatable, unclustered data, (C) shows day-to-day variability, but a consistent trend in each experiment, and (D) is dominated by one random run. Note that the plots in (A) that treat each cell as its own N fail to distinguish the three scenarios, claiming a significant difference after drug treatment, even when the experiments are not actually repeatable. To correct that, “SuperPlots” superimpose summary statistics from biological replicates consisting of independent experiments on top of data from all cells, and P values were calculated using an N of three, not 300. In this case, the cell-level values were separately pooled for each biological replicate and the mean calculated for each pool; those three means were then used to calculate the average (horizontal bar), standard error of the mean (error bars), and P value. While the dot plots in the “OK” column ensure that the P values are calculated correctly, they still fail to convey the experiment-to-experiment differences. In the SuperPlots, each biological replicate is color-coded: the averages from one experimental run are yellow dots, another independent experiment is represented by gray triangles, and a third experiment is shown as blue squares. This helps convey whether the trend is observed within each experimental run, as well as for the dataset as a whole. The beeswarm SuperPlots in the rightmost column represent each cell with a dot that is color coded according to the biological replicate it came from. The P values represent an unpaired two-tailed t-test (A) and a paired two-tailed t-test for (B-D). For tutorials on making SuperPlots in Prism, R, Python, and Excel, see the supporting information.

2019 Nobel prize prediction

October 2, 2019 at 2:19 pm | | nobel

OK, it’s Nobel season again, and time for my annual blog post. (Quite literally this year, unfortunately.)

Chemistry: Lithium-ion batteries (John Goodenough) EDIT: Yay! Finally!

Medicine: DNA fingerprinting and blotting (Edwin Southern, Alec Jefferys, George Stark, Harry Towbin)

Physics: Two-photon microscopy (Watt Webb, Winfried Denk, Jim Strickler)

Last year, I correctly predicted Jim Allison. And I think I have to stop predicting Vale/Sheetz/Spudich, or my posts will look like copy-pastes. With the lawsuits in apparent stand-still, maybe this is the year for CRISPR, but I think the committee will wait a few more years until treatments come out of clinical trials.

Many sites are predicting metal-organic frameworks winning, namely Omar Yaghi. Maybe. Yaghi won the Wolf prize in 2018. And a Nobel for this work would put a spotlight on carbon capture and catalysis that might help fight global warming. But since no wide-scale efforts have actually been made to capture carbon or produce alternative fuels, I doubt MOFs will win.

The other climate-change related chemistry prize could conceivably be battery technology, especially John Goodenough, for the development of the lithium-ion battery. Given that he is 97, this would be the year to award it. Given that Alfred Nobel intended his prize to go to those who convey the “greatest benefit on mankind,” I think batteries would be fitting. (Note that I also thought it would be fitting back in 2016. I never learn.)

Another perennial prediction is DNA blotting and fingerprinting. In 2014, I predicted Southern, Jefferys, and Burnette. I’m repeating the prediction again this year. Southern and Jefferys won the Lasker award way back in 2005, and their techniques are widely used in the lab and in forensics. I’m tweaking my prediction to include Towbin, who more accurately invented Western blotting (although Neal Burnette was a genius at naming). I think these techniques have proved themselves invaluable to so many medical researchers, it would be a shame to not recognize their originators. (I acknowledge that the Nobel committee will not award this to 4 people. But I don’t know who to leave out.)

Another technique ubiquitous in biomedical imaging is two-photon microscopy. While super-resolution imaging won a few years ago, I think it would be OK to recognize the central importance of microscopy in many fields of science. By offering the capability to image deep into tissues and even live organisms, two-photon microscopy has given researchers amazing views of what would otherwise be unseeable. It is a powerful and popular technique that clearly should be recognized.

Well, that’s it for 2019. I’ve made many predictions in the past, which you can browse here.

2018 nobel prize predictions

September 20, 2018 at 2:01 pm | | nobel

It’s approaching Nobel season again, and here are my predictions:

Chemistry: Cytoskeletal motor proteins (Ron Vale, Mike Sheetz, Jim Spudich)

Medicine: T-cell and cancer immunotherapy (Jim Allison, Stephen Rosenberg, Philippa Marrack)

Physics: Dark matter (Sandra Faber, Margaret Geller, Jerry Ostriker, Helen Quinn)

I know I’ve made this prediction before, but I think it’s high time that the discovery of kinesin and early observations of single myosin activity is recognized by the Nobel committee. UPDATE: Darn. Wrong again. Phage display and protein engineering by directed evolution. Cool!

In 2016, I predicted T-cell receptor, but in the meantime cancer immunotherapy has continued to grow, so I’m tweaking the predicted winners a little. I’m not naive enough to think that we’re on the cusp of curing cancer, but it’s the first time that I thought it might be possible to—someday—conquer the disease. UPDATE: I got 1/2 of the prize correct.

Unfortunately, Vera Rubin was never awarded a Nobel Prize, but the committee could honor her memory by awarding some other deserving astrophysicists with the prize this year. UPDATE: Nope. It went to laser tweezers and ultrafast laser pulses. Interesting: these are reminiscent of some late-90s awards to Zewail and Chu.


My past predictions: I’ve made (partially) correct predictions in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2017. Other predictions ended up coming to fruition in subsequent years, such as gravitational waves, super-resolution and single-molecule microscopy,

Citation Laureates

C&E News


ChemistryViews voting



update on Nikon objective immersion oils

August 30, 2018 at 8:41 am | | everyday science, hardware, review

A few years ago, I compared different immersion oils. I concluded that Nikon A was the best for routine fluorescence because: (A) it had low autofluorescence, (B) it didn’t smell, (C) it was low viscosity, and (D) the small plastic dropper bottles allowed for easy and clean application.

Unfortunately, my two favorites, Nikon A and NF, were both discontinued. The oil Nikon replaced these with is called F. But I don’t love this oil for a few reasons. First, it’s fairly stinky. Not offensive, but I still don’t want my microscopes smelling if I can help it. Second, I’ve heard complaints from others that Nikon F can have microbubbles (or maybe crystals?) in the oil, making image quality worse. Finally, dried F oil hardens over time, and can form a lacquer unless it is cleaned off surfaces very well. That said, F does have very low fluorescence, so that’s a good thing.

I explored some alternatives. Cargille LDF has the same optical properties as Nikon F (index of refraction = 1.518 and Abbe Ve = 41). But LDF smells terrible. I refuse to have my microscope room smell like that! Cargille HF doesn’t smell and has similar optical properties, but HF is autofluorescent at 488 and 405 nm excitation, so it adds significant background and isn’t usable for sensitive imaging.

At the recommendation of Kari in the UCSF microscopy core (and Caroline Mrejen at Olympus), I tried Olympus Type F, which also has an index of refraction of 1.518 and an Abbe number of 40.8, which is compatible with Nikon. The Olympus oil had very low autofluorescence, on par with Nikon A, NF, and F. (I also tested low-fluorescence oils Leica F and Zeiss 518F, but their dispersion numbers are higher (Ve = 45-46), which can cause chromatic aberration and may interfere with Perfect Focus.)

I used to love the low viscosity of Nikon A (150 cSt), because it allowed faster settling after the stage moved and was less likely to cause Perfect Focus cycling due to mechanical coupling to thin or light samples, plus it was easier to apply and clean. Nikon NF was higher viscosity (800 cSt). Olympus F is higher than Nikon A (450 cSt), but acceptable.

Finally, Olympus F comes is an easy to use applicator bottle: instead of a glass rod that can drip down the side of the vial if you’re not careful, the Olympus F is in a plastic bottle with a dropper. It’s not quite as nice as the 8 cc dropper bottles that Nikon A used to come in, and I don’t love the capping mechanism on the Olympus F, but I’ll survive.

I plan to finish up our last bottle of Nikon A, then switch over to Olympus F. We also have a couple bottles of Nikon NF remaining, which I will save for 37C work (the higher viscosity is useful at higher temperatures).


Some people claim that type A was simply renamed type N. I don’t think that’s true. First of all, I couldn’t get Perfect Focus on our Ti2 to work with Nikon type N oil. Second, the autofluorescence of Nikon type N (right) was way higher than Olympus type F (left) or the old Nikon type A, at least at 405 and 488 nm:

So I’ll stick with Olympus type F. :)


Here are some example images. These are excited with 640 (red), 561 (red), 488 (green), and 405 nm (blue) and the display ranges are the same for each sample. (The dots are single fluorophores on the glass.) You can see that Cargille HF is slightly more autofluorescent (especially at 405 nm) than either the old Nikon A or Olympus type F. This matches what Cargille states for HF: “Slightly more fluorescent than Type LDF.”

Belkin Conserve Switch is great for scopes

February 23, 2018 at 10:47 am | | hardware, review

I thought I’d pass along one of my favorite tips: I have several of these Belkin Conserve Switch power strips in lab. I use them to turn on a scope and all its peripherals with a flip of one single switch!

You can set one switch to power multiple strips. It’s so much better than flipping on each piece of equipment (and inevitably forgetting one)! You just need to check with the equipment manufacturer if it’s safe to power on/off the item by basically unplugging it.

2017 nobel prize predictions

September 20, 2017 at 10:14 am | | nobel

It’s approaching Nobel season again, and here are my predictions:

Chemistry: CRISPR (Doudna, Charpentier, Zhang) [awarded in 2020]

Medicine: Unfolded protein response (Walter, Mori)

Physics: Gravitational waves (Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, Ronald Drever, or maybe Barry Barish and the entire LIGO collaboration)

Last year, I think the detection gravitational waves happened a little too late to actually be selected for 2016. But now it’s a year later! Unfortunately, Ronald Drever passed away in the meantime.

In years past, I think CRISPR’s potential had not been actualized enough to win, but by this time it’s obvious that the technology works and is already impacting science. Lithium batteries have changed the world, and John Goodenough deserves the prize. But he recently announced a new battery technology that some scientists are skeptical will work. Maybe that’s too much controversy for the Nobel committee?

I considered optogenetics (Deisseroth, Zemelman, Miesenböck, Isacoff), but I didn’t want to predict both that and CRISPR in one year. Since Peter Walter and Kazutoshi Mori won a Lasker prize a few years ago now, I think it’s their time.


My past predictions

Clarivate (formerly Thompson) Citation Laureates

C&E News webinar


Stat News

As always, excellent prediction and discussion at Curious Wavefunction

Photometrics Prime95B demo number 2

September 13, 2017 at 2:49 pm | | hardware, review

Technical Instruments loaned me a Photometrics Prime95B back-thinned CMOS camera. I had demoed this camera before, but I was able to put it on our scope this time. Our spinning disk confocal has two camera ports, so I installed a tube lens that made the effective pixel size on the Prime95B approximately the same as our 512×512 Andor iXon EMCCD. The Prime95B looked beautiful for a moderately bright sample:

(Note that I cropped the Prime95B images by approximately 60% both laterally and axially, because the illumination area on the microscope was restricted to the center of the field of view. Uncropped, the Prime95B field of view would be over twice as big in each dimension!)

At very low light imaging, I had to set the EMCCD gain very high to get an image with good signal-to-noise. The Prime95B had slightly lower sensitivity in this imaging regime, but honestly, I was surprised that its images looked that good:

The only problems I ran into had to do with the PVCAM driver for the camera having some issues in Micro-Manager (mainly with having trouble shuttering the lasers correctly), but I was able to find moderately acceptable workarounds.

If I were buying a camera for spinning disk, TIRF, epifluorescence, etc. (really, anything except single-fluorophore microscopy), I would probably get a Prime95B. I hope other sensor manufacturers and scientific camera companies follow suit and release more excellent back-thinned CMOS cameras.

review of Point Grey camera for microscopy

February 28, 2017 at 5:40 pm | | hardware, review

I bought a $500 camera from Point Grey that has the Sony IMX249 chip. It is a fairly large field of view with intermediate sized pixels (5.86 um), so it has a great dynamic range. The great thing is that it has low dark/read noise of 7-14 electrons per frame and a very high quantum efficiency of 80%. At it runs at up to 40 fps!

While this camera can’t fully compete with scientific CMOS cameras like the Andor Zyla or Hamamatsu Flash4 (and definitely not with the Photometrics Prime95B), because these scientific cameras do a better job cooling (reducing dark counts) and on-chip correction of dead pixels or other pixel-to-pixel variability. But I wondered if this Point Grey camera could be a very cheap replacement for our old interline CCD (a Hamamatsu Orca-ER model C4742-80-12AG).

Recently, Nico wrote a Micro-Manager device adapter for USB3 Point Grey cameras, so I quickly bought the Blackfly BFLY-U3-23S6M-C and was happy to get beautiful images! The picture on the bottom is from the Point Grey and the one on the top is from the old interline camera. At the same exposure time, the images were very similar. And the Point Grey camera could run 4x faster if necessary. In addition, the Point Grey outputs 16-bit-images with much higher dynamic range than the old 12-bit interline CCD. I misread the specs: the video output is 16 bit, but the A/D converter is still only 12 bit.

So I plan to replace the interline camera with this Point Grey camera for day-to-day microscopy. I’ll let you know if we run into any problems in the future.

Also, Kurt tested a different Point Grey camera with great results.


Here are two more images, zoomed in and cropped. Top is Hamamatsu Orca-ER and bottom is the Point Grey Blackfly camera:

These were the same exposure time (200 ms) and the same magnification. I’ve decided to replace the Hamamatsu with the Point Grey camera.

always have plastic sheeting in lab

October 24, 2016 at 10:46 am | | everyday science, hardware, stupid technology

I learned during my PhD that you should always have plastic sheeting in lab, because it might just save your equipment when/if a water leak happens. It saved one of our scopes recently, although I wasn’t fast enough to prevent some water damage on an expensive camera. :(

2016-09-02 14.27.09

2016-09-02 14.17.25

For less than $5, you can get some rolls of the stuff. If you want larger and thicker sheets (like in the photos), I recommend this stuff.

2016 nobel prize predictions

September 9, 2016 at 11:39 am | | nobel

UPDATE: Turns out the Simpsons were right once again

Time for my 2016 Nobel Prize predictions:

Chemistry: Lithium-ion batteries (John Goodenough, Stanley Whittingham, Akira Yoshino) [awarded in 2019]

Medicine: T-cell receptor (James Allison [awarded in 2018], Ellis Reinherz, Philippa Marrack)

Physics: Gravitational waves (Kip Thorne [awarded in 2017], Rainer Weiss [awarded in 2017], Ronald Drever, or maybe the LIGO collaboration)

Last year, I played the CRISPR card and lost. Also, I guess that I must stop saying “Ron Vale for kinesin” over and over again. So I tried to keep things fresh this year, but both my medicine and chemistry predictions are repeats.

For physics, I’d like to see the prize go to the entire LIGO collaboration, considering that there were thousands of scientist involved in demonstrating Einstein’s predictions. But I understand why the Nobel committee would prefer to award it to individuals, and there are 3 who are kinda obvious. 2016 might be too early for this award, considering the nominations are due Feb 1, but probably someone knew the gravitational waves discovery was imminent and nominated them? Or maybe my prediction is wrong, and it will exoplanets this year.

For chemistry, I think polymer synthesis could win, but it might not be sexy enough. I think batteries have demonstrated their impact on the world of portable electronics and electric cars. And Goodenough is old. I know I’ve predicted batteries in the past, but I hope I’m right this time!

Hopefully Nature doesn’t make fun of me again this year.

(See my past predictions and discussions here.)

Other predictions:

Thompson ISI

Curious Wavefunction

In the Pipeline

Transcription and Translation

Next Page >

Powered by WordPress, Theme Based on "Pool" by Borja Fernandez
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS.