Hey KG-xf9ew :) Thank you for your comment! Indeed, there are lots of problems in academia. However, I am not quite sure if I understand your opinion/arguments on the topic. Could you please elaborate?

@@neurosciencebeyond I hate to say it, but your reply illustrated my point exactly. You will do well in academia.

Thank you for the comment!

Thank you!

Hi @TLTeo! Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this comment! The topic you've raised is 100% valid and challenging to solve. I believe I discussed it in some previous episodes. We try to increase awareness of many flaws and problems in academia by discussing them in the last part of our episodes (10-15 minutes). Perhaps we should release several short videos summarizing these issues, including the one you've mentioned. If we want to make any change in the field, the first step, in my opinion, is to identify the problems and the reasons for this prblems and start openly dicsuss different ways of solving them as a community.

Hey @servicekid7453 :) Thank you for your comment! Do you have any experience in or outside of academia? It would be fantastic to hear more about your perspective. I also want to remind everyone that we aim to foster discussions based on mutual respect and understanding. Let's keep the conversation respectful and constructive.

@@neurosciencebeyond yes 10 years in academia before I was brave enough to get out. Academia has 3 principal problems, none of which it has any strategy or motivation to fix: i) it is hugely wasteful of talent. We put far too many people through grad school then take bright and motivated young scientists and feed them through a meat grinder. What comes out the other end is mostly burnt out, financially impoverished and hacked off ex-postdocs who are often over qualified for most other jobs and find it difficult to start their careers over again in the private sector. Of course this will never get fixed because PhD students and post-docs do most of the actual labwork that generates data for papers ii) Impact factor was never designed as a measure of quality but it has become the second most important metric in hirings and promotions. Impact factor was designed to help librarians decide what to stock on the shelves - ie pick the journals that are most widely read, since if you have those available your clients might actually use your library and your budget won't get sliced. But it was an easy and quick way to rank people, so hey presto here we are. If one single thing is more responsible for the surge in research misconduct than anything else, it is the need to achieve high impact factors. iii) Funding models are a complete mess. We take lots of very bright people, then underfund all of them and let them fight like rats in a sack for every last penny. It creates perverse incentives to screw over your competitor labs and even your own departmental colleagues. Some people are terrified, some people are numbed by it, some take a kind of sadistic glee in it but it's still mostly a horrible toxic manipulative contrivance. The absolute worst colleagues I have had, 100%, were in academia. No-one in the private sector I've worked with has ever come close to matching the nastiness of academics I have known. When anyone asks me about doing a PhD I ask why and in 9/10 cases I advise them not to do it. My own supervisor advised me against going into research. I'm proud of my work and I never thought I would be remotely important or well-known, I just wanted to do some interesting experiments and get it published and cited, but I paid a really high price for it in terms of my health and family life

Hey @fano503! I am glad that you like our content. Thank you for the kind words!

@user-iq2yp1dn1q, thank you for your comment! So, you're suggesting a separate degree that would specifically prepare young scientists for tenure-track positions? If I understood you correctly, I think you raise an interesting point. The idea behind a PhD is indeed to support academic careers. However, the reality is that the 'supply' of PhD graduates far exceeds the 'demand' for tenure-track positions, which is one reason many well-trained young scientists decide to leave academia. Perhaps a separate degree aimed specifically at preparing young scientists for the job market outside academia would also be valuable. Such a degree could focus on industry-relevant skills and provide a clear career path for those not pursuing academic roles. Of course, there are many problems in academia that need to be addressed, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Your suggestion opens up an important conversation about how we can better align educational pathways with career outcomes.

@francoisperrin7397, interesting perspective. Have you worked in academia? :)

@@neurosciencebeyond I worked in academia and in industries as well. I've seen this happening to many colleagues as well.

Thank you for the 'meaningful' comment! :)

@neurosciencebeyond I'm sure you have other clips that have content worth listening to. But this wasn't it.

Hey @shanemccormack8212, I'm sorry to hear that you're experiencing this. Sleep disturbances can indeed have many different causes and don't necessarily mean you have a neurological condition. As you may know, It's important to consult with a medical specialist to get a proper evaluation and support. Take care!

Hey @danderas6377, thank you for your comment! Do you also have experience in academia?

Thank you for your comment!

Thank you!

Thank you for watching!

Yes. Imagine you develop a new drug for cancer and you wanna see if it's safe. You can model in the computer every known receptor site to see if it has a chance to dock at sites of toxicity. If So, you never even need the animal model to rule it out as not a good drug. But even if all the computer tests show no obvious issue, then you still have to actually test it on a living thing. It could turn out to be toxic through binding to some new receptor target we never discovered before. That would never show up on a computer. However, once that is discovered it could be modeled in the future. And future drugs would be ruled out on the computer stage, by being able to det Ct that before ever going in an animal. I mean we could just jump straight to injecting experimental drugs into people lmao? Computers help by ruling out things that have a high chance to be dangerous. But it doesn't know everything. There's still plenty of chance it could have ubforeeen consequences. Computers first, then test tubes, then animals, then people, if no problems arise at any stage.

In the full episode you can learn a lot more about animal experimentation in research. :) Check it out here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKexiKKieNhkiaM

Thank you for the kind words!

Great question! However, we did not discuss this particular topic. If I meet prof. Moser soon, I can ask him this question.

Thank you!

Probably around 25-30 million years ago (www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0407270101). However, this is a 20 years old study and there might be new data on the topic.

@@neurosciencebeyond thanks for the paper link

Hey @exploreyourdreamlife :) Thank you for the kind words! I am not aware of such software that is able to animate dreams but probably in the future due to the rapid development of neuroscience and AI we might be able to do something in these lines. :)

Hi! Thank you for your comment! It is hard for me to give you any information on the topic, because I am not a specialist in this field and I am not a medical doctor. However, I can try to invite a medical professional who works with stroke patients and ask this person the questions that you have written here. This will probably take some time, but once we have the episode I will share it with you. I am sorry that I could not be helpful! Best, Svilen

You helped just by responding. It's nice to know someone cares. I'm a full time caregiver to my mother and rarely leave the home. If anyone can help answer the question it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help and time. Blessings!!

Thank you for watching!

We are glad that you like our video! Thank you for subscribing and welcome to our small but growing community! Stay tuned for more cool content. :)

I am glad you liked it! It was a pleasure to talk to prof. Huisken.

Why do you think this is the case? :)

​@@neurosciencebeyond vaccines, and i dont mean that in a tinfoil hat way, but i saw a documentary that bovine material was often used in vaccines...and i still think a lot of beef is tainted. Japan tests every single cow...in the US we test 1% and only obviously sick animals. Factory farming is a disease, literally and morally. Im not against eating meat, im against cruelty of animals and against unsafe food

I am happy that you like it!

Thank you for watching!