User
Write something
Pinned
Guidelines and Rules
This community exists for one reason — to make molecular biology genuinely accessible to people who need it for their work. Whether you're a data scientist working with genomic data, a researcher from an adjacent field, a science communicator, or someone transitioning into biology, you belong here. These guidelines exist to keep the community useful, respectful, and worth your time. Be curious, not performative There are no stupid questions here. If you don't understand something, ask. The whole point of this community is that biology can feel impenetrable from the outside — asking for clarity is exactly what this space is for. You will never be made to feel embarrassed for not knowing something. Be specific when you ask questions The more context you give, the better the answer you'll get. Instead of "I don't understand gene expression," try "I'm working with RNA-seq data and I'm not sure what normalisation method to use — can someone explain why this matters biologically?" Specific questions get specific, useful answers. Engage with the journal club Every week a real recent paper with clinical implications gets broken down here. Read it, ask questions, share what surprised you, push back if something doesn't make sense. The journal club is only as good as the conversation around it — your engagement makes it better for everyone. Self-promotion — one dedicated space only You're welcome to share your own work, papers, projects, or resources — but only in the weekly "Share Your Work" thread pinned at the top of the community. Unsolicited self-promotion posted anywhere else will be removed. This keeps the feed focused and useful. No misinformation Biology is a field where precision matters. If you share something, make sure it's accurate. If you're not sure, say so. If you see something that looks wrong, flag it respectfully rather than publicly calling it out — send a DM or tag me directly. Respect everyone's starting point Members here come from wildly different backgrounds — some have PhDs, some have never taken a biology class. Both are equally welcome. Do not condescend, do not gatekeep, and do not make anyone feel like their question is beneath the community. If you wouldn't say it in a professional meeting, don't say it here.
4
0
Pinned
Welcome to Biology Unlocked
Really glad you're here. This community exists because biology has a gap problem. Brilliant people from data science, engineering, chemistry, bioinformatics, and science communication are working with biological concepts every day — and nobody gave them a proper map. That's what Biology Unlocked is. Here's how to get started: Step 1 — Head to the Classroom Start with the Foundations course. It's designed for every background and every starting point. Lessons 1.1 and 1.2 are free previews — available to everyone before you dive into your specialist track. Step 2 — Choose your track Once you've completed Foundations, move into the track that fits your work: Biology for Data — if you work with biological datasets Biology for the Bench-Adjacent — if you work alongside biologists Biology for Communicators — if you write, edit, or report on biology Step 3 — Join the journal club Every week I break down a real recent research paper with clinical implications — methods, data, figures, and what it actually means. Live sessions are open to everyone. Recordings are available to Practitioner and Immersive members. Step 4 — Ask questions This is the most important step. Don't sit with a question you don't understand. Post it in the feed, bring it to a Q&A session, or DM me directly. There are no stupid questions here — only ones that haven't been answered yet. A note from me: I built this because I kept seeing the same gap after 10 years of editing 500+ manuscripts — people who were exceptional in their own fields, hitting a wall with biology. You're not behind. You just needed the right starting point. This is it. Welcome aboard. Akshi
6
0
New course coming soon!
Something new coming in November: Use Claude to fill your lab notebook 🧪 If you work at the bench (or sit next to people who do), you know the drill. Scribbles on a glove box, Ct values in an Excel sheet, a plan from last week, and then an hour at the end of the day turning it all into a proper notebook entry. I've been using Claude to do this in about 10 minutes, and I'm turning the exact workflow into a short course. Three lessons: 1. Set up once: your notebook template and the guardrail instructions that stop Claude adding, guessing or "fixing" anything you didn't actually do 2. The core loop: messy notes, Excel sheet and plan in, clean structured entry out, with every gap flagged for you to fill and a quick check before you paste it in 3. Beyond the entry: protocols to bench checklists, calculation checks, troubleshooting logs and supervisor meeting summaries The whole thing is taught on a made-up experiment, and I'll cover what you should never paste into an AI tool, because your notebook is a research record, not a draft. It will be included for paid members when it launches. Before I finish building it, tell me in the comments: what's the most annoying part of writing up your lab work right now? I'll build the lessons around your answers.
0
0
Journal club #9 dropping tonight only on Skool!
For over a century, we have known cancer cells carry the wrong number of chromosomes. We never knew whether that chaos causes the cancer or just comes along for the ride. Al-Zahrani et al. finally answered this question in a new paper in Nature. The barrier was always scale. When a whole chromosome arm shifts, hundreds of genes change dose at once, and finding the few drivers among the passengers was near impossible. So the team built CRISPR-KOALA, a tool that switches genes off and on at the same time, inside a living mouse. That matters, because aneuploidy does both: it deletes some genes and duplicates others. They screened 3,752 genes and found 90 cancer drivers, with 81 being newly identified genes. Interestingly, 90% of them would have been invisible in a culture flask. They only acted as drivers inside a living tumour, with a real immune system and real oxygen gradients around them. And the century-old question finally has its answer: give the tumour those driver genes directly, and it no longer needs the chromosomal chaos. The chaos was never wreckage. It was how the tumour got what it needed. We read the whole paper in Journal Club tonight 7 PM! Session is free for everyone to watch so don’t miss this!
0
0
Biology Unlocked Article #10
I am a scientist. But as an editor, I enforce the one thing I hate most as a scientist. Formatting requirements. And don’t get me wrong. I love these formatting jobs. This is very calming work for me. In fact, every second manuscript I work on is a reformatting job: a paper rejected by one journal that now has to be reformatted for the guidelines of the next one. As a scientist, it is very easy to get stuck in that loop. Write, submit, desk rejection, reformat, submit, desk rejection, reformat, and on it goes until a journal finally accepts the paper. And the cost is real. Reformatting after desk rejections was estimated to waste about 230 million USD in 2021, with up to 2.5 billion projected through 2030 if nothing changes. Researchers spend around 1.55 million hours a year on reformatting alone, on top of writing manuscripts, chasing grants, running labs, and teaching. But I also sit on the other side. As someone from the publishing industry, I understand why journals want ready manuscripts. It streamlines review and shortens the time to a decision. Word count and section structure genuinely help you judge fit and rigor faster. But do references and layout do the same? They are cosmetic. They can be copy edited after acceptance. And a lot of journals already work this way. Elsevier’s Your Paper Your Way is a common example. So where is the line? This is the part I keep getting stuck on. I defend word count and structure as an editor, and I believe in them. But I cannot fully explain why those are sacred while reference style is disposable. Both are just packaging around the same science. So where would you draw the line? Are word count and structure a fair line that helps everyone, or just another habit we will eventually drop the way we are dropping reference styles? hashtag#AcademicPublishing hashtag#ScientificWriting hashtag#ResearchLife hashtag#PeerReview hashtag#ScholarlyPublishing
1
0
1-30 of 31
powered by
Biology Unlocked
skool.com/biology-unlocked-7569
Molecular biology for data scientists, AI engineers, editors and research-adjacent professionals. No biology degree needed. Start from anywhere.
Build your own community
Bring people together around your passion and get paid.
Powered by