Seriously, I thought this would spur some sort of discussion of “perceived value” in prestige academia, but instead it’s just low effort comments saying “slammed”.

The article heavily implies that she was demoted because of the research she did. Is that the case? They said she "wasn't of faculty quality" and nothing more. According to this, she couldn't geg funding for years until the university demoted her.

That article was trash. Literally just a bunch of tweets with very little context.

I wonder if AI-assisted articles will eventually form a feedback loop where “slamming” becomes the only way to describe communication.

Haha, GOT EEM! They totally got SLAMMED, dude!

What you suggested cannot be further from the truth. The paper that got her the Nobel was from 2005 (https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(05)00211-6, see also cited in https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2023/press-release/), and UPenn claimed in 2013 — at least 7 years later — that she would not be “of faculty quality” (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mrna-coronavirus-vaccine-pfizer-biontech).

The context is literally in the article. The research she is literally winning a NOBEL PRIZE for was not deemed good enough for UPenn, and she was not reinstated to tenure track.

It’s not some “kumbayah I need to work harder” bullshit you see on corporate sales teams. How the fuck does one exactly “work harder” to improve their “personal” mRNA sequencing methods?

No