This is a test version of Biostars. For the public version, visit https://www.biostars.org.
Tool: A website with science news written by AI

I prefer to read texts written by people. This is true for science news too. However, science bloggers and other news sources that I read occasionally miss something. Therefore, just in case, I created a website that every 5 days uses AI to generate a list of top 10 science news stories of the last 10 days for the topics "Bioinformatics", "Evolutionary Biology", "Plant Genomics", "Botany" and "Biology". This website uses GPT 5.6 Sol and Claude Opus 5 (initially, I tried Fable 5, but it refused to work with anything biological due to bioterrorism concerns). I created this website for myself, but it may be useful for you too. The prompt the website uses is "What are the 10 most important things in [topic name] in the last 10 days? I'm interested in, for example, scientific discoveries, computer programs, outstanding articles, and everything else you deem important. For each of the 10 news provide also a hyperlink to the source."

https://mikeshelk.site/science_news

news ai
• 282 views • link
written by shelkmike shelkmike

UPD 2026-09-06: replaced Opus 5 with Gemini 3.8 Flash because I was unsatisfied with the quality of Opus' results.

• 0 views • link
written by shelkmike shelkmike

1 answer

I think this is a cool idea. I've been thinking about something similar for Biostar. Before the AI era, I used to manually put together the Weekly Herald, which highlighted content I found interesting:

https://www.biostars.org/tag/herald/

There is a new version of Biostars coming soon, and perhaps your tool could be integrated there:

https://test.biostars.org/

But a fundamental issue remains.

The main challenge is that sites like these still need human curation, attention and validation.

AI can handle the tedious work of collecting, summarizing, and formatting content, but it is not very good at judging quality. Many (I'd say most) papers are exaggerated, overly promotional, or simply not that interesting despite how they present themselves.

A human editor is still incomparably better at deciding what is genuinely worth highlighting

• 0 views • link
written by Istvan Albert Istvan Albert

I created this website in large part because the issues of the Biostar Herald have become less frequent recently. I used to read the Biostar Herald with great pleasure.

I completely agree that AI writing should be treated as secondary material compared to human writing. For me, Nature remains the primary source of science news, along with Twitter posts of several good scientists.

• 0 views • link
written by shelkmike shelkmike

Log in to answer this question.

More posts like this