GDG

Viscosity is a measure of a liquid's resistance to sheer stress (OK, you can refer to the viscosity of a gas or solid, but I think the question is addressed mainly to liquids). In a liquid without H-bonds, the primary intramolecular force is going to be van der Waals attraction, which increases with the size of the molecule. Long-chain hydrocarbons have boiling points higher than water, and thus presumably have stronger vdW forces between their molecules, and therefore one would expect higher viscosity. Note that short-chain hydrocarbons (e.g., hexane) have less viscosity than water, and also a lower boiling point.

What exactly do you mean by blinking "at the speed of light"? The speed (aka velocity) doesn't translate well into frequency, when light can have a wide variety of frequencies and wavelengths. At high blinking frequencies, you would see a continuous light. This is why you don't notice that TV screens and computer monitors are refreshing constantly. IIRC, > 80Hz looks like continuous illumination. As you slow the blinking frequency down, the light would begin to strobe, and finally you'd just see discrete "on" and "off".

Guaranteed

Nobody likes calcium carbide? Drop it in water, and it spontaneously liberates acetylene. Makes a much bigger "boom" than mere hydrogen balloons.

Your brain works by strengthening connections that are frequently used, and weakening connections that are seldom used. If the eye->brain circuit is not used at all, other circuits will expand into that area and take over. If you're interested in the topic, I'd recommend "The Brain That Changes Itself" by Norman Doidge. Pretty readable, and not too technical -- a good layman's introduction to neuroplasticity and its implications.

In people born blind, the visual cortex is co-opted by other senses, such as hearing and touch. IIRC, when a blind person reads Braile, they are usually using the same part of the brain as a sighted person would use when reading. I don't remember any studies of LSD in congenitally blind subjects, but I would doubt that they'd have visual hallucinations, as their brains would not be "wired for sight." My guess would be auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic (motion or moving) hallucinations instead. Interestingly, you don't have to put electrodes into the brain to restore vision. IIRC, some Paul Bach-y-Rita made a grid of electrodes that is applied to a person's back, and connected to a video camera. You would think that a bunch of prickling sensations on your back is a long way from vision, but if the camera is mounted on your head, and you are able to look around, your brain will perceive the input sensations as "vision like" and with practice you perceive it as visual stimulation (see P. Bach-y-Rita et al., Nature (1969) 221:963-64). Later experiments used an electrode array placed on the tongue (much higher density of sensory nerve endings: P. Bach-y-Rita et al., J Rehab Res Dev (1998) 35:427-30) Yes, probably belongs more in the neuroscience area.

The idea that the genome is full of "junk" DNA that serves no purpose is becoming more and more suspect. It appears likely that much (if not most) of the "junk" DNA actually encodes short interfering RNAs (iRNA), long non-coding RNA (ncRNA) and others that are now considered important regulatory factors. (See, e.g., T.R. Mercer et al., Nature Rev Genetics (2009) 10:155-59, "Long non-coding RNAs: insights into functions".) In other words, DNA encodes things besides just protein. The fact that we don't know exactly what all of it does doesn't mean that it does nothing. Evolution tends to pare that stuff away... True, there are genomic fossils left by retroviruses in our ancestry (see, e.g., A. Ruggieri et al., Retrovirology (2009) 6:17 [free article]). Sometimes, the retroviral proteins are taken up and used by the host for other purposes: examples include placental morphogenesis, tissue specificity of enzyme expression, and host defenses, as well as using retroviral promoters and splicing sites for other proteins. (For a list of references, see M.V. Eiden, Cell Mol Life Sci (2008) 65:3327-28.) Enjoy, Grant

This sounds like the "qualia" problem that plagues researchers studying consciousness. One can determine experimentally how the eye responds to light of different frequencies (colors), so you could in theory determine whether or not somebody else's eyes react to light the same way that yours do. You could do experiments, and probably find out that most people agree as to what frequencies are considered "blue", which are considered "red", etc. However, there are some cultures that divide up colors somewhat differently. I understand that Russians consider "blue" and "dark blue" to be distinct and different colors. The conscious experiences you have from that (called "qualia"), however, can't really be determined at this point (possibly never). So, if you and I look at the same patch of color, we might agree that the color is blue, but there is no way for you to know how "blue" looks to me. You would need to get access to my conscious experience without going through your sensory system -- essentially telepathy.

Sure, your blood contains a number of proteins other than antibodies (e.g., serum albumin, complement factors, etc.). One way of thwarting your virus would be to introduce solubilized receptors, i.e., clone the protein that your virus recognizes, and truncate off the membrane anchor (assuming it has that morphology). Free floating, unattached receptors would soak up a bunch of the virus: if present in concentrations much higher than the native (real) receptor, it might successfully stop the infection. Of course, it would also compete for the natural ligand of the native receptor, which could cause other side effects. The protein could be introduced by IV, or by gene therapy (the latter works mainly in science fiction right now ). Grant

The excitation of the absorbing atom. Of course, this assumes that there is a pair of available energy levels separated by just the right amount so that the photon can be absorbed. One could alternately treat light as a wave, and simply accept the fact that the wave slows down as it encounters a material with permeability and permittivity that is different from vacuum.

Yep. My grad school advisor was Dr. Nathan Bauld (UT Austin), whose research interest at the time was making cation radicals and anion radicals. He invented a polymer doped with antimony or arsenic salts that one could use as a catalyst for diels-alder reactions. I mainly did computer modeling of cation radical cycloaddition reactions, while other members of the group did the wet chemistry. UT, at some point, had installed hoods in the chem labs that had an "overdrive" button for the fans, the idea being that if you spilled something especially nasty, you could hit the button and exhaust the hood rapidly. Unfortunately, the ductwork was not up to the overdrive throughput: if you hit the button, it would exhaust all that nasty stuff into the adjacent fume hood. OSHA discovered this, and required UT to disconnect half of the hoods. While I was there, a contractor was busily cutting huge holes (~2 ft diameter) in the ceilings and floors and installing additional ducts. One morning, we walked into the lab and discovered that the contractor had dropped a chunk of concrete on top of our explosion-proof refrigerator, and dented in the top by about 6". Dr. Bauld told the foreman that they had destroyed the integrity of the refrigerator, that it was now unsafe, and that they would have to replace it. We arrived the next morning to find the replacment: a 1950's style fridge, with a big lever handle. Dr. Bauld motioned the foreman to come over, and explained to him that this refrigerator was not explosion-proof, and that if one of his chemicals warmed up, it could blow the door off. We came in the next day, and found that the contractor had put a rubber band (about 3" wide, 1/4" thick) around the fridge, just above the handle, to keep the door on. We had to cut the band off to open the fridge. The next day was Saturday, and the contractor didn't show up. However, something went off in the fridge, and Dr. Bauld and the senior grad student spent the day in bunny suits cleaning up. On Monday, two of the construction workers got in the elevator with me when I was on my way up to the lab. They were joking about the fridge. I told them that they were lucky they hadn't dropped anything in one of the other labs: M.J.S. Dewar had labs around the corner from us, and did work for the Air Force. If they had dropped a chunk of concrete on his refrigerator, the entire building would have gone up. (Fortunately, Dr. Dewar had enough clout to exclude the contractor from his labs.) The construction workers turned white, and were silent the rest of the elevator ride. We had a real explosion-proof refrigerator by the end of the week (not from anything I said, I'm sure).

Nope. Try "R"

The problem with this idea is that a photon is not going to follow a sinusoidal path in the absence of electromagentic or gravitational forces strong enough to cause it to change direction. Even though you could make a device to create a field like that, this is obviously not the way that light propagates in free space. In the absence of an external force, a photon (like any other particle) will move in a straight line. It may be easier if you think of "waves" and "particles" as both being just approximations or models for the underlying actuality, and that the photon itself is actually neither.

Precognition is probably the least likely explanation. As far as I recall, nobody has ever demonstrated convincingly that it exists at all. More traditional explanations that do not bend the laws of physics should be your first thought. Much more likely that the car window reflected glare onto the floor, and in a quick glance your visual processing decided it was most similar to an umbrella. Perception is a very strange and incompletely understood phenomenon. Say you have a book with a brightly colored cover: the appearance of the cover stays the same, regardless of the lighting conditions (assuming you have enough light for color vision). Bright sunlight, fluorescent lights, incandescent lights, candlelight, all give off a different mixture of light frequencies and intensities, and the light reflecting from the cover will be measurably different (with lab instruments), but the cover will still look the same to you. And then there are the simple experiments that demonstrate the blind spot in the eye. Your brain just papers over the blind spot, so that you don't notice it. Again, just a simple, everyday hallucination. But seriously, if you frequently see things that are not there, best to have it checked out.

So let's imagine how this is supposed to work: presumably you have a rotor surrounded by a symmetrical array of strong magnets, such that a magnet attracts an arm or projection of the rotor and causes it to rotate. You set it up and let go of the rotor, and projection A is attracted to magnet B, and causes the rotor to rotate X degrees. Then what happens? Nothing. Magnet B continues to attract projection A, and any energy that would have been obtained from that first bit of rotation, moving projection A toward magnet B, will be consumed in the effort to turn projection A past magnet B and on toward the next magnet. No matter how fast you spin the rotor, each magnet is going to "take back" just as much energy as it gives: no net force is exerted, and eventually the bearing friction causes the rotor to stop. Make sense?

If you are talking about animal testing for new drugs, it is required by law. Before you administer a drug to a human, you are required to file an Investigational New Drug application ("IND"). To have the IND allowed, you are required to submit toxicology and activity data, using several representative species of animals. Metabolism is too complex to simply calculate: there is no substitute for actual experiment.

Mainly from working for pharmaceutical and biotech companies for the past 25 years. The FD&C "Pink Sheet" is also a good source of news about the industry.

Oh, it is certainly possible, but the fact that this is news shows how uncommon it is.

No, your body does react differently when you have a partner. When you masturbate, do you pair-bond with yourself? No, you definitely feel differently -- and, I think, few of the higher brain functions are required Your body doesn't do any assuming on its own. Since evolution favors those who reproduce more (or more accurately, who leave more viable offspring), your body should want to go right on ejaculating (and potentially siring offspring) until the day you die. Somehow, I don't think that 10 year old boys will be getting many women pregnant in the near future, or that this would be a selective advantage...

What sort of cells are you looking at? There are probably MAbs specific for different G6PD isoenzymes available, but I'm not sure how they would distinguish between monoclonal cells and polyclonal cells. The terminology is usually applied to hybridoma cells (plasmacytoma cells crossed with B cells) that produce a particular antibody: one determines that the cells are monoclonal by the fact that they all produce the same antibody.

Not a bad idea As a medical diagnostic, it would require FDA approval before it could be marketed. FDA approval probably requires some form of trial (although I assume this would be much less expensive than having a new drug approved). Trials would probably require that you conduct a study (approved in advance with the FDA) using controls and a statistically significant number of patients, so that you can determine how accurate the method is. E.g., what concentration of beta-lactam in the urine constitutes a positive finding? What dose (or how many doses) of beta-lactam should the patient have first? How long should you wait before collecting the urine sample? Are all of these considerations the same for each beta-lactam antibiotic, or do some of them differ? If you plan to develop the test, you would probably want to have a patent. Otherwise, any generic manufacturer can just reference your data and put out a competing test (using their existing marketing ability). Since you have already publicly disclosed the idea (here), you would want to find a patent attorney immediately to determine what rights you may still have. Usually, premature public disclosure eliminates your rights to seek a patent: in the U.S., there is a grace period, but you would want your application on file as soon as possible to make sure you don't go past the deadline. Your patent attorney can also run a patent search to see if anyone else has already patented your idea. You can do a patent search yourself, online, at www.uspto.gov, but it would be a bit tricky to do a complete search on this kind of method. Once you have a patent application pending, you can approach (or ask your patent attorney to approach) the several diagnostic assay manufacturers regarding licensing. Best of luck, Grant

If you're using a commercial MAb, the supplier's literature should tell you whether or not the MAb competes for binding with the ligand. If you're using home-grown MAbs, you'll probably need to test directly to see if they compete for binding with IL-12. If there is no competition for binding, you should be able to quantify the receptors regardless of the ligand presence or absence.

I work in California, in silicon valley, for a pharmaceutical company. I've lived here ~35 years, and hope to stay I took a B.S. in Chemistry (Harvey Mudd College) and an M.A. in Physical Organic at U. Texas Austin, and then a J.D. (law degree). Haven't truly done chemical research since grad school. Instead, I practice patent law. If you have a deep interest in science, and can write well, this is a good field. Also, you don't have to breath as many toxic solvents My practice mainly consists of drafting and prosecuting patent applications, evaluating other companies' patents, and advising our researchers what they can do without infringing somebody else's patent. A patent application is essentially what gets published as a patent once you finish prosecution: "prosecution" is the process of arguing with the patent office until they agree that you deserve a patent. A patent must (required by law) teach how to make and use the invention that is claimed. In order to get the patent issued, you must understand the technology well enough that you can argue with the patent examiner and point out where he or she is wrong (or, alternatively, you have to be able to understand when the examiner is actually right, and you need to change your claims). Thus, patent attorneys are required to have a science background. There is an exam (the "patent bar" or "agent's exam") administered by the US Patent Office that one must pass in order to practice patent law in the US. You have to demonstrate a degree in chemistry, physics, engineering, or biology (with substantial chemistry) in order to qualify to take the exam. (Last I heard, they would also accept certain computer science degrees.) If you pass the patent bar, you becoma a "patent agent." If you also go to law school and pass a state bar (i.e., become a lawyer), you are then a "patent attorney." The main difference is that the patent agent is only licensed to practice before the USPTO, not to go to court. There are currently 9,110 registered agents and 28,477 registered patent attorneys in the US -- the entire country. When you compare that to the fact that there are more than 217,000 lawyers registered to practice law in the state of California alone, the field of patent law is pretty uncrowded. Having gone through the exercise of hiring a new patent attorney a year ago, I can state from experience that there is a need for patent agents/attorneys who have solid chemistry education/experience. The plus side: no sitting up in the lab all night, no toxic chemicals, no explosions, no clothing ruined by acids/bases/thiols, no grant proposals; the opportunity to learn cutting edge science directly from the people on the cutting edge (the inventors), and on the average, it pays better. The down side: no explosions , lots of writing (to be good at this requires the ability to write clearly and persuasively), staying up late to finish that application/amendment/brief; and you won't be the one to make a big discovery (although you will sometimes make an invaluable suggestion to those who do). In the US, some law firms will hire you as a "technical specialist" on the basis of your chemistry PhD, and train you to become a patent agent. Some will also send you to training courses, and some will even support you through law school. It isn't a bad career path Geographically, the best spots for pharma/biotech patent law in the US are: the San Francisco Bay area; San Diego/La Jolla; New Jersey; New York; Research Triangle, NC; and the Boston area. If you're more solid state/chip fab oriented, then your best areas are probably silicon valley (San Jose, CA area), and Texas. As for other careers, I do run into quite a few medicinal chemists: this is the position we mainly hire at my site. A good medicinal chemist not only has strong synthetic organic skills, but also has (or develops) a good feeling for what kind of molecule makes a good drug. You should be able to look at a structure and guess what parts you can change that would possibly improve binding and selectivity, without making the thing toxic or so quickly metabolized that it has no effect. I'm happy to answer other questions. Grant

See C. Liu et al., Nature (2001) 409:490-93 ("Observation of coherent optical information storage in an atomic medium using halted light pulses"): "Electromagnetically induced transparency [fns. omitted] is a quantum interference effect that permits the propagation of light through an otherwise opaque atomic medium; a 'coupling' laser is used to create the interference necessary to allow the transmission of resonant pulses from a 'probe' laser. This technique has been used [fns. omitted] to slow and spatially compress light pulses by seven orders of magnitude, resulting in their complete localization and containment within an atomic cloud [fn. omitted]. Here we use electromagnetically induced transparency to bring laser pulses to a complete stop in a magnetically trapped, cold cloud of sodium atoms. Within the spatially localized pulse region, the atoms are in a superposition state determined by the amplitudes and phases of the coupling and probe laser fields. Upon sudden turn-off of the coupling laser, the compressed probe pulse is effectively stopped; coherent information initially contained in the laser fields is 'frozen' in the atomic medium for up to 1 ms. The coupling laser is turned back on at a later time and the probe pulse is regenerated: the stored coherence is read out and transferred back into the radiation field. We present a theoretical model that reveals that the system is self-adjusting to minimize dissipative loss during the 'read' and 'write' operations. We anticipate applications of this phenomenon for quantum information processing." Seems to me that this is the language coined by the researchers themselves, not the press. Or are you saying that Nature is "pop-sci journalism"?

My understanding is that the industrial standard requires only one strain of bacteria (either E. coli NCIMB 8545 or Staph A. ATCC 6538p). While I agree that one cannot make a standardized test to cover every possible pathogen, I question the validity of testing an article against only a single strain (or even two), and on that basis labeling it "antibacterial".