Genecks

@#%$, and that's the talk at a symposium that I decided to ditch on Friday before deciding to go home for the weekend because the semester ended. Irony. lol, ok... I'd love having some more money, but I don't focus on aspberger's at the moment. In relation to you post, there might be some validity to consider that continual information intake and processing through multimedia outlets, such as the Internet, have been constructing a varied behavior that people have not seen in the past. With television, the act was passive. With the Internet, the act of intaking information and processing it can be more interactive, thus more active. Mainpoint: The human brain is undergoing never-before-seen plastic changes to large information intake and processing acts. So, what you're seeing are further cognitive changes (I suspect) with the Internet medium than the television medium. However, I don't think these changes are enough to lead to an complete epigenetic lineage change for future generations. Remember, things have to affect the gametes. And the gametes are often well-separated from the brain. So, I don't think these modern-day cognitive changes that are occurring to people are bringing forth autism. Perhaps the plastic changes that are coming forth through constant interaction with the Internet are providing people with autistic-like attributes, though. Here is something that might be of interest: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/medmicro/staff/lasalle.html

Eating yogurt.

I was reading a thread, and I somewhat agree with the development of a Bioengineering board. Of course, I'm biased, as I have a biology background. I think it would be a nice addition to the board. I see a lot interesting bioengineering topics out there these days, ranging from cellular biology (such as plasma membrane plasticity) to body mechanics. A lot of the stuff has a nice mathematical, engineering spin to it. Again, I don't always fully understand the stuff, such as chemical guidance throughout the body; but I still find it fascinating and worth a bit of a read from time to time.

This? http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm For anyone who is curious, it appears to be called RePORTER -- Research portfolio online reporting tools... Maybe I'm wrong about some guys getting NIH grants, but I don't think I am. I'm pretty sure I saw a NIH grant number on their posters. I'll have to look more into it when I get a chance. Thanks, CharonY. UPDATE: Ah, I had to change this box's attribute: Yeah, after looking at all projects, I saw my research advisor's history of funding. Again, thanks.

1) An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (choose a recent edition): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21766/ 2) Elementary Statistics [Hardcover] -- Mario F. Triola

I want to find out the past National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants a few professors have received, the reasons for receiving, what kind of things they wrote up to get said grants, how much money, and maybe other things that I can't think of right now. How do I go about this? It seems with the National Science Foundation (NSF), I can easily look into this stuff. I can't find out how to do the same with the NIH. How do I do it?

First off, as I would have hoped the other members would have asked... What's your field of interest and/or your major? Oh, a biologist with a focus on genetics? OK, then. Replies to your questions: 1a. After 1b. After doing research, people slowly began approaching me more and more wanting me to work in their labs. I decline, because I like where I am. 2. Yes, I've been next to a microscope, mixed chemicals, done reactions, and done the math in relation to microbial culture and chemistry. Not very relevant to what I'm doing now. 3. You should have a firm grounding in the scientific method. Also, read and work through an elementary statistics book (this will make you attractive a little). Try to not to be too biased. Also, if you want to focus on genetics, you need to read a genetics book asap. My guess is that you should read the statistics book and genetics book over summer. Furthermore, you should find the offices of the various genetics professors and immediately talk to them. Maybe even visit them during the summer. My views on getting research: My view is that you want to start research as soon as possible. If you're an absolute freshman, tell this to professors. And for brownie points, tell them you have the hope of doing Ph.D research in what they are doing. The paradox of accepting students as juniors, because they would then have enough knowledge of the field, is pathetic. I think professors need to grab students as freshman and advise they take no more than 12 credits until their second semester as a sophomore. At least if a person plans on being a researcher. Talk to graduate students and ask if they can point you in the direction of some research. Ask professors. If they deny you, ask where else to go. Be fast about all of this. Plenty of times when I've done well in a class (B or above) and asked a graduate student if they knew where I could get some research, they've advised I talk to the professor they are doing their research for. Example? It was suggested that I do research with a medical scientist working on better understanding spectrin. Did I care about spectrin? Yes, I find the plastic aspects of cellular membranes to be fascinating. However, I cared more about neuroscience. Another thing to do is ask about pay research positions for undergraduates. I could get a pay position if I want, but mehhh, I'm iffy about all of it. I'd have to put stuff on the backburner for two years. I think I can get into a Ph.D program.

Groupthink is bad, folks. Problem is actually finding a place to bounce ideas of intelligent people and see if they say, "Actually, that might work." But at least we have SFN, a place where people can discuss ideas. There is another thread in the news board where people are also discussing this issue.

I'm aware of the thread's creation date. Besides that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Ants have wars. Many ants are females. I guess a good way to think about it would look at the animal kingdom.

We've got a lot of neat scientists here with varying levels of expertise. Just keep asking questions. I would suggest you visit a college library (you don't always need to be an attending student) and work on your reading skills by picking up some books, such as physics and math books, and work on your way up. I think an important aspect to reading and doing problems in a college-level is book the following: 1) Being able to do the problem 2) Being able to understand the problem: Often involves proof via abstraction in a classroom setting 3) Be able to recall important aspects of the problem If you can at least do some of these aspects while going through a college-level book, then you'll get a good amount of learning that you might do while dealing with a college institution.

Hello, all. Welcome to the forum.

I'm trying to figure out shorthand ways, ways to write down things faster. So, I recently learned that instead of writing C=O, I can just write CO. For instance... I know that for benzene, a person can draw a six-carbon ring and put in a circle. What about the image I uploaded? Can I put a ring in there instead of drawing the three lines? Imagine I had to draw this thing like 20+ more times... I'm looking for shorthand ways of drawing these things out.

Really, guys... I'm just in it for the dorky, nerdy women.

@Greippi Yeah, I guess so. What I dislike is just doing one thing, that particular thing, for a good year. I would like to be able to maybe switch up at most two things biweekly (if not each month), then I could get at more than one skill. Really, I think it's good to have a person try different things. Then a person can be evaluated for what he/she is good at. There are many things I'm good at, and I don't know it until I try them out. So, definitely, I'm a believer in making a person do a lot of different things and then narrowing what kind of speciality a person should be handed. I've recently been offered to do some computer stuff for another group of neuroscientists, but I suspect it will be data entry (their focus is on exploring siRNAs--which I'd love to know more about). Perhaps I will join two research groups in the near future, but I am uncertain at the moment. That sounds really awesome. I'll look into it when I get some more time. About the only gene entry system I've learned about in the past while is how Staphyloccous aureus conducts gene therapy on itself (I've been told this by a geneticist whom is researching these aspects). As such, I figure if he can unlock the mechanisms of that, then maybe it can be applied to eukaryotic systems. Again, thank you, all.

Hey, review your posts. Use the enter key, why don't you? Blocks of text? Pell grant is current up to your first degree. I believe it's also 120 credits rather than 100 now. Obama has changed some things, so you may want to read into it, as I'm not up to date on current affairs. As such, people with the pell grant will often double major. In reference to pre-med? Take easy classes and the pre-med requirements. If I could go back in time, I think that's what I would have done. I, myself, would have done a psychology major and taken med-school pre-reqs on the side. I think the biology major is a sham unless you're considering a Ph.D in a biological science (I have been split between Ph.D or a M.D. or maybe being both). I've been doing a neuroscience major, and I find the entire major to be a pathetic joke. The philosophy classes I've taken were subjective, and having a more advanced level of writing, I would have thought I'd get As in the classes. I didn't, so that only brought my GPA down. (Although a professor tried helping me get an A, but I was running out of time during finals and just couldn't pull it off; I started smoking cigarettes for energy). I didn't find the classes to be skilfully useful, so I'm no longer a supporter of the neuroscience major (if it includes philosophy classes). I think a biology class that ties in aspects of philosophy would be more interesting, but that'd be biased toward belief in "identity theory," I suspect. I rather know more downstream and upstream cytological pathways than know more about the philosophy of psychology (although a knowledge of the philosophy of science can make a person a more critical scientist). Definitely it would be awesome to understand more about cancer prevention in the naked mole rat: involves the p21 protein, I believe. I keep reading that a lot of people are simply doing the med-school requirements and majoring in something else. It seems like an intelligent thing to do, because it can help people maintain a particular GPA. Since it's all about the GPA, why not? Also, I don't feel that too many of the biology classes I've taken have helped me. They were all geared as weed-out classes. And I don't believe much learning occurs in weed-out classes. Why not have a light load while fighting the forces of evil? Some people do a double major, thus taking easy courses with their hard courses. So, some people in the university I attend will be psychology and biology majors rather than neuroscience major. I suspect this is because they disagree with the curricular aspects of the degree program, and I don't blame them. I think accounting and med-school pre-reqs would be a brilliant choice, I think. Because if you can't pull of med school, then you quickly have the alternative trade that brings in money. I'm about the science, but today's academic world seems to be more about the money than the science.

I read a while back how you like using pipettes (I follow your blog a little). So, I understand you weren't too fond of the repetition of it all.

So, with the current research group I'm with, the current project is closing up. As such, I'm going to be given an opportunity to do something different. I suspect they could put me at the microscope again, but having spoken to the other guys who have been at the microscope, particular projects can be the same thing over, and over, and over again for a year and a half. As such, I don't want to be looking at the same tissue over and over and over again for another year. I've been looking layer II neurons in the piriform cortex of mouse brain. And that gets really boring after a while. True, I've gained some skills with looking at, finding, refinding, and examining neural tissue... but the equipment sucks, and the data collected are ehhh in my opinion. I've considered what a GFP would look like, but targeting only layer IIs doesn't seem like a practical reality. Maybe there is a way, but I wouldn't know what the way would be. I think if I was looking at a selective (or not so abundant) GFPs rather than Golgi stains, data would be better.. Golgi stains selectively stain a limited number of neurons (which means there isn't a mass of green glow that cannot allow a person to determine the physical characteristics of a single neuron) Anyway... I do my best, though, because that's what a scientist is suppose to do: get the best data you can. So, one thing that peeves me is the lack of objectivity. The other is that I'm literally sitting down for about two hours at a time. Looking at a screen, moving the X-Y knobs of the microscope, and just getting really bored measuring neuronal aspects over and over and over again. I would like to move around a lot more even if the actions are repetitive, such as putting video games into security cases (I've done this for 6 hours in a row for multiple weeks before; I hated it, but I dislike the microscope stuff a lot more now). So, I have a couple of options: 1) Do microscope stuff again (*grinds teeth*) 2) Do genotyping stuff (sounds cool and modern) 3) Do behavioral work with mice (I need to be at particular places at particular times of the day, as such I have to build it into my schedule). With the microscope stuff, I can come in at 12 midnight and get to work. Nice feature, really, as college studies don't lend themselves to me getting done with everything as fast as I would like to when I want to. Again, I'm unsure if I should attempt to build histology as a skill. Then again, seeing as how it can be the same thing for a year in a row, I don't really consider that skill building. I consider that doing the same thing for a year in a row and gaining only one new skill; and that seems like a pathetic thing to me. Not only that, but I'm interested in gaining marketable skills, because I'm economic like that. I'm unsure what to do. I think maybe learning genotyping is a good skill that can be used in a lot of different fields, but I'm still interested in the behavioral work. Ideas on what I should do? Personally, I think I should try to get to know as much about the new skill I could be taught and choose the most marketable one.

They should spend the money and lock it down. I don't know exactly what that involves, but if concrete would work, then do it. Be done with it once and for all. Throw money at it. Otherwise, I suspect the Japanese government will attempt to write it off as a fluke of nature, pay nothing to the families of the deceased, and attempt to act like nothing could be done. I'm not sure if true cost-benefit analysis is being done here. Honestly, I'm not given too much time to evaluate this situation myself. The bane of higher education, sigh. I assume that people have been given well enough time to evacuate and get out of the area, right?

Impressive. Thank you for the quick reply. I'm involved with fragile X. The research team looks at the cellular, behavioral, and genetic aspects of the disorder. Past research has been involved with alzheimers and other stuff. The guy who leads it has his Ph.D, but there are plenty of MDs walking around. What about outside of a uni setting? Is more biological research being done outside of uni settings rather than inside uni settings? Are things moving that way? I find myself reading about and looking at research from people from private institutions rather than academic institutions. If I think about it, because how things are chaotic these days, going for a medical degree might not be such a bad idea. I could be a medical doctor and a researcher on the side. I don't necessarily feel the need to be leader on a project, as I believe that there is a lot of good that can be done from joining a research team that is conducting research on a person's particular interest, and just help that team to the best: It's about team effort, really, not being the leader. Of course, the trick is finding the right research group. I've learned that PIs don't mind having ideas bounced off of them, and they might even be willing to open a research door for a person who wants to pursue something. At least, that's what I've been experiencing.

I was talking to my research supervisor as of late, and he spinned the idea of me becoming a medical doctor. He was suggesting that I go get the medical degree. I'm currently in a laboratory building where a lot of medical doctors are performing scientific research. They don't have a Ph.D, but they still conduct scientific research and lead the research teams. I'm unsure about the idea of going for a medical. It seems like a truckload of non-sense, four years wasted studying stuff I'm not too interested in, and going into a lot of debt. Honestly, I'm really good at studying medical science. I'm really good. However, I tend to not really care about the majority of topics unless they relate to neuroscience or new knowledge about regeneration/longevity (for example, more knowledge about the cellular biology of cancer). Seeing as how I can't be a medical science researcher as a luxury, I figure those kinds of ideas are out of my reach. Yes, I suspect I could get loans for medical school, deal with the bogusity of medical school, and so forth... But, I'm unsure what kinds of prospects I would have if I attempted to become a medical researcher right after medical school. Thoughts? Personally, I've considered the Ph.D route. I could truly consider the M.D. route. Perhaps there is some truth that more doors will open for me with a M.D. rather than a Ph.D.

I'm reading my organic chem. book as a supplement to lectures, and I came across an oddball aspect of mixed claisen condensations. Supposedly, there is the trend that an alpha-carbon attached to the other carbonyl carbon of the other ester. Ok, but how is that working for diethyl carbonate? It doesn't seem to have an alpha-carbon or alpha-protons. How does this work out? I'm guessing if I could see the mechanism, I could make sense of it; but there is no mechanism for that particular compound. I'm guessing that the oxygen acts like carbon for the mechanism? As such, the oxygen, similar to the alpha-carbon's position, attaches to the carbonyl carbon of the other ester? This is just an abstraction with a leap of faith.

Xenon is definitely cool. If I had more time, I'd look into how it works. It surely has quite the fascinating chemistry. Thank you for the replies. - genecks

I was reading about various halogenations with acetone (Br, I, and Cl). However, does fluorine have the same reaction rate with acetone during halogenation? Yes? No? If not, why so?