Genecks

If doctors were employed for a low remuneration in a government healthcare system, that same system could also pay for their education so they wouldn't be able to claim compensation for that...

I think that's really a good idea in the end. They need to be paid back. Now, from some people (in the U.S.) I've talked to in the past, they are able to receive some kind of funding for medical school if they make some kind of promise with an institution.

So, say, I know someone who is going to medical school to be a psychiatrist. That person walks into a low-income clinic, makes a promise with them, and agrees to receive a low salary in the future for the clinic funding that medical student to get through medical school. This could include grants and loans. And it may even include the loan debt being removed once the person fulfils the contract.

That's about as socialist as we get, I think. It's also capitalistic in some ways, as it locks a person into a particular wage range and the clinic ends up coming out ahead (and keeping with its mission of being a low-income clinic). I like this kind of deal, because you don't have to become a member of the military.

These kinds of deals exist for people. You start to see the greed when people say, "No, I want all of the money and no exceptions."

People can either compensate or roll the dice.

...But even on basic principles of social justice doctors don't deserve high salaries. They are essentially just glorified refrigerator repairmen, simple mechanics, who do nothing more than tend machines and try to fix them when they break down. Granted, the human body is more complex than a refrigerator, but on the other hand, refrigerator repairmen are much more successful at keeping their machines operating than medical doctors are at keeping their 'machines' alive, so the salaries should balance out. In contrast to genuine scientists, philosophers, and poets, the typical doctor never makes any original contribution to the extension of human knowledge or insight, and he or she never creates anything, but just carries out the established rituals of a highly-regulated craft, like a cabinet-maker.

Not all doctors are glorified. We need our surgeons and specialists to a degree, and I think because of the complexity and level of detail to their work, they should be compensated. They are like warriors, in my opinion.

We don't need so many bed-side individuals paid so much.

Also, medical doctors use to do a lot of research in the past. But this was due to the fact that they had to money to do said research: the socioeconomics of the time.

Also, consider what kind of research was possible back then: Equipment didn't cost as much as it does now: The level of complexity to our equipment, the costs of chemicals, and running a lab has greatly increased.

But we don't have medical doctors really doing this kind of thing now. We do have our medical scientists, but I think they stick around because they do things that others can't do, because of government regulations.

...Curly arrows are normally only reserved for organic mechanisms since metal ions are a little more tricky and often to react in that way...

Definitely, as I'm annoyed by the way a Simmons-Smith reagent works with a cyclohexene. I've boiled it down to just having a cyclohexene react with a C-Zn bond, thus the pi bond attacks C and the Zn-C sigma bond attacks the alkene's corner carbon. So, all I need are the alkene and C-Zn sigma bond to abstract from. I can figure as much that the carbon is electropositive due to dipole moments, but to figure out that the Zn-C sigma bond is doing the attacking? Well, I don't see that; but not the point of this thread.

Maybe all of you are on about something that I don't know about. But for the most part, I do use arrows when drawing out the mechanisms. And I don't believe I'm using pure photographic memorization without understanding of the material. However, I do believe I'm memorizing particular things and abstracting from them (this is at least my view from a cognition background).

As I quip to professors and other, "You can't abstract from something unless you have something memorized." They've told me in rebuttal that the problems some students have is that they will literally attempt to memorize one thing (the mechanism and those particular reagents, the specific molecules themselves in their chemical formula, in the reactions) and think it will be on the exam/quiz.

But yeah, memorization needs to occur to a degree.

At least, I started doing incredibly better in first semester organic when I noticed the professor knew little to nothing about cognition, thus I decided to start to "memorize" particular things, and I did a ton better. Not only that, but there are aspects of the motor cortex that tie into memory and the visual cortex. As such, it can often become an unconscious act to start recalling reaction mechanisms, I believe.

The act is very similar to studying anatomy, during which wrote memorization can help increase retain learned knowledge.

p.s.

I looked over some reactions recently. I suspect in a way thinking about orbital, which orbitals are vacant, and particular aspects of orbitals can help a person exhaust what is going on in a reaction. But when I have something, say a water group on an organic molecule, I've got to have known that the water molecule is going to leave.

I am a spaceship going through the galaxy. I am the sun. I am the moon. I am the heir of nothing in particular.

And yet I am a banana. It is so obvious that I am a banana.

Why, just yesterday as I was looking through a paper about cluster IV neurons in drosophilia that possess a novel light receptor throughout the body, I was eating a banana. And my ancestors ate banana.

So, consciously, I am a banana.

Seriously?

I dunno. I guess saying that we're the "cloud" is a good way of defining consciousness in terms of networking schematics. We have servers all over the place that compute stuff together. The input comes from the world. And the output is what we consider to be ourselves. In a sense, we're the whole and the parts. The parts come together to be perceived as a whole, and you could assume there is some kind of neuronal inhibition that prevents the self from inquiring about the parts while the parts accumulate into the whole. As such, there is excitation to believe and consider the self as the whole rather than the parts at any particular point in time, excluding removing inhibitory systems in order to look at the said parts and notice that the self is the parts rather than the whole. But the whole introspection things sure creates a recursive paradox... As absolute recursion would lead to crash of system resources, there is a fail-safe mechanism to prevent absolute recursion (again, perhaps a form of inhibition to prevent complete recognition of self as parts).

And again, logically, you may even argue about what parts of the parts you are if you're the parts. And then someone might define himself as the whole of those parts... So, if you get into the identity theory of it all, you'll say that you're these parts rather than other parts...

Free will?

Well... that sounds like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one.

How about...

I want.. my phone call... I want it... I want it... I want my phone call...

Which fields?

To a degree, I agree with insane_alien.

America is the problem. Just leave America. Problem gone, right?

Then all we'd be competing for is prestige like some old-school gentlemen?

The problem is the AMA. Bust up the AMA and problem gone.

Let's also find a way to tax the hell out of everyone associated with sports.

I think many medical doctors deserve the pay they get. But then there are other professions that get wayy too much. Perhaps dentists are paid too much. Perhaps pharmacists are paid too much. Perhaps opticians are paid too much... And doctors who never ever do surgery ever and never will? Paid too much.

In a lot of ways, this is the issue of a factory worker who is paid a large salary to do very simple things. Given that a person has a level of seniority, the pay may be reasonable. But given that seniority does not exist, the pay is more than the time and effort put into the work accomplished.

As I read more about changing economics in the medical field, along with further introduction of physicians assistant's (P.A.s), I am believe that medical administrators are attempting to find ways to slash salaries, replace M.D.s with people who can do the same task for a lower salary, and so forth. The fact that the goverment also grants licenses and certifications to particular persons and gives them the right to conduct such tasks is like saying, "Alright, we'll let you have the ability to pay someone lower than an M.D. for completing darn similar work."

At the moment, more people are becoming physician's assistants, and I believe this will start cutting into the medical industry more and more. The AMA may be able to act like a guild and fight the government in relation to how many M.D.s are certified. However, a government could attempt to fight back against the AMA.

I believe these physician assistant's are part of counter-attack.

And then you'll eventually have more nurses, and then more CNAs to replace said nurses, and so forth. I've considered the PA to the MD as the CNA is to the RN.

I believe this medical salary issue started to be dealt with in the mid-1990s and has slowly been working its way out.

OK. As I am new to the subject, I have very little to no knowledge of it what so ever.

 

I wish to know several things as follows: how do the senses, sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing function; how do they travel along the nervous system to the brain; how does the brain interpret these signals (if there is a term for them I would like to know that as well); can they be stimulated into producing false sensations by artificial stimuli; and lastly, if the answer to the last question be yes, as i know hallucinogens do something similar, can the effects be controlled, thus being able to create images, smells and so on, at the will of the user.

 

I am not asking weather we can control what a hallucinogen depicts to the user, but weather by some other form of stimulus can we create false sensations, for example, to make someone see, and smell a flower that is not there.

 

On another note, when i speculate on this, it seems to me that if we were trying to induce a false image on someone, it would be possible to use their own memories to create something, if we knew what triggered the event that brings memory to awareness. Your thoughts on this?

 

 

If you have anything you think might be helpful e-mail me king_o_queens3@hotmail.co.uk

1) how do they travel along the nervous system to the brain;

Through electrical events involved but not limited to... depolarization, hyperpolarization, and graded potentials throughout various cells if not one particular cell depending on the species.

They can travel via electrical and/or chemical synapses.

2) how does the brain interpret these signals (if there is a term for them I would like to know that as well);

Through electrical events involved but not limited to... depolarization, hyperpolarization, and graded potentials throughout various cells if not one particular cell depending on the species.

3 & 4) can they be stimulated into producing false sensations by artificial stimuli; and lastly, if the answer to the last question be yes, as i know hallucinogens do something similar, can the effects be controlled, thus being able to create images, smells and so on, at the will of the user.

yes; yes

Thoughts)

If we are all really hooked up to some incredibly high-tech machine and just brains in a vat, this is quite some impressive engineering (hundreds of years away by our feeble standards) to be hooked-up to. Perhaps the act of generating a recursion through making such brain-in-vat technology would cause the superuser to shutdown the computer or system, thus freeing us.

Nah, that's just crazy talk.

Error: Cannot compute.

Yes, it's keeping track of the electrons. But I'm not learning about energy fields, I think.

Keeping track of the arrows depends on keeping track of charges on aspects of atoms in the structure. There can be positive and negative charges throughout said structures. Also, there are some stability issues that can help determine what a particular molecule/atom/shift will do.

I often use (delta + or delta -) and then use those aspects to attempt to figure out where to start the arrow and point it. It also depends on the conditions of the substances being reacted.

I really can't seem to get into the act of pure memorization of these things.

Anyway, with the orgo II class I'm in at the moment, all we're really doing is memorization of reactions. Not learning anything else, such as nomenclature, sterics... etc... just straight up mechanisms and maybe some stereochemistry.

In one organic professor, I suspected I'd have to learn maybe 30 mechanisms with him. With this professor I'm with now, she's giving us well over 30 mechanisms. Slightly entertaining, though.

It's appears to all focused around functional group analysis. It's like learning the truth without the language of truth: Insight without explanation for insight.

The arrows mean little to me unless there is a reason for them or I can explain what they arrows are doing. At least, this is how I learn the reactions I've been learning.

The notes also provide me with quick re-integration of previously learned material.

Thanks for the replies.

- Genecks

Understood. Something I did not know months ago was there are people who desire a particular standard when attempting to submit electrophysiology data:

The Minimum Information about a Neuroscience investigation (MINI) family of reporting guideline documents, produced by community consultation and continually available for public comment aims to provide a consistent set of guidelines in order to report an electrophysiology experiment. A MINI module represents the minimum information that should be reported about a dataset to facilitate computational access and analysis to allow a reader to interpret and critically evaluate the processes performed and the conclusions reached, and to support their experimental corroboration. In practice a MINI module comprises a checklist of information that should be provided (for example about the protocols employed) whena data set is described for publication. The full specification of the MINI module can be found here [6].

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophysiology#Reporting_guidelines_for_electrophysiology_experiments

I've always been fascinated how scientific papers tend to rattle off facts rather than create nice rhetorical transitions. I've read very old papers, though, and they seem to have more of a transition than a modern scientific publication.

Answer: I think there would be hyper-inflation of tuition costs.

Tuition costs are already effected by the G.I. bill.

I think the modern system is ok, works to make sure students do their best and are funded as such, but I think it would be great if the Pell Grant was unlocked for people at age 20 with two years of college/uni work and above a 3.5 GPA.

If that had happened for me, I would be done by now. There needs to be a system that pays people for hard work and responsibility.

Expansion of the Pell Grant is the better bet. Obama made the Pell Grant more accessible the past year or so. I know this, because I'm getting the full Pell Grant (I'm 24, btw).

I have an EFC of 0, which is because I'm an independent and very broke (in debt). I write that I have $0 in my bank and person when filling out the FAFSA.

I'm also getting the SMART grant. As I read, something is being cut in the summer of 2011. I can't quite recall at the moment. These grants sure change a lot.

As I'm but 13 credits away from a B.S. (I have 117 credit hours, atm), I'm hoping to obtain federal work study (the government gives you a check to work while being a student) in the case that I somehow can't get enough grants. I'm surprised that I did not receive it at all. I question if it's because I'm white. I hate to be racial about it, but there is often a bias in such things: If not a minority, then you don't get the grant.

It seems as though the U.S. Government is looking for ways to protect the Pell Grant. I'm under the belief that tying it into the consumer price index is an attempt to prevent universities from inflating tuition in order to receive more Pell Grant.

Perhaps there is some economic aspect where if admins. raise tution, then Pell Grant will increase, but then food prices will drop... or something like that... I'm sure there is a whole economics to it.

Many online universities were scamming the U.S. Government the past decade in order to receive a large amount of the pell grant money. Surely, people are attempting to protect distribution of it.

I knew this guy from Switzerland who was receiving a free education by the government. However, a combination of too many drops caused him to lose his money. So, you don't always get the free money in a country with free education.

However, I would like to state this:

In America, it seems more reasonable for the republic to start post-secondary studies at age 24 (or 24 within the semester they are getting the grant--there is more complexity to this), because of the availability of the Pell Grant (free tuition).

I think there should be more of a system where if you stay above a particular GPA and make a particular progress, then you'll be awarded more Pell Grant. This might have the side-effect of grade inflation among universities, though.

I think that's the purpose of the SMART grant. However, I think there should be something more than the SMART grant, such as the GETSMART grant, for people who keep above 3.5/4.0 GPAs. Some hierarchal funding system.

It's crazy. You can get a free education in America... you just have to wait until you're a little older. Best kept secret.

Some people think if they wait, they'll be too stupid to start school again. Not true. I think many study habits and work ethics have already been crystallized and just need to be tweaked and refocused.

Save up your money and study hard before going to school, ydoaPs.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that a autodidact should not be learning one thing at a time for a long period of time each day. For instance, I don't suggest a person really studying genetics for 8 hours a day. That will cause a person to get agitated with it, unless somehow they find it super-interesting and just want more and more. I could study a computer language for hours and hours and stay up past 24 hours learning it. I've done this before, because I'm weird and obsessive when it comes to computer science. I spent a lot of time reading, learning, scripting with Delphi.

However, if a person gets stuck on a point, it might aggravate the person and hold them up. Many advanced readers will see if they can basically skip that particular section of the reading/learning and move onto further material. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

As such, academics tend to juggle more than one topic of study at a time. Study more than one thing at a time is what I suggest.

Somehow I got an A on the speech.

I'm definitely going to have to drink more coffee and watch out for actions my superiors commit. I'm going to need a good pair of running shoes.

In relevance to how I went about it besides political/academic bickering:

I think I gave a decent introduction to the material. I basically stated how the bat uses its echolocation in nature and how scientists developed a desire to understand it. I emphasized discussion on the methods over and over. I re-iterated terms, such as temporary chemical ablation, because I was (and I do this when I give speeches these days) trying out a new style of speech I'm playing with where I tautologically re-iterate concepts and parts of the main ideas in attempt to prevent the audience from requiring review on the speech from beginning.

This came from some of the discussions here about how a person cannot go back to the beginning of a speech. So, I move forward a little, find a way to recap things again, and keep doing that until the end. I could imagine a mathematical way to describe this as a string with loops that tend to vary in size as the stringer moves forward: Each loop resembles a re-iteration of a particular amount of content that was previously mentioned in the speech.

I think I did fairly well. However, the fact that there were truly many concepts that I did not understand had prevented me from doing the best that I could. And that bothered me. However, at the same time, it's true that people in my particular major are not required to take particular physics classes, and I was unable to understand some audio physics in the paper due to my lack of physics knowledge.

What bothered me, however, about a couple of weeks after giving the speech was learning how the professor truly has not been aware of what the major's curriculum is and what courses we do and do not take as students within the major... That's kind of bad, seeing as how he controls graduate admissions for the graduate-level of the major...

Knowing what articles there were to present, I wouldn't have picked the one he gave me due to me knowing I could not understand all that was involved. Definitely there were more simple papers to pick.

-----

In relation to being a guide:

I see my role as, "I will help you to the point I know that if I help you any more, you'll not really have accomplished anything new, gained any new skills, or found a way to do things on your own." And then there are points where I notice, "A communitarian effort here will save all of us time and effort. No time for b.s. here, folks. Let's get things done."

And then I sometimes think, "I doubt you'll ever see this problem again, and me answering it for you will help you learn more than anyone is currently teaching you. Here is the answer."

I've learned to research things, use electronic databases, give speeches (I've had speech, rhetoric, and acting classes before), and so on. Personally, I didn't really learn anything new from this situation except professors become increasingly absent-minded and lack knowledge of computer technology.

He more than likely knows nothing about my prior educational experience, so a professor might assume I've never taken a speech class. As such, they might attempt to use "tough love" and make me do everything myself.

If I was over-seeing a student who has had a speech class, and I know this, I wouldn't jack them around. Maybe only to see how good their skills still are (if anything).

QFT

 

Many important things have already been mentioned. Regarding undergrad talks: it is rare that a great polished talk is expected. In fact, at the undergrad level talks are often used as a means to gauge the level of understanding as well as ability to fill knowledge gaps of the student. The form and style are also often discussed, but (depending on the prof, of course) rarely the centerpiece of it.

Almost all first talks are (from a style viewpoint) bad. And this is OK, and it forms the basis for improvement. Not understanding the material on a basic level is something different, though.

This might be a more realistic reason as to not help students at the level I am at. I've read and heard about particular advanced-level classes that are used to prepare students for other universities before they kick them out of the door with their degree. Perhaps this class acts as a reminder and a skill-set reviewer.

I would wish that if this is their intention, they'd actually state this kind of thing, though. I believe in transparency. Not a lot of people do.

I've had professors who act more communitarian than simply say, "I don't really have to help you if I don't want to." It seems that things go incredibly smooth in those communitarian instances. Many people learn and learn well. And people do show excellence.

Technically, I believe professors still have to if I come to visit them during office hours (some kind of academic law for public schools where I am if not academic policy). But otherwise, they don't have to in any other way. As such, they're often stringent about their office hours and allowing people to such hours. In this situation, not even the teaching assistant could help me, because the teaching assistant did not have access to the resources until much later on.

In truth, I've stopped relying on TAs in any form or fashion, because I find most (that I've come across) to be lacking in the ability to help individuals accomplish goals for themselves: This university has a complete plague of this issue. Rarely do you get a TA with some wits. They're trying to fix this issue by hiring people who show excellent communication and people skills rather than stone-cold logic. Progress is slow.

I suppose it depends on how it was framed. If if was a student research assignment, in which the student was assigned to learn about the research independently and present it (rather than presenting something relevant to what's taught inc lass), I don't see why the teacher is obligated to do anything besides point the student at available resources.

It was surely something relevant to what is taught in class. Basically, all of us students are assigned to take on part of the various lectures the professor gives (at least this appears the theme), and give the talks that he would have been giving.

This isn't a whole independent research thing, such as me going out to understand BERA analysis and giving a talk about it. Definitely under a situation like that, that would be something I'd be doing on my own. It's one of those situations where I might say, "I can't expect the professor to have any knowledge of this. As such, I'm completely on my own."

And I wouldn't expect the professor to give any advice, help, info on a situation like that, particularly at the level I am at. That would be my job as an advanced academic, and it would really be wasting the professor's time and ruining the audience experience.

If you are going to do public speaking, you might join a Toastmasters Club. Toastmasters Clubs make people experts in public speaking by having them speak and giving the feed back...

Hello, Goddess Athena.

I'll consider that. I do need to work on my auditory learning and oratory skills. Perhaps it could do me some good.

*blinks*

What realm of science are you more interested in biasing your knowledge toward?

If it's biology, I can point you in some directions.

I don't believe a person really needs a lot of equipment to conduct many biological experiments. I can't think of an affordable way to conduct experiments in relation to light spectroscopy, but in general, making a home lab and being an autodidact is not too expensive.

You don't necessarily need a large amount of mathematics knowledge in biology until you start moving toward more advanced topics involving anatomy and physiology.

Information on this is no longer required.

Thank you for the posts, folks.

So, I was talking to someone recently, and they said that rdiff-backup is basically the same thing as BackupPC. However, I didn't believe that, as I was with the understanding that BackupPC differently does one major thing:

1) Makes a pool so that no file ever, despite ever being moved in the folder tree, needs to be copied over again.

This is correct, yes?

And rdiff-backup does not do this, right?

I'm using rdiff-backup at the moment. I backed things up. Afterward, I renamed a directory with files in it. From there, I backed things up again. It would appear that rdiff-backup had decided to backup all of the files again along with the folder they are in.

BackupPC is different in this regard, as it will checksum the pool, notice the files are there, adjust and create a symlinked foldertree, right? rdiff-backup is not doing this?

is there a reason why alcohol is never sold in plastic bottles?

As stated by moontainman and Horza2002, drinking alcohol (recreational) and/or lab-grade alcohol may degrade/combine with the plastic material and degenerate the alcoholic compounds.

I often feel as though I am responding to various A.I. these days with the way some posters ask questions and a *logical* way to respond.

Typically I'm looking for a formal (IUPAC) name rather than a decent informal name. "Carbonyl oxygen" seems like an informal name to me. I am, however, ok with decent informal names if people have a good one and don't know of a formal name.

I am going through reaction mechanisms at the moment. As I do such, I attempt to reduce each step into a three word phrase, such as "CarbO atk H+" for the first step in acetal formation w/ MeOH. CarbO in this case, inspired you by mississippichem, stands for carbonyl oxygen.

p.s.

I'm aware it's electron flow rather than atomic attack.

Why is this in ethics?

*lights a cigarette and sips on his shot of whiskey*

Say I have a carbonyl, such as a ketone with two R groups and the double bonded oxygen to the center carbon.

Is there another name for the oxygen pi bonded to the center carbon?

I call it "d.b. oxygen" for "double bonded oxygen," but I'm looking for a more appropriate name.

I think we'll move toward bacteria rather than algae.

But if you want to read more about algae, you may want to read into the "Aquatic Species Program."

We've known for ages that Darwinism is false. Modern Synthesis is what we deal with now.

Fine. Keep your theology school. of the threads cover elementary topics. If you've got a way to shut down the ethics threads I got and show how they are elementary, then go for it. I could come in, throw in links, throw out books, and tell people they're uneducated.

I think I have enough religious and spiritual training to pull it off.

Damn? Science and atheism? Science and religion? Really?

As if that hasn't been covered already for hundreds of years.

As if I've never seen such a thread on SFN.

I'm not particularly well-trained in the ethics of invasive species.

I'm not saying what I'm talking about is better, though. Because doing that means saying talking about science is better than talking about religion or vice versa.

I thought the reason that the link to your forum was generated was to get the mass of religious discussions off of SFN. I was pretty sure it was a religion forum at one time. Maybe that has changed.

How does having ethic threads in regards to religion make you any less able to start an ethics thread over bioengineering or some such matter?

Same way a post I make in /b goes away quite quickly: Darwinism.

I'm not saying what I'm talking about is better than what everyone else is talking about.

But I can assure people that most topics, such as human abortion, have been covered for a very long time. Many aspects of religion have been talked about before.

This touches on an essential paradox of the whole 'animal rights' movement...

Definitely. There is surely a paradox here. I'm attempting to make the best of a bad situation, which can actually be a good situation for particular scientists who don't feel like shelling out cash to gather resources.

...

Do you want to discuss if there are situations where ethics can be thrown aside?

Do you want to discuss if ethics can be thrown aside in the specific case of the Australian rabbits?

Or do you want to discuss what would ethically be the best way to deal with the Australian rabbits?

All three, really, but in relation to invasive species as the title indicates.

As I've not really seen too many arguments in this realm, I think I will move onto a more serious discussion by providing more discussion.

I wanted to see what serious replies would come before I poison the river: I don't want my arguments nor line of thinking to really alter the thinking of others who may have their own opinions on the matter.

Anyone who wants to provide a view before reading the rest of this post might want to stop reading it and come back to it at a later time.

Some people rather have people who start conversations and discussions present an argument so that they have something to argue again. I attempt to start a discussion with some questions. It's Socratic, sure.

--

I think my question was quite specific and succinct. If you want me to break it down further for you, I can.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Do you want to discuss if there are situations where ethics can be thrown aside?

If a species is invasive, despite being a vertebral or an invertebrate, should a researcher be allow to throw aside ethics?

I believe that as long as the research does not directly affect surrounding organisms (in a sense by tampering with the ecosystem that was already there), then a scientist should be allowed to do the research.

For example, I have interests in crayfish, behavior, and their learning.

In Scotland, there is a currently a problem with sight crayfish, and people have been suggested to kill crayfish on sight: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/south_of_scotland/7564004.stm

I believe I should be in full ethical right to do research on the crayfish without ethical intervention. I believe this for a few reasons: (1) The government has classified the animal as an invasive species (2) people want them gone (3) me taking them capture as part of an experiment (in such a way) helps decrease the population of the invasive species (4) the governments have taken action to remove the invasive species.

In a sense, I am helping the government, the people, and help restore the ecosystem by taking away the organisms.

In the case where I do not attempt to make a species specific super-virus or species-general virus (nor attempt to do any immunological and microbiological research that would lead to a possible release of a biological pathogen into the world's environments), I believe that the majority of research I do on the organism (say a sight crayfish) would be ethical. Furthermore, I also believe it would be ethical to create a research program with other researchers.

Do you want to discuss if ethics can be thrown aside in the specific case of the Australian rabbits?

As with the Australian rabbits, I see that many of the above premises also apply. In America, people often need approval to work with vertebrates. However, in the case of Australian rabbits, there is such an ample supply of them, capturing them and doing research with them would help decrease the population.

I say that this is ethical and should be freely allowed on another point: The governments and other agencies have been finding ways to kill the rabbits. The only difference is that the methods of death have involved usage of a virus (which can be used to kill an infected rabbit within about 2-3 days) and guns to shoot the rabbits.

A scientific experiment may require more time, thus causing the animal to undergo pain over a period of months rather than a swift death. Then again, there may be times where an experiment does not seem to go forward too fast, and the researcher decides to terminate the rabbit: Say they are investigating the involuntary nervous system and have the rabbit surgerically cut open and everything: It is decided that bringing back the rabbit would make it a neurological zombie (or something similar).

Or do you want to discuss what would ethically be the best way to deal with the Australian rabbits?

Again, another thing that can be related to the title of the thread. However, as I propose, legislation on dealing with invasive species should be liberal, because people generally want them gone. However, too much liberty in working with pathogenic materials causes issues, as shown in one of my premises.

We could start a thread on the ethics of trying to stop people from discussing things you don't like.

You would be surprised that I've never really bashed religion around here or belittled a variety of spiritual, metaphysical ideas around SFN. Personally, I think religious discussions help develop a sense of morality in people. It can also generate greater argumentative skills in individuals.

But if you want to make a thread like that. Go for it. I find what you just said to be a personal attack and rude.

This isn't what I'm really getting at, though.

I've been a member a long time here, and I've seen the ethics/religion subboards taken down before. It appears that they are often taken away when things get off track and irrelevant.

And if it gets like that again, I suspect the board would be taken down again. I believe I was actually one of the first people to argue for a religion board, but this was way back in 2006/2007 or so.

I was saddened that the ethics board went down, because it's great to talk about ethics in relation to science, especially on this board because we have plenty of actual scientists to discuss science AND ethics.

Talk about the engineering of mechanical pencils. I find that the Twist-Erase by Pentel is the best ever made. However, it could use a better clip for clipping onto one's shirt pocket.

I've talked to a lot of people throughout the years who have had acne.

Many people speculated in the past few decades that it was "sugar."

The cause of acne: Sugar.

So many people thought that was silly and unsupported. However, I could tell it was an easy correlate whenever I would be carb cutting, then eat a lot of sugary foods a day later.... Two days after eating the sugary foods, I'd get some kind of acne.

As it took long enough to discover H. pylori in relation to stomach ulcers, I'm definitely skeptical of medical experts who don't actively do microbiological research: I think they're absolute freaking twits.

It's all about developing a hypothesis, so I'll throw out an idea:

Maybe somehow the intestinal bacteria are depositing biochemicals into the skin that makes the facial skin an excellent media for bacterial growth. Sounds impractical due to how digestion and blood filtering works, but it could be a possibility.

Anywhere, here is some stuff I found on Wikipedia:

Intestinal bacteria

 

Intestinal bacteria may play a role in causing the disease. A recent study subjected patients to a hydrogen breath test to detect the occurrence of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). It was found that significantly more patients were hydrogen-positive than controls indicating the presence of bacterial overgrowth (47% v. 5%, p<0.001).

 

Hydrogen-positive patients were then given a 10-day course of rifaximin, a non-absorbable antibiotic that does not leave the digestive tract and therefore does not enter the circulation or reach the skin. 96% of patients experienced a complete remission of rosacea symptoms that lasted beyond 9 months. These patients were also negative when retested for bacterial overgrowth. In the 4% of patients that experienced relapse, it was found that bacterial overgrowth had returned. These patients were given a second course of rifaximin which again cleared rosacea symptoms and normalized hydrogen excretion.[12]

 

In another study, it was found that some rosacea patients that tested hydrogen-negative, were still positive for bacterial overgrowth when using a methane breath test instead. These patients showed little improvement with rifaximin, as found in the previous study, but experienced clearance of rosacea symptoms and normalization of methane excretion following administration of the antibiotic metronidazole, which is effective at targeting methanogenic intestinal bacteria.[13]

 

These results suggest that optimal antibiotic therapy may vary between patients and that diverse species of intestinal bacteria appear to be capable of mediating rosacea symptoms.

This may also explain the improvement in symptoms experienced by some patients when given a reduced carbohydrate diet.[14] Such a diet would restrict the available material necessary for bacterial fermentation and thereby reduce intestinal bacterial populations.

The first thing any acne sufferer must realize is that any disease-regardless of its medical diagnosis-is a product of constipation, a clogging up of the body tissues. Consequently, as the body fights to unclog its organs, the process becomes manifested in several ways.

I could only see such statements as feasible in relation to a Freudian or metaphorical interpretation. Otherwise, no, more than likely wrong unless you've got some evidence going into further examination of the intestinal tract and remaining fecal matter that has yet to be released is the cause of infection.