Genecks

Psychologists are suppose to suggest ways to solve problems... The ethics involved suggest that psychologists do not deliberately alter people's lives (not without permission, etc..). If there is no problem, at least he thinks there is no problem, then what is the problem? You're problem? Well, if it's not his problem, then there you're wasting your time by acting as an good and ethical scientist.

Part of science is having a reason to expend and obtain resources. For instance, to make a circuit, you might need a light bulb, a power source, and some wire. But without the reasons to obtain certain materials, you won't know which light bulb, power supply, and wire to get.

In general, what I'm trying to get at is that before building your own lab, you'll want to be knowledgeable and well read about the activities you plan on conducting in your lab. If you plan on researching something in order to discover something new, then you will need to have been well read on previous literature and have a few theories about how to take previous data and build upon it (this is more like graduate school stuff).

Research, in general, occurs after you've become familiar with a good amount of the knowledge and materials of the profession.

So, go grab some books, get well read, and determine what kinds of experiments you'd like to conduct. After being well-read on it and deciding what you would like to do, such as make a laser, go get the materials and do such.

So, a lot of the equipment you'll be buying is to test theories, unless you're attempting research.

That powerlabs guy has been around for a while. I think I noticed the guy around 2003 or 2004. The guy probably has a decent amount of money and what not. I don't know what he does these days, and I'm not sure how he got access to a lot of areas where he could safely do his experiments. I'm reading his bio. Looks like his parents had money (worked at a bank for 10+ years), education, and the ability to direct him toward such.

Anyway, I would think your biggest deal would be finding a safe place to do the experiments. You could try your basement or backyard, depending on how big they are. Otherwise, you might want to start talking to some local chemists and physicists (perhaps visit a college/university), and ask if they know any decent, nearby places you could test some equipment. But if you bother approaching these people to test equipment, be very sure about what you are testing, ready to explain your experiment, and explain some aspects of the science behind it... And why you think it's important that you conduct this experiment. Some people don't like their time being wasted. As said, be well read.

With my knowledge in biology, I could probably have a mad science lab. However, I believe if I started posting about such details on SFN, I'd see the FBI, CIA, NSA, some other three-letter agency quite soon.

I'd like to see some diagrams, ajb.

Who is getting the money? Where is it going in particular?

Is it going to the guy who wants to research better plastics or the guy who wants to make a better artificial heart?

I mean, sure, people aren't spending as much money of various scientific research. While attempting to better understand human immunology, why fund money towards understanding the immunology of flies when you could simply put money towards understanding the immunology of mice? Then again, if you can develop strong arguments for one or the other, you get the money. And the person who could say, "I can find out more with my flies than his mice and use less money" will more than likely get the money.

I really think that a lot of economic changes people have been hoping for will eventually occur. People will fund things related to transhumanism, despite the religiosity of many people in the world. If not transhumanism, then definitely increased abilities in medical science and medical research. Things such as space travel and understanding complex physics will be put on hold. And it seems like we will be coming to a point where we will have more biologists than physicists, as the level of physics required to decently understand biological systems may already be to the level we need to make great leaps and bounds in the future with our limited monetary resources.

These are the days of medical science.

I will agree with pioneer. We all really need to do a better job of sharing our toys. It seems like people have yet to take up communitarian actions, and that leads to a lot of serious issues. Then again, I like science. I could envision myself as one of those Chinese post-doc researchers that works 16 hours a day on something. Give me some power bars, a little bit of time to stretch and do some quick exercises, and I'm back in the game.

Not all of the genes have meaningful name. The first to assign a function generally can give them any name they want (though nowadays people cross-reference it to the ORF name, if a genome sequence is available). Other than that you should just check the regular databases as swissprot (for proteins) or Genbank, in which the full name is sometimes deposited.

 

Blimp1 stands for B lymphocyte-induced maturation protein, btw. and is also called PRDM1 (Positive regulatory domain) as it binds to the PRDI (positive regulatory domain I element) of its target gene.

Alright, those are some possibilities.

Thank you very much, CharonY.

This also works: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene

I'm not sure if it is part of Genbank, though.

I was not thinking about the transcription->translation-> protein aspect of things; but surely, the function of the protein (if not acquiring the semantic reasoning behind the naming of the gene) is important.

Thanks for the input.

I keep coming across a variety of genes (abbrevited for reasons I don't know or otherwise), and I keep wondering what these letters stand for. If I correctly understand, the HesC gene abbreviation stands for "Human embryonic stem cell" gene. That's nice and all, but I'm wondering if any of you know a decent database where I can find maybe more detail about these various three letter, four-letter.. #-letter genes I keep coming across. First and foremost, I'm trying to figure out what these abbreviations mean if there is an abbreviation, and perhaps some historical knowledge about these various genes, such as Blimp1.

Anyone know where I can find a database or some databases that discuss these details?

I'm guessing that would be the IUPAC name unless there is a biochemistry standard (not single letters) that I am unaware of.

correction: It would seem that the IUPAC name is "alanine."

I'll look into this.

I'm guessing this: 2-aminopr​opanoic a​cid

Seems right.

sources:

(1) http://www.chemspider.com/RecordView.aspx?rid=16d6aa47-930c-4fb9-90dc-35e024d2cd55

(2) http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AminoAcid/AA1n2.html#AA1

p.s.

Nice way of representing your structure.

Pluripotent is correct. See the part where it is equivalent to cells in the inner cell mass. These can't become placenta.

So, perhaps by saying "all the cell types of the body" it was implying development post-placenta, so cells of an adult body?

If the gene is close enough, then you can use a gene from species X to "rescue" the "same" gene in species Y, even though there may be great genetic distance between the two species....

Yes, but there is a difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The way the mRNA gene binds to the ribosome is different. I am under the assumption that the mitochondria, in this situation, are largely under the influence of prokaryotic evolution.

First of all ribosomes translate and do not transcribe.The initiation of translation is different in pro- and eukaryotes. Most notably the ribosome binding sequence on the mRNA is different. The famous Shine-Dalgarno and Kozak sequences, respectively. This is important basics (if it does not tell you anything, grab a textbook now, also ).

 

Regarding gcl the last time I heard about it was already a few years back, but from what I recall the evidence was not fully on the side of translation by mitochondrial ribosomes. I remember basically two explanations. A) presence of cis regulatory sequences that allow the translation, or in fact translation by cytoplasmic mitochondria.

So, would you say that the counterargument is that the gcl gene does have that Kozak sequence? I'm not sure if the gcl gene has been sequenced. But obviously a sequence should have the information describing whether or not the sequence possesses the ability bind to eukaryotic or prokaryotic ribosomes, right?

An extreme exception would be that the ribosomes produced by the particular neighboring mitochondria are very different from other mitochondria.

I'm just curious about this situation, so it's so close to "home," the beginning stages of development in a multicellular eukaryotic organism. Maybe it was a sign of some missing link between single-cell to multicellular development.

And are you saying in this part "...or in fact translation by cytoplasmic mitochondria." that may indeed be translated by mitochondria?

p.s.

Thanks. Post was changed and edited.

I'm reading about embryonic germ cells from one of my course books. It says that EG cells should be able to turn into any cell. Then again, it seems to say it can turn into the three germ layers. However, from the way I'm interpreting this, it would appear that EG cells are pluripotent and not totipotent. So, I'm unsure as to whether or not consider them totipotent or pluripotent. Perhaps this is really a contextual issue?

The attached image has part of my text that I am discussing.

Note the term "pluripotent" and the phrase "...all the cell types..."

Well, I got into an argument with a professor who got his Ph.D in Evolution and Ecology about this issue a little. A few months ago, I think. I basically claimed that birds could be an example of the pinnacle of evolution, of which he replied that there is no pinnacle of evolution. I wanted to say in reply, "Well, if sh** gets too complicated, they can just fly away." But I held that part in. Humans can't easily "fly away."

Fair enough, but I think you could still look at this from different angles:

I could see the following as pinnacles of evolution:

1) Bacteria: Have the ability to reproduce and evolve and have remained on Earth a long time. Then again, in terms of an individual species, they often change or mix and evolve, etc. etc..

2) Birds: Their cognitive skills and small body exemplify how the body to brain mass ration downsized until a species can remain cognitive, intelligent, and yet keep a bout of survival. It's really their memory and cognitive skills that make me think their brains underwent amazing amounts of evolution. They have impressive memory skills.

3) Humans: Humans are impressive in that they can examine, feel, and discuss the nature of the universe and how they may have come about existence. More importantly, they are the first species to really accomplish this feat and devise technological ways to seek answers to their questions.

What makes the birds and humans different is that they have a brain. Furthermore, they have a sense of existence and the natural world around them. They can bend the situation. Birds, unlike apes, can simply fly away if things get too complicated.

Perhaps the angle is best described this way:

Take a biological structure/function, examine which species has wielded it the best, and attribute the pinnacle of evolution of that attribute to that species.

In a lot of ways, when we think of the pinnacle of evolution, there is a concept similar to the Great chain of being, for which there is a path of moving "up."

Internet.

The Internet has been around for a while.

However, I'll advance your idea.

I propose that open-source science projects, including biology projects, are some of the best advancements made.

Not only that, but how the communities can read each other's stuff and collaborate.

My previous knowledge of genetics is a little foggy, but I remember there being something about one type of ribosome not being able to (EDIT: ribosomes translate; RNA polymerase transcribes) translate the mRNA from another organism. I think it was that prokaryotic ribosomes can't translate eukaryotic mRNA. Or maybe it was the other way around?

Either way, I'm reading about the possible transcription of certain genes, such as the germ cell-less (gcl) gene inside of eukaryotic cells during development. It would appear that the hypothesis is that the mitochondrial ribosomes help at translating this gene.

How could this be?

I suspect the following:

1. Somehow the gcl gene is deeply rooted in prokaryotic genetics

2. the amino acid sequences of the mitochondrial ribosomes are much different that the binding principles are different (how mRNA attaches to the ribosome and goes about translation)

Interesting article I came across while viewing sciencedaily.com a few days ago. I thought the stuff was cool and quite critical. I suspect when I get a chance, I'll be looking into the original articles For now, I suspect some of you who like studying modern biology and various aspects of animal/bug psychology and sociology would find this article an interesting read.

As follows, there is a link and a bit from the article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826141221.htm

Genomes of Two Ant Species Sequenced: Clues to Their Extraordinary Social Behavior

Dr. Reinberg has devoted most of his career to understanding the molecular machinery that determines how genes are turned on and off. He is especially interested in how epigenetics may influence longevity -- in some ant colonies the queens live up to ten times longer than worker ants. Although he was always fascinated by ants, it took years for the technology to catch up with the inspiration to study the interaction of epigenetics with longevity and behavior in these animals.

Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful:The New Science Of Evo-Devo and the Making Of The Animal Kingdom. London, Phoenix.

This popular book by Carroll has some references on the topic.

He has also published [with others:-

 

Carroll, S. B. (2005). "FROM DNA TO DIVERSITY: Molecular Genetics and The Evolution Of Animal Design". Oxford, Blackwell.

Thank you. I'll look into those sources when I have more time.

This thread was created with a slight leaning toward the idea of re-creating the white tiger in case it were to go extinct. If we had complete documentation of the proteins involved in development of a certain species, such as the white tiger, how possible would it be to simply synthesize/recreate the cellular materials and then induce that formulated cell to undergo development, thus developing a newborn white tiger?

I suspect it would need a mother, but I'm thinking a regular tiger mother might work (despite white tigers being somewhat larger than other tigers).

I should probably know about this, but I do not. I'm reading about the KIT gene and how a dominant mutation causes piebaldism.

Does that mean the following:

A non-functional allele mutates into a functional (dominant allele).

What does the term "dominant mutation" mean?

In general, I think a person would have to quickly figure out how to make a low-cost balance scale...

But in reference to the non-helpful necromancer....

I have no sure idea for it.

Deep homology is a beautiful topic of study.

Yes, as I've studied more neuroscience, I've noticed that scientists in the past few decades have remained amazingly ignorant or have neglected studying evolutionary aspects of sleep. Furthermore, many other aspects of brain evolution and phylogenetic relatedness have been ignored. I can understand perhaps ignoring aspects of the brain, because we were not definite (and still aren't of many) about brain cells and their mechanics. But to excuse phylogenetic studies of brain evolution in biochemical and behavioral relatedness seems impractical. Nonetheless, people have attempted to do phylogenetic studies in relation to intelligence, but that's an extreme that is not easily defined nor measured with biochemical tests. Of the ones that come to mind, many were anatomical and simply looked at the macrostructure of the brain, sometimes in relation to body weight.

Something I came across in the past year was this:

How Alcohol Blunts Ability Of Hamsters To 'Rise And Shine'

Perhaps of the best arguments I've come across for sleep is that it helps reduce stimulation of various neurons. Constant stimulation seems to deplete (or perhaps overexcite) the cell of its function, and sleep enables it to regain a sense of stability. Melatonin buildup also plays in by eventually inducing a desire for sleep. Perhaps the mechanisms to induce sleep came about through various evolutionary stages, during which the hand of evolution and fitness eventually guided humans to require about 8 hours of sleep for a decent amount of mental and physical recovery. Maybe some phylogenetic studies of similar animals would reveal how sleep is similar (or even dissimilar) in species, thus revealing HGH patterns and mental capacity patterns in relation to sleep amount.

In general, I think a lot will be found through phylogeny and biochemical experiments.

Thanks, CharonY. What you said helped.

In the time that has passed, it would seem that this particular thread went from the first link on Google's search engine to about fifth. As such, I think I have a good idea how to study for a practical.

Some time has passed, and I got As in both of my lab classes.

The genetics lab wasn't so difficult until I forgot the phenotype ratio for a heterogenous dihybrid. Something like that.

I couldn't remember if it was 9:3:3:1 or 3:1. Meh, I seemed to have done quite well.

I think I put down 9:3:3:1. I believe that's wrong... I didn't have enough time to bust out a punnet square, so it was expected that I had something like that memorized. I did at one point, but that was during the class I took in the spring. I forgot that tidbit of info over the few months I was in summer.... It bothers me....

I think one of the most important things is to constantly review the experiments, the media used, what the media looks like, and any other equipment used in the experiment. Know their purpose in the experiment. On a deeper level, it may later become required to know the chemical processes that are undergone. So, study things from general to specific. It's as if you have to constantly know the details to the purpose of the experiment, methods and materials used, expected results, and the results obtained. Not simply in a theoretical, arabic word sense.. Know what things look like, what color they are, be able to identify them by color and color change (be able to identify and recall what the physical details look like). And that format of studying and reviewing somewhat relates to how a scientific paper is written.

However, in contrast, I remember looking at cards of squashed sordaria and determining the map units and number of varying offspring with types of crossovers. That too was a "type" of experiment, albeit a pathetic almost non-scientific experiment. It was more like some kind of baconian observation, but yet it used math. I don't quite know where the scientific method fit into that "experiment." Still, come the practical, I had to know how to do the math involved with looking at a similar sordaria image. That was easy.

I would definitely have to say that my microbiology exam differed from my genetics exam. The microbiology practical really focused on the media and some simple supplies. Being able to look at a certain media plates and describe what kind of media they were was important. For instance, there was one plate that was like a Shigella-Salmonella plate that looked like another plate we used throughout the semester. I had to know what plate was on the table in front of me, and to have been able to do that, I would have needed to memorize and recall what kind of plates we used throughout the semester, what kind of growth they enable, what the growths look like on the plates, and be able to discern the properties of one plate from others. The other stuff was silly, such as knowing which wipes were used for slides or the microscope. Other stuff, such as knowing which alcohols were used on slides. There was a "station" that asked me which tools (stabbing needle, loop, or stick) were used for which kind of media. I couldn't remember if KIA (.pdf) could have a loop used on it and/or a needle.

So, in general, the best thing to have done for that practical was constantly review all the experiments and documents that were not necessarily experiment related over-and-over until I had recorded and recoded the information and could recall it. But more importantly, I should have been doing that since the first experiment rather than maybe a few weeks before finals. So, I definitely have some bad review skills going on, despite me getting As. Being able to quickly recall that stuff is super-important when in a practical setting, because practical settings are intense. Perhaps closing one's eyes, attempting to recall the details of an experiment and things learned, doing it as quick as possible, opening the eyes, moving to another seat (like musical chairs without someone taking away a chair), and doing it all over again makes a good mock atmosphere. Or just imagine it and be lazy...

The genetics exam focused on me being able to know the details of the experiments we did through the semester. It also focused on tidbits of info that a person should have learned and memorized by doing the experiment, such as knowing the typical phenotypic and genotypic ratios of a cross between two heterozygous parents. So, there was detail involved. In general, constant review would have helped me save a lot of time.

As a final note, I would have to say that these kind of practical sharply differed from a simple anatomy exam. For instance, an anatomy exam is mostly pure memorization. That's actually simpler than memorizing the majority of details to an experiment in relation to purpose of the experiment, methods and materials, results, and expected results. I feel as though the anatomy exam I had was much simpler.

other additional notes:

1. by arabic words, I mean just looking at the textual side of things. Some religions don't believe in using imagery, so they rely on text in beautifully arranged forms in order to represent deeper meanings; still, the person is using text rather than explicit imagery.

2. also, i quickly learned that it helps to actually write the station's question on the form I have if I don't have enough time to evaluate what that station is asking of me. So, when I was determining the phenotype of a cross between to diploid parents with different adenine synthesis pathway genotypes and determining if the offspring would be red or white.. i didn't have time to actually think through it with the limited time... so I just wrote the parental genotypes and when i had some free time at another station, i did the cross and determined the offspring.

Is that due to the context of the thread (i.e. to emphasize that he's adopted) or is that what you normally label him?

Context of the thread. Also, by saying family is important, I mean that people should feel like a family without thinking about genetics and bloodlines as determining factors.

CharonY, I understand what you mean, and nothing on this dead dogs experiment has ever detailed how they killed the dogs (but several animal rights groups are mad about the experiments, haha). I understand how we can consider them alive, especially since they do not stay dead.

 

Genecks, thanks for looking into it for me, I hope that you can find something to spark my interest!

Cyrogenics and biochemistry are still things I (and many others, I assume) do not understand fully and I must study up on it.

Yeah, thanks for the source. I could not find that thing. I tried.

I updated my post a moment ago. Maybe you've seen the last update.

I think my best advice is try reading through articles, chemistry books, some biology books, medical science books... if you want a better grasp of what is going on. And then again, maybe if you have a few simple, discrete questions, then email the people at the medical research center and ask them.

This is something I'll be looking into eventually again. But I think what I've quoted and the main site I gave is pretty good for now.

I've been looking for that article for a couple of years.

I was somewhat against constantly mentioning it on SFN when talking about cryogenic hibernation for animals, because I didn't have the original source.

Hello, Neco Vir.

In terms of research being done, I would not be sure. But I'll look into it next week.

As far as I know, I've read that many people are attempting to understand the biochemistry behind frozen organisms bring brought back to life.

Furthermore, we could consider them still alive, as they were able to be brought back from the dead. Neurological death is some pretty serious death.

*looks into it a little bit*

I'm looking around this website: http://www.safar.pitt.edu/

In 1984 Dr. Safar with advice from

Colonel Ronald Bellamy, an authority

on combat casualties during the Vietnam

conflict, developed a revolutionary new

concept targeting battlefield death from

rapid exsanguination. This approach

involved transient “preservation” of

the victim–to allow evacuation, transport, and emergency “damage control” surgery, followed

by a delayed resuscitation using cardiopulmonary bypass. This concept was first described in the

literature by Dr. Tisherman and co-workers in 1990 in a manuscript in the Journal of Trauma where

the concept was called “deep hypothermia for preservation and resuscitation.” Shortly thereafter,

it was called “Suspended animation for delayed resuscitation” and eventually EPR. EPR involves

the use of a rapid ice-cold aortic flush to produce profound hypothermia (<10ºC) and induce a

preservation state in injury victims that “buys time” for the trauma surgeon to perform damage

control surgery that is followed by a delayed resuscitation using cardiopulmonary bypass.

In the laboratory, Dr. Tomas Drabek, recipient of the Charles Schertz Fellow Award in 2007-2008

from the Department of Anesthesiology, published a manuscript on the development of a new rat

model of EPR in the journal Critical Care Medicine. He developed this new model in rats to allow

for testing of therapeutic adjuncts to cold flush, and to evaluate alternative flush solutions. Dr.

Drabek is also using a variant of this approach to study deep hypothermia circulatory arrest, as it is

currently used in cardiac surgery and has published a manuscript on this approach in Life Sciences.

source: http://www.safar.pitt.edu/content/archive/annualreport/pdf/SCRR2006_2007AnnualReport.pdf

It looks like they've moved from general cryogenic stuff to medical emergency. I think if a person followed up on the sources, articles referenced, and research done by people, then you might get more information. Still, because it has been said that three hours were used... maybe that's the most time they could get out of the dogs before they couldn't be revived again?

Also, there seems to be discussion about a mouse model. As such, that should give a lot of valuable information on the mammalian system. Then again... mice have a very fast metabolism... burn a lot of energy... But maybe being able to freeze them, slow down their metabolism, and bring them back to life after a day even... would mean a lot.

DJ Bruce, I think what you're stating is misguided.

First off, a lot of things that doctors do through the years is book work. There has been little, if any, application of their knowledge. It's only until residency that they begin to be actual medical doctors who treat people. They get to see pain, death, and the happiness of the people they can treat and cure. What good is all of that book work? People can't and don't remember the massive amount of information they've been fed. They remember it for a period of time and then forget it.

If you think that people remember all of that, DJ Bruce, that's very misguided. At best, the people have shown they've found a way to assimilate information. They've accomplished something if they know how to use it as a reference. They've mastered it if they can recall it.

Think of an electrician or mechanic who never picks up tools to build something but always reads books about fixing something. It's not until the application (and ability to recall and apply what has been learned) that the person is true to his/her trade.

I want a medical doctor who can actually figure out what's wrong with me. Does that mean his/her schooling that was about 11 years ago and about 6 years ago after residency helped? I doubt that person can remember exactly everything. Memorization and recall comes through repetition and application. I would want a medical doctor who had a nice residency filled with application of learned facts in relation to his/her trade. That's why people specialize: There is a large inefficiency when people attempt to be knowledgeable about everything. Sure, it would be great if God was working on you, but that's highly imaginative.

Also, toughest and brightest? Such a free-will argument.

There are a lot of people who are "in the know." You could call these people primed and spoon-fed to be future doctors. Such people may come from parents whom are doctors or even biologists. There are also the people who find good opportunities and resources to learn. And then there are people who do things to the best of their ability without much guidance at all. Truth be, those people are blind as bats and don't succeed too well.

That's my serious guess as to what's going on. I relate to the SED reports, which show how graduate students often have parents that have graduate degrees. It's just passing down the torch from one member of a community to the other.

Basically, people are being determined through external factors to succeed. The educational system is doing something highly unethical and unjust by causing people to compete as it does.

I'm not saying it's impossible to study hard and succeed. But your ability to study depends on how you were taught to study. And sometimes people learn a few tricks on their own, but I've considered that most people are unconscious of how they've learned to be so effective, thus they claim to have done the majority of work themselves. I have a decent memory of the various people in my life who've taught me how to study, work harder, and so forth. Some people forget that stuff.

I would say people are tough and bright if they can prevent themselves from going "ew" once they see a dead body or a person puking. You'll be amazed by how many pre-meds are easily disgusted and act childish upon such sights. I say throw them immediately into the real world to make them question their career choice. Then again, by the time people get so far, they rationalize their personhood and self, and they go on ahead anyway. Somehow they form into this "social role" and play their part as a "doctor."

Think about medicine before we even got to decent modern biological mechanisms in the 1950s. Seriously? You're going to ask me if a modern knowledge of biology means they can handle having people's lives in their hands? That wasn't the case for people over 100 years ago. They had pathetic knowledge of their craft (of course which hadn't developed) yet attempted to take care of people. And we still have pathetic knowledge of biology, as I'm sure more knowledge is sure to come. YES. People can handle having lives in their hands while not having the best knowledge. People can be caring and empathetic while attempting to heal people to the best of their ability. That doesn't mean they'll always have the best knowledge, and they surely will not ever.

I doubt there are enough savant-like doctors who can look at a problem and calculate the probable issues of your health from the most detailed physical details involving physics, organic reactions, rates and limits, etc.. into an answer about health. It's all about diagnosis.

What do I think?

I think the medical trade should be a specialized trade where people go to school just for that trade.

If people want to be medical doctors, then let them be medical doctors.

Let all of their training be toward becoming a medical doctor.

Have separate schools for that.

I'm a firm believer in specialized education, which the American educational system seems to not acknowledge due to guilds, such as the AMA, existing. It's about money. It's that simple. People are trying to act ignorant, b.s. others about how people really go about succeeding, and create a system of unethical competition and success. Many foreign doctors even consider the American medical institution to be corrupt. I've talked to them, too. If it was about people caring, knowing their stuff, and actually living out the role of a care-taker, the training system would be much different.

I think the length of medical school should be extended. As such, the classes studied, such as organic, physics, etc.. should be put into the medical school curriculum rather than the undergraduate curriculum. Why should undergraduate universities bear the burden?

The AMA guild is what the problem is. It's forced universities to have ridiculous student competition. It should be medical schools that teach the organic chemistry, biology, and physics in relation to medicine. There needs to be a sharper division in order to allow scientists to become scientists and medical doctors to be medical doctors.

I think most modern doctors are tools, anyway.

I think if that is your goal, you would want to move more toward cellular biology or biochemistry for sure (as you'll be doing a lot of chemistry). A neuroscience learning tends to involve some philosophy/psychology classes. A biology major will give you a taste of chemistry with more emphasis on genetics and cellular biology. If you wanted to be a psychiatrist, then I think the philosophy/psychology classes would matter, be useful, and make you more open-minded.

If I had to throw you somewhere, I'd probably throw you in the biochemistry department.

As I've said on this forum, I've become increasingly biased toward suggesting that anyone desiring graduate work in neuroscience should get a B.S. in Biochemistry. Reason: The philosophy and psychology classes a person is required to take seem trivial and almost worthless unless the material immediately relates to cellular neurobiology and neurogenetics. Such materials are not often covered until graduate school or taking graduate-level classes.

I've taken the psychology and philosophy classes. I've experienced them. Sure, the philosophy of science is some cool stuff and fun to think about. After studying some of it, you feel like more of a scientist and question what you are really doing, but it's not going to immediately help you. The psychology classes might help, as they cause some people to learn some statistical tricks; but they, too, are not immediately helpful. I, personally, have not cared for the philosophy or psychology classes. Besides their not being immediately relevant, they cost money. I could just as well read the material in my free time. You want to build a skill set.

Pharmacy is good money these days, as people are continually brain-washed to believe they need pills. Some people are loony and need to relax, but otherwise, it's a bunch of scientists being unethical capitalists. I think more research should be done on ADHD persons and the neural darwinistic effects of medication vs. non-medication and attempting to live normal lives.

Being a biochemist should open many doors for you in terms of research.

I think the best advice I can give you, as I suspect you're a freshman, is that you need to start talking to research professors as soon as possible and tell them you want to get into their labs. Tell them that you plan on being around for four or so years, and you're plenty willing to spend time training under them. That gives you a leg up. And professors are truly biased toward seniors, thus not wanting to hire them: They'll be gone soon. With a freshman, they can train you and shape you to conduct the tasks that his/her lab requires. You'll be a useful asset after a bit of training: Free labor for a couple of more years. And try not to get angry or show annoyance with the arrogant or socially ignorant ones.

If the professor doesn't need any assistants, ask the graduate students if they need assistants. Graduate students do need assistants, as many I've talked to desire to have an assistant. And ask the graduate assistants if somehow they could get you in the lab working for them but still under the professor.