Genecks

What do you need to memorize, how many animals, etc..? I need more information. In general, you could start with mnemonics and practicing recall.

Proteins are going to need an ionic solution. I'm thinking that's how life got onto evolving. Seems like more than an aqueous solution can be used, though. See this: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=21264197 This page eventually lead me to that information: http://www.public.asu.edu/~caangell/currentabstracts.html Also, read about Top7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top7 Top7 has been in my Internet bookmark "Coffee Table" folder's Read Later subfolder for some time. The problems with protein folding and its interactions in a solution can seem like a... Rubik's cube in some ways. The hands are the solution. The protein is the rubik's cube. And it's all about unlocking their pattern. I'm not sure if Top7 should be considered iconic, though, of future biohacking possibilities.

In terms of picking places for graduate school (Ph.D), should I pick local states, such as neighboring states? Should I stay within state? Should I attempt to apply within the university I attend? In Illinois, there are a few places I could apply. I could attempt to apply at Northwestern and the University of Chicago, since they are local. I figure, why not, because it's in state. I'm more than likely going to apply at my current university, UIUC, University of Iowa, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and some other places. Truthfully, as a freshman, I thought it would be cool to go to the University of Hawaii and establish my life in Hawaii. That'd be so cool. I know I want to focus on biology and the learning process. I'm not too interested in illicit drugs and their influence of the the nervous system. I probably should be doing something with Alzheimer's if I want a job. But as an academic, I want to study the biological mechanisms of learning. Sure, Alzheimer's is linked into that. As such, if I find a decent programming tying Alzheimer's into all of that, I'd apply for it. I know a professor who is doing that and more at the moment. That's the guy who told me he planned on retiring soon. That sucks. But gives me a good standard to measure other persons. He was a professor I mentioned that I was hoping to do research with as an undergrad. Cool guy, I think. Also, how do I find out which professors are accepting doctoral students? Is there a way to figure that out? Because I know some professors are simply doing research. Sometimes a biology department directory will list a lot of people, and nothing specific comes out to me saying, "I'm looking to hire some graduate students in the next two years. If you're interested in my research, please keep my name in mind during applying." or something like that... So, how should I go about a directory and figure out who is accepting students? I'm sure there are plenty of professors in various directories of whose research interests me. But reading up on it all won't do me too much good unless these professors are hiring/looking for students. I'm not too interested in wasting a large amount of time. Also, does anyone think it would be a bad idea if I took a year of calc-based physics at a community college? I would find that so much more affordable. Also, since I'm an alumni and know a lot of people there, I could probably persuade a professor to let me take both in the same semester. I could study the topics and material ahead of time. I could probably fit another semester of calculus into that mix. Update: I was on the U of Texas website and saw on professor's page that stated in bold at the top of the page that he/she is not hiring. Ok, so I've seen one for once. But I suspect that's an unusual case.

I'm aware of the doom and gloom tenure stuff. I've looked at the statistics. Availability was much higher over 30 years ago. I'm not sure what the deal is. Maybe people won't let go of their positions, or else the general business model has changed and it costs too much. I think it's the latter. If I kept asking myself, "Why bother? The chances of accomplishing anything are low." then I would have just given up altogether by now. I don't care that the chances are low. I'm going to try my best anyway and see how far that brings me. I would be plenty satisfied being an assistant professor. If things didn't work out, say 15 years from now (long ways away), I'm sure there are plenty of other neuro-related things I can do. There might come the day when I lead a research team rather than do the brunt of research myself. If that day were to come, then that would be fine with me. I think I would still oversee what was going on and find that entertaining. I'd also be willing to be low on the ladder, as long as I'm doing neuro-related stuff. Nonetheless, I still want that Ph.D. I have alternative professions in mind. But I want to try my hand and do my best at this neuroscience profession, as that is what I really want to do. I have had the idea of doing biomedical research. So, I could get a M.D. and be a neurologist/neurosurgeon or something like that. That's not my goal, though, as the clinical setting often bores me. It's a nice profession and the pay and downtime is decent, but it bores me.

I want to do neuroscience research as a life career. I was looking for research the other day, and the professor told me he was thinking of retiring in the next year. To which I replied with a smile, "Why retire?" The professor does research in neuroanatomy and cognition, and I think there is so much left to research and discover. On the deepest level, I subscribe to varying transhumanist philosophies. I think the understanding the brain will enable people to better understand the universe, as does cosmology. I don't go around telling this to all the professors, though. One of my past professors advised me not to do so, for scientists tend to want to separate such issues from the realm of science. And I know there is some radical thought in that subscription, but I am also interested in the general neurobiology mechanics, such as sleep processes, and so forth. There is still much research to do in not only humans but other animals, for much can be learned about brain mechanisms, such as sleep, by studying other animals. I've learned these things from hanging around the neuroscience professors here at the university I attend.

Thanks for your input so far, spin and ajb. Something I've been considering, albeit I'm borderline on the idea, is attempting a Master of Education degree. In the U.S., such a degree takes about a year to complete. I could afford it and easily pay off any borrowed loans if I were to use them. America instated the No Child Left Behind Act during the Bush reign, which means teachers need to be certified in order to teach. The master's degree includes certification in the process. A master's degree in education has the benefit of allowing a person to be certified to teach in high school settings. I would also be able to commute more often. More than likely, I could leave the state and go to a state that needs teachers. I suspect I could make more money with a master's degree. I'm not sure if the job market would allow me to easily get a job, but I could try. And if anything, it proves I can handle graduate-level classes. It raises my social status if not my economic status. From there, I could apply for a Ph.D program again (if not accepted before). Good idea? Bad idea? One of my main concerns is actually having funding. I could do a master's degree in biology/biochemistry if I had the funding. Technically, the government would give me plenty of loans to get the master's degree. This website gives a nice little rundown on the statistics of student borrowing of U.S. government money for U.S. students pursuing a graduate degree: http://www.finaid.org/loans/ It would appear that a science student seeking a master's degree at least would be ending up with $34,741 USD in debt. Luckily, that kind of thing can be paid off throughout a 10-year period. Still, in a recession like this, which might last another 8 years, it could be difficult to continually pay it off. I've read that the job prospects for those with a master's degree are better; but I'm not sure of all of that. Supposedly, I would be allowed a loan limit around $20,500 a year (source) to pursue the graduate degree. That seems like plenty. My parents taught me to follow the old economic system of not using credit nor relying on it. That's one of the reasons I'm stubborn and hesitant to use loans. Going through the past year as an undergraduate has cause me much cognitive dissonance. Nonetheless, I've found paying off undergraduate debt not so bad. I think it would cost me ~$15,000 in loans to at least get the Master of Education degree. I'm not sure if it's worthwhile. But I do know it would raise my status, and it's something I can fallback on for a while. Going for a Master of Education rather than a Master of Science/Biology/Biochem in order to look better for Ph.D admission? Good idea? Bad idea? In a lot of ways, I'm about saving time and money. I figure if I did get the Master of Education degree and could land work within a year and work for two years, then I'd easily have funding to pursue another master's degree or live in a city with a research college/university, take some graduate bio classes (maybe not necessary if after getting the year of research), and apply for a Ph.D program again.

Are you making a Zoroastrian reference?

It's more than likely a man behind a curtain, because the threads were made in speculations. I'm not sure how intelligent bots are, but I don't think they are that smart. Furthermore, the bot would have needed some incentive or determining factor to decide to post in that the speculations board. The board is often ambiguous. Maybe if a bot were made to analyze and cross-reference words and phrases on the other boards that this bot also looks for, then a bot to spy on the spambot could be produced.

I know what you mean, nec209. I encountered this issue a few years ago. It was learning about the Heliobacter pylori issue myself a few years ago that caused me to wonder about the reliability of the medical science industry. I haven't thought about the issues in a while, but I have thought about them in the past few months. Nonetheless, we cannot deny that modern science and scientists have failed us when it and they should have been more reliable. Scientists generally disagree. Some have egos and do not believe they are wrong. (this would NOT be a legitimate reason to claim something as true) Others have yet to see contradicting evidence for a claim they make. (this would be a legitimate reason to claim something as true) Perhaps scientists want to continue receiving funding, so they claim that they have not arrived at an answer. (this would NOT be a legitimate reason to claim something as true) Sometimes scientists make claims without enough evidence to make such claims in the first place. (I do not consider this a legitimate reason to claim something as true) In the 2000s, many people were still debating and discussing neurogenesis. Many people didn't fully understand how mitosis worked. In reference to ulcers, I think ignorance by medical professionals is what made people assume that ulcers were induced by stress. Not all medical professionals are researchers. As such, the majority probably did not look into the depth of the issue. Some medical professionals just sit around, acting like witch doctors, and making snap judgments on the health of persons from what they learned in medical school and residency. It's really pathetic and can distort what causes of medical illness could be, thus distorting how the public understands the mechanisms of illness. And really.. for something like this... it seems like a silly situation, because doctors are suppose to believe in germ theory. And lacking the possibility or inquisition that a germ was causing the problem all along seems as bad as a doctor believing in the humors or that God is against the person. I would have to say ignorance and the ego are to blame. How could I prove such a claim, though? This is totally feasible. Find the doctors who misdiagnosed people with ulcers. Ask the doctors, "Why did you think it was stress or x,y,x?" Do you think if I went up to people who've recently accepted new paradigms that they would admit they had a large ego and/or ignorance? I don't think so. This is one of those issues that will more than likely be understood by those in the realm of medicine and science. Perhaps something that cannot be easily put in the history books, too. Nonetheless, we've been able to claim how doctors hundreds of years ago were ignorant and discuss how. We can still do that today. I'm currently researching how ignorance and the ego are the blame in some past sociological and scientific issues. There is a sociology to science. For instance, I've been trying to understand why educational professions didn't take cognitive science into consideration and attempting to apply what can be learned from cognitive research in hopes of making more educated learned with increased learning skills. That's one example. What was the issue for the past few decades? I'm not sure. I suspect it was the ego of the educational professors. Otherwise, it was their ignorance about current cognitive studies in relation to the human learning experience. In terms of stomach ulcers, why did it take so long? Well, if scientists are stuck in the paradigm of of ulcers being stress-induced, and extremely biased in such, they more than likely wouldn't dig inside someone's stomach and study gut bacteria. It's surprising that people paid $100,000+ USD would act as such after years of schooling, but for some odd reason, these people are allowed to get away with intellectual crimes. I can't tell if they were lazy, ignorant, biased, or egotistical. The major difference between an educator and the medical professional is intensive training in the scientific method. I have the firm belief that the medical professionals were more lazy than ignorant. Otherwise, they didn't have the ethical right to use the scientific method to find the right answer. With nerve cells, I'm thinking it comes down to scientists not having the tools to research such. Neuroscientists tend to keep an open-mind and are often grounded in psychological research, thus they understand how the mind can create biases for itself. As such, neuroscientists attempt to over-ride faulty neurological programming the brain induces from observed data, and the neuroscientists strive for seeking more from the outside world than what generalizations the brain might make for itself. There is also the fact that neural tissue takes time and effort to culture and sustain. If the cultures easily ruin, then the chance of seeing mitosis might be low. If there are cells that are not going to divide, then they more than likely have exited the cell growth stages, thus went into G0 or "G sub 0." If that's the case, perhaps there are a group of scientists who think such cells are in hibernation and might have the potential to divide again. Maybe there is a group of scientists who disagree with those scientists' evaluation. I don't know what the arguments are, though. But it is, of course, something I should be looking into, as I do have the level of knowledge to look into it. Maybe another cytologist/neuroperson here would know, as I'm going to be busy in the next few weeks, thus unable to look into the issue.

Looks like the bullet went in near the third toe and out near the second toe. I suspect there is some metatarsal bone damage if not damage to the phalanges. An X-ray would clear up any bone damage issues real quick. A general rule is that if you can walk around without immense, debilitating pain, you haven't broken anything. That's a general rule, but not a clear-cut rule. Get an X-ray. As such, we aren't suppose to give medical advice here, but I think you should look into getting some antibiotics and getting checked for possible lead poisoning. I've touched and felt dead bodies while studying anatomy, as most anatomy students have to do. Seeing a picture of a live person's foot is not going to traumatize me.

Farsight replied to swansont before swansont replied.

I support this user's message. I think there could be a large market for people with B.S. degrees to sell vacuum cleaners that don't put microbes back into the air. One of the problems with other vacuum cleaners is that they suck up dirt and germs off the ground, but when the bag fills with air, it puts the germs back into the air. ALSO... <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDfrwHHScxg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDfrwHHScxg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I've read all of his novels. He is a great man.

The immune system issues leave a lot of room for biohacking. A person could just alter the immune system cells, thus preventing them from seeking varying cell-surface proteins/receptors, and the such. A large amount of knowledge of receptors and cell-surface proteins on biological agents, such as bacteria, is still lacking. Thus I believe people are not completely open to the idea of changing the immune system. I often wonder how long it will take until people start accepting the idea of genetic engineering on humans. I believe in the U.S. that the University of Pennsylvania created a large deal of skepticism because of failed human gene therapy experiments.

I'm getting a feeling that is already going on. Artificial heart ready for human trials by 2011, say specialists - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/28/artificial-human-heart-trial-2011 I think the real goal, however, would be engineering the same stereostructure and molecular similarity of the cell-surface proteins into the engineered material rather than using an engineered biological coating. I suspect if the human trials are more than 25% successful, then people will attempt to start coating the devices with a person's own biological tissue (if not an altered, engineered, non-rejective form).

Probably. Do you mean markers for artificial cells? Artificial markers for cells? An artificial heart is really a mechanical device, if I remember correctly. Perhaps with surface construction, there could be a way to make the body stop attacking such a device. Your post does make me wonder if anyone has tried gene therapy on a donor heart before planting it in a new host.

Logically, a Christian cross is Christian. Thus, it is not secular. Logic, for the win. Jesus was put on the cross. But the cross really symbolizes crucification. Personally, I questioned the oddly-shaped plus sign's usage as a boomerang while growing up... ANyway... Having Jesus on the cross would help symbolize it as a Christian cross. If you walk into a Roman Catholic church, you'll more than likely see a cross with Jesus on it, all ripped and lookin' fit. The absence of Jesus could signify an Orthodox tradition, where Jesus got off the cross. Maybe the nails were lacking silver or something... I'm not sure. Yet I believe the Orthodox Christians have their own version of the cross with a slanted foot rest or something like that... That would be a clue that it was an Orthodox cross. Also, the Orthodox Christians emphasize flat, 2D objects and artwork in relation to saints, Christ, and so on. A Roman Catholic cross would more than likely have some kind of 3D feature to it. Pagans were crucified. Thieves were crucified... and so on... A cross by itself is too ambiguous. At best it could symbolize the sins of mankind, as a person had to commit a moral sin, as judged by an audience, to have been put on such an object. That's my view. Also, I think for most branches of Christianity, a simple plus sign is not deeply representative of Jesus' crucification experience. There would have to be more to the cross.

These bots are starting to bother me, man. Self-aware, man... self-aware....

I think earning a Master's degree first is simply a way for universities to make more money. I don't believe it's about a person proving him/herself and the ability to handle graduate-level classes and work. I believe a master's program wastes the doctoral-degree seeking student's time and is more negative for the student and more positive for the the educational institution, because it's bringing in money for the educational institution. It seems like a money game. I think telling students to go for a master's degree, because it will make the student seem more acceptable to admissions, is some modern lie that institutions make in order to soak more money out of the public. From having read stories about bachelor's degrees being subpar these days, I've come to consider that social institutions consider a master's degree the new bachelor's degree. As such, academic institutions have decided to capitalize on society's distaste for bachelor's degrees and modern desire for master's degrees. Academic institutions are not greatly capitalizing on Ph.D programs, as they more than likely pay the students, if they are science students. I will at least admit that earning a master's degree can help a person's socioeconomic status. It does seem like a money game, but I wonder if that's the case. I know many professors get a lot of money from research grants when they do get their grants. As such, they have plenty of money already, and the thousands of dollars they get from graduate students does not seem to compare to the hundreds of thousands they may be getting from grants. In other words, if I understand the books, the graduate student tuition seems like nickels and dimes to the professors: Maybe 10% of income. So, I can't help but wonder what the real deal is.

Sure, I suppose you could block the physiological influence of the chemicals involved in "love." In general, I believe you would be attempting to inhibit a "reward" feeling. In human subjects, I'm not sure what kind of effects this would have on work productivity. Assume adolescents need to feel emotions, such as love, in order to overcome feelings of loneliness. In general, the feeling of love acts as a reward and the desire for it to keep going can act as a motivator. I suspect that inhibition of the love feeling would induce a person to have an apathetic personality. This might be useful in attempting to deter people from using illicit drugs that produce a "love"-like feeling. However, if the person was aware that such an inhibition drug was being used, then it might not be as effective. If such a study were successful, perhaps a love-inhibiting drug could get people to stop using love-inducing, illicit drugs. Still, it could be used in a research study, and the effects in such subjects could be valuable.

I'm looking for tips, guidance, advice, and dialog. In the next few months, I'm suppose to be thinking about applying for graduate programs. I'm aiming for a program that will offer me a Ph.D in Neuroscience. Simply said, I want a doctoral program. If it's a Ph.D in Biology (or something like that), but I've been doing neuroscience research all along, then I'm fine with that. I have yet to actually read through all the universities in the U.S. (I'm a U.S. resident) and other universities in different countries (might be interesting/fun). But here is my main question: What are the chances of actually getting into a Ph.D program these days? I have above a 3.5/4.0 G.P.A.. I've got a low science GPA, which is more than likely below 3.0 (I fell sick my first semester at the university). On my list of things to do is lock down at least a year of research, which is harder to accomplish than I thought. Each interview is like a job interview. I feel as though I am job hunting, which seems silly since I'm volunteering. The competition is high at the University of Illinois at Chicago. I roll and bat my eyes at the fact that a lot of @#$%^&@# are doing research for their c.v. to get into medical school rather than become researchers. I think it will be easier for me to get research once I get my B.S. degree, but I'm not sure about that. In general, I feel as though I've hit a glass ceiling where I'll be forced to apply for a master's program rather than a Ph.D program. That will be wasting a lot of my time, I think. I've met at least one neuroscientist in my life who has a master's degree in neurobiology. It didn't seem to useful to him, besides giving him the ability to teach at a community college. When I talked to him about over a year ago, he suggested that I move toward a Ph.D program. Also, I don't really have the money for a master's program. I'm not sure what I should be doing in the next year. I haven't taken physics yet. It's not part of the B.S. in Neuroscience program, actually. But I've got this feeling I should be taking a year. Should I be taking a year if applying to a Ph.D program? I've looked at some courses that graduate students take, and it would appear that a background in physics is desirable. I'm not against taking physics, but I want to save money and get out with my B.S. degree. I'll more than likely have to stay another semester (stay in as an undergrad in the fall of 2011) if I want to complete a year of physics and math. As such, that would hold me back from a Ph.D program, as I would more than likely have to wait until the next fall (fall of 2012) to wait until acceptance into a doctoral program. In general, I think completing a year of physics and math along with getting at least a year of research in would be a good idea. However, I'm frugal and cheap (not so much lazy), and the lack of funds is persuading me to finish the B.S. degree without taking a year of calculus and physics and without having done research. I've read on some university websites that if certain courses have not been taken, then the university will build that into a person's Ph.D program. I'm not sure if something like that would happen to me, as in the faculty/administration telling me to take a year of physics as soon as I start such a doctoral program. I think it would cost me maybe... $8000 USD to stay an extra semester. That's a lot of money. I could put off some of the costs with loans, but even if I stayed, I'd have to wait another year (more than likely) in order to get into a Ph.D program. As another note, I have yet to look into this "GRE" stuff. I got a general idea as to what it's about, as I took a biology subject exam my freshman year of college and scored about 25%. But I have yet to schedule an exam date, look through GRE study guides, and more. I'm looking for tips, guidance, advice, and dialog.

Good thing I'm an American. lol. *eats a spoonful of Mac N' Cheese*

Studies like this come out often, and they are often debated. In general, lack of sleep can increase stress, and large amounts of stress can deteriorate the immune system. So, it does make sense that constant deprivation of sleep can ruin a person's immune system with time. Many deaths come from immune system deficiencies or below average activity. There is at least a high correlation.

The Fall began with Satan. As the angels were God's children, so was Man. Both exist as beings, "persons."

From a scientific perspective, things are physical. Thus, unless you can prove that spirituality's physicalist attributes, then you'll have to assume that it is not part of science. That's the game of science: Things are physical and need to be shown as physical aspects of Nature.