scicop

I think Mr. Howard needs to consult with the Abo. And while you're still waiting for the second miracle of Sister Mary Mckillob, ask the pufta Khamal "gentle, gentle is the elephant" what his opinion is. I'm sure the "boy from dundee" will find nuclear "so unkind".

You can do Comparitive Anatomical Studies: similarities and differences to humans? I.e. Limb structure (what bones they have, what don't they have), Nervous system anatomy/connectivity (what is the shape of the brain compared to humans?, volume of cortex compared to humans?, eye antaomy how is it sim or dif to human) Cardiac/pulmonary ciruculation, craniofacial structure (tooth population, i.e. number of molars, incisors etc compared to humans), hair (thickness, flexability), reproductive organs (how is the penis/uterus different/similar)? hope this helps. then ask your teach for fetal human for the next dissection for thorough comparison.

Michael Keaton. All the rest mad bat-man look like a same-sex liking individual.

By golly looks like someone just learned M-theory! Congratulations! and I really hope you enjoyed your read of "elegant universe" by brian greene. (or fabric of the cosmos..all good reading). To bad strings have yet to be detected (or the incinuated presence, such as the detection of a gravity particle) and all assertions are purely theoretical. And if God uses strings then good for him. I could give a rat's behind. He can eat my brane and choke on it.

DUDE...get your self some science training, keep your idea to yourself and then go work for the DOD. Get some DARPA funding, and you're set.

Well, I also think it is important to emphasize CAREER options for people with science backgrounds, especially careers that don't necessarily require a PhD (that can be very intimidating and as time goes on, the PhD is not really a commerically valuable or "prestigious" degree to have). One poster said NASA..that's great! However, there is Law Enforcement, they need science trained people to evaluate not only crime scenes but potential treats for chemcial and biological weapons. FBI is in desparate need of scientist for their special agent position (as told to me the Special Agent in charge for Recruitment at the New York Office, a PhD in english lit by the way). There are also science jobs for our nations's intelligence community, the CIA has its own labs, and so does the DIA/Army Intell, and Navy Intel. Not only that they do use scientist as operatives. The US Armed Forces, such as Army, Navy and Air Force actively recruit scientist as well. In this weeks "science", there is a job posting for a cell biologist/biochemist at the Coca-Cola Corporation in Atlanta, GA. So I think its important to emphasis to kids to day that there are way awesome jobs out there for science training individuals..and I think that will spark interest. I would STRONGLY de-emphasize PhD training. I also think that emphasis combinatorial training is important, science and international politics, science and law enforcement, science and business, this is what's needed today, not just people with absolute and complete science backgrounds.

Unless something is published in a peer-reviewed journal, by well respected scientist, (from bona-fide research institutionts) don't believe this crap. Same goes for most so called "science conspiracies".

Bush and his religious bible holding chronies, as well as Ratzinger, and all religious leaders of all faiths should be locked in a room and be anally brutalized by a heard of chimpanzes holding rainbow flags. I'm sure they'll like it so much, that they'd have table the ban ammendment. I'm not a fan of the Gays, but they are entitled to the rights of any other human being. I think Ratzinger is gay. He's human just a like all of us and gets the urge from time to time. Can't tell me he's not tapping any of those fine looking cardinals. He just has self hate. Jesus was gay too, he was tapping Peter, why do else would he be in charge of the "pearlie"..ahem..."Gates". Paul was gay, he was tapping Timothy. If them letter's ain't love letters..then...call me a chimps uncle. (name's lester by the way)..so Uncle Lester.

FYI: this weeks "Science" p 1307 has a little blurb about how a PI (Curt Davis) is peed-off about Global Warming skeptics who are skewing his data to get their unsubstantiated points accross. I'll have to check out his work. and I think it was a great effort by Al Gore to do this movie. Sadly its in only a few theaters here in NYC. People are too dumb and would rather see a stupid movie about mutant humans who have dumbass powers and intellects.

Thanks for the link, yeah..basically what i'm hinting at, its hard to implicate one specific part for "the binding problem" rather it is a combination of all the regions for one big region..the entire brain! . Basically it boils down to understanding the parts, summing them together to get a picture (again the entire brain) And that's what we scientist do (well former for me..at the moment). A 4D picture..but a picture nontheless. First time i've heard of this binding theory, I don't think alot of neurosci people focus on it, I think its more of a philosophical issue at least at the "binding" level. In due time I think a picture will emerge, as their are some smaller ones existing already (i.e. hippocampal/thalamic/cortical circuitries) and so one. I think a problem is that its hard to get funding for these type of studies. Most studies have a pathology oriented reasons for their pursuit rather than just basic understanding, but can't condemn it, we've learned alot!

PFC, yeah, it mediates in a few behaviors such as motivation (behaviors that lead to uncontrolled consumption of drugs..i.e. addiction), to some extent agression, and so on. However so does the BLA, VTA, NuAc ext. Although it can partake in an integrative role, it can not do so without other nuclei. Can't just look at what inputs it has, you have to look at its out-puts as well as its feed-back, as well as self regulatory systems (i.e. DSI, DSE) It may have lets say dopaminerigc input from the VTA, but its also has glutamatergic output back to the VTA. all regulated by DSI/DSE mechanisms (to name one) within their one nuclie (at synaptic points) Not to mention connectivity to other nuclei, I think thalmus is in there some where but its been a while since I've done the neuroanatomy thing...neuroanatomy is something I don't really give a crap about, I'm more molecular/cellular. Again, can't make a claim there is just one integrative spot. Its basically the brain is one big giant "network"or integrative node, if we must it in computer terms. Gee..i guess each one of us is a node..hmmm.... As I said, can't represent brain function with simple 2D node maps. There is alot of regulation, both inter-nuclei, inter-cellular (local and non-local) as well as INTRA-cellular controls. So to your binding problem..I guess you'd have to incorporate the ENTIRE brain as you point of "binding". If such a term exists, I have not heard of the concept. Maybe theoretical mumbo jumbo people use that term. Just an short edit: can't look at the PFC as just the PFC,within the PFC thereis a medial PFC, and a lateral PFC, defined by the efferent output targets and afferent inputs origins..purely neuroantomical/connectivity definition. Same goes for NuAcc..there is the Shell and Core, with the Caudate Nucleaus there is the patch and matrix....so again..alot of subdivisions based on connectivity alone. Lets stay away from neuronal populations...dopaminergic here, GABAergic there, medium spiny there, mossy fibers here....it gets crazy! Don't even make me mention Glia!!!!! geez..everyone is barking up that tree now..including big pharma.

Thats correct. Basically its a "correalory substituted amino-acid evoluntion trace analysis" paper. The technique is to identify mutations (i.e. amino acid) in certain gene products and look for conservation/divergence of such mutation across species. This is an excellent method for structure function studies to hint at which amino acids are essential for protein function and, like in this paper, decifer the contribution of certain aa's for pathology. Nature has a very nice way of conserving (or getting rid of) mutations that can be of relevance for protein function. In my studied field (receptor pharmacology) this technique (an in silico technique) is used by many to hypothesis essential amino acids for receptor function. Mutants can then be made based on this method and function can be assessed. And they say that there is no evidence for evolution! Not to turn this into a evolution topic, simply opening a biology text book can do wonders for the intellectually inferior (i.e. holy bible believing morons).

I dont think "binding problem" is really a problem, given that I've never heard of it. At least from my days as a grad student and then post-doc at well respected institutions with the neurosciences, I understand that the overall aim of cognitive neuroscience research is not to implicate one certain area of the brain for a certain function (as it does have its implications). Rather the aim is to understand how the connectivity/neuronal/glia populations contribute to global functions. Understanding how specific areas may have "most" control over a certain behavior can have (and HAVE had) pharmacological implications, should a region/target specific delivery/pharmacologic agent be developed. i.e. Drugs for psychosis target receptors (D2, 5HT) that are expressed in certain regions/neuronal subtypes in prefrontal cortex and stratial regions, where as drugs for alcohol dependence (mu opioid antagonist) have implicated function in the VTA and/or Nu/Accumbens. As you can see the field of neuroscience is big (the biggest conference of the year in the US) that involvles alot of different diciplines. Even cognitive neurosci dudes are going molecular and genetic, as well as visa-versa. So, simple 2D diagrams are a thing of the past (ancient history), its more 4D today.

Jesus, this guy hasn't even read a basic introductory to immunology. If he did he would learn things such as the need to erradicate xenobiotics by the innate immunesystem and the need for the recruitment of the adaptive immune system to combat the invading pathogens! Dude, do a google search, type in MHC I and II. Type in Toll receptors, Type in Cytokines, even T-Cells, B-cells. This is basic information that you can find in a Biology 101 text book.

Um..i really don't get this post. Its been well established that there is intercommunication between the sensory systems as well as those that control other processes including thought and autonomic systems. In indeed there are special regions that process specific inputs (such as cortical regions) as well as regions that integrate (thalmus, hippocampus, amydala, nucleus accumbens etc). All these question are addressed within the realm of neuroscience, and people such as Joe LeDuex, Rodolfo Llinas, John Rinzel, Bruce McEwen, have made and are still making sense of these circuits. The reality is there are lot of intergrative steps, that is not necessarily a strict feed forward way of intergrating information, there is also back-tracking and error correction. There is no one glorious point of intergration. Even within nuclei there is further structural and functional separation as well as diverse neuronal (and glia) populations with differering connectivities! Just as an example, a simple one, there is the Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA)(midbrain, and mediator of reward associated behaviors), it has a nigral (more lateral and close to the SN) and brachial (close to midline) of dopamine containing neurons. One population projects mainly to the pre-frontal cortex where as the other to the shell and core of the Nu.Accumbens. These neurons also differ in their inputs. Furthermore there are GABAergi neurons in the VTA as well! Some project outside and some make collaterals within the structure. Not to mention the connectivity of the other nuclie that recieve VTA DA contacts and the feedback from VTA targets back to the VTA! The point is that there is alot of complexity with neuronal circuitry, neuronal populations, and nuclei connectivity, and I just highlighted one nuclei. To think there is one spot for your binding issue is incorrect and flawed by your diagrams.

Snail said: I would. As long as I have mine medium rare. I want to taste the youth! Grilled sauteed with EVO, garlic, onions, and an splash of Merlot. Save the eyes for last. Get in my BELLY!

How to end corruption??!! by being the most corrupt and not trusting anyone around you! I call it: "The Mao way of maintaining absolute power"

This is basic immunology, I really suggest reading a text book on the topic. The immune systems is one of the few systems that we have the most understanding on!

There are a number of ways to detect communication, you just have to be creative! I will assume you have a specific pathway you're looking at and what time of communcation? are your factors soluble or membrane bound? i.e. Are you looking for cell-cell contact or activation of a cell type by a release factor? Cell-cell contact is rather easy, you can just do a basic cell aggregation assay. Label one cell with GFP, the other with RFP, mix and look for aggregates. Alot of immune-cell communications is through cell-cell contact and involves the formation of an immunological synapse. If you're looking for activation in the presence of another cell, then you need a reporter system. If you're looking at say a Toll receptor, you can use Toll receptor activation as a read-out (i.e. put a GFP reporter downstream). Think about it more, there are lots of articles out there...and techniques...good luck.

First of all the quack would not get any recognition from established scientist. Obtaining a Ph.D. is not easy, it not only involves research but involves publications in peer reviewed journals, presentations at national and international conferences, and, in some cases, securing extramural funding for stipend/supplies. In addition, most importantly I think, is that to do a Ph.D. you have have a Ph.D. advisor!!!! That Ph.D. advisor's name will FOREVER follow your name around! Thus, the insitution you obtain your PH.D. from IN NOT AS IMPORTANT as the laboratory (AKA YOUR PHD ADVISOR) you came from. So your quack won't make it far in the professional science world..maybe with the hobbist wanna be's. Second, unless the person is some how, through some miracle, able to get a position which requires a Ph.D. in science (NOT MANY...maybe an academic professorship) the person would be discharged, probably not charged with a crime. Again, I would be amazed if a person were to get away with it today, universities are invest alot time doing their due dill before they hire anyone. Maybe your quack may be able to fool a no-name liberal arts university for failing rich kids. I do know of an instance of a quack who falsified a MD degree at a university that I won't name. I knew the guy personally. He had a PhD degree and was well established in a certain science field. He had stellar publications and numerous grants from the NIH. However, he was sick in the head and started added MD after his name. He was not questioned because, he was well known in the field, and although he was a basic sciencetist, his was affliated with clinical department within the university school of medicine. He was practicing medicine!! Seeing patients. I'll leave a few things out, but he was found out and was not only discharged from the university(S!!) but also charged with impersonation of a physcian, a felony. He was also investigated by the HHS OIG and FBI since he was given federal funds to do research. This dude, originally was of sound mind, but as time went on he became a quack. So that's one case I know of..but..his circumstances were different, he was a well respected scientist before his demise.

The entertainment world, until recently, hasn't really embraced science. There is science fiction, but not much real science. Shows like CSI, have brought science to the public with great amounts of accuracy in science description. As a result, applications and enrollment in forensic science programs have increased. Showing that science can be a career that can bring forth personal satisfaction and societal benefits like law, medicine, law enforcement, can be just as impacting as making science fun. HOWEVER. There is a BIG problem with science. The pursuit of science is generally not a lucrative endeavor, which is really well known with the general public. Salaries are low. Jobs are highly unstable compared to others, and the risks associated with career advancement are many. Given that the career path has so many risks associated with it, it is not one that students really opt to follow. Perhaps this is not really relevant to the 6th grade mind, but to the say 11th grader, or even early-career college students will learn really quickly of the caveats that plague advancement in science. With so many other options that are more stable, more financially rewarding, and lower risks for advancement is it a wonder why science is not pursued by many americans? I can go into a thousand more reasons why science is not attractive to the US youth, but those can be discussed at another time.

its garbage for dumb people.