Arete

I disagree. A simple Google scholar search reveals: Using the keywords "genetic" "tobacco" "smoking" yields approximately 200,000 hits. Using the keywords "alcohol" "consumption" "genetic" yields approximately 650,000 hits. here's a few pertinent papers: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0215%2819970317%2970:6%3C661::AID-IJC6%3E3.0.CO;2-T/abstract http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/60/12/3155.short http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363236/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291096-9926%28199901%2959:1%3C39::AID-TERA9%3E3.0.CO;2-7/full

Why are you assuming they were stupid? Obviously they were a lot of things, but why are you assuming they couldn't of improvised ways to hurt people without explicit instructions? I think the idea that we can regulate information pertaining to explosives as to prevent people using them for nefarious purposes is rather naive. A combustion engine relies on an explosive reaction. An improperly used propane tank is very dangerous. A lot of information that would allow someone to create an explosive device is easily obtainable simply from information pertaining to things not to do. I.e. are you going to ban safety information on storing your fertilizer near you diesel fuel because someone might figure out you can do bad things with it? How about not storing your car battery in an enclosed space? How about poison labels in case someone puts it in the water supply? Do you think restricting that information, or making it available will cause more harm?

Being an expat here the rather terrifying extension of the second amendment - that at least somewhat justifies not only owning guns but using them on people are the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law To summarize, the castle doctrine is legislation in some states which protects a person who kills someone in their home from prosecution, provided there were circumstances that made it reasonable for the shooter to be in fear of harm. It removes the duty to retreat or seek other resolutions to the situation - i.e. even if you could reasonably leave the house, subdue the attacker or call and wait for the police, you have no obligation to. The stand your ground legislation extends this to public places where the attacked person feels unlawfully threatened. I.e. if you were walking down the street, armed and you reasonably felt as though you were going to be harmed you can kill your potential attacker without fear of even being prosecuted - even if you had ample opportunity to run away or call for help. The reason this is kind of terrifying is that there are plenty of situations in which a perceived threat turns out to be not a threat. For example I was dog sitting for a friend, and his house-mate came back from vacation early. I let myself into the house to feed the dog on my way to work in the morning, scaring the room-mate. If we had of been in a castle doctrine state, and he had of had a gun nearby, he almost certainly could have shot me and there would have been no legal repercussions. The fact that someone could legitimately use a gun on me as a first resort scares me more that the simple possibility someone could own one. http://www.propublica.org/article/five-stand-your-ground-cases-you-should-know-about

Mammals are not dependent on their microbiome to live - sterile mice lines are commonly used in research. E.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12306431 It's a biological definition of reproduction. Viruses lack the mechanistic components required to reproduce themselves - they have to "steal" the mechanisms to reproduce themselves from a cell which has them. The organisms we typically define as being "alive" have all the mechanisms required to reproduce themselves - even if they are functionally dependent on a mutualism for another biological function.

To quote a response I already gave you - You can't cite the Terminator as evidence of your point, then claim "of course they exist" and cite bus drivers as an example. That's a logical fallacy known as "shifting the goalposts". Why does driving a long time involve "superhuman" abilities which cannot be explained by genetics"? If astronauts are protected from the harsh enviroment of space by their superhuman abilities, why do they need spacesuits?

Not having the practical ability to investigate, prosecute and punish every breach of a law is not the same as it being unenforceable. The police and courts have limited resources, and have to choose which crimes to investigate/prosecute - on many levels. For example, the police can't investigate every single case of petty theft - that's not the same as "theft laws are unenforceable." The authorities just use discretion and put more effort into armed bank robbery than they do for, say, someone stealing hubcaps from parked cars. Along the same lines, the police in my experience usually tell teenagers drinking in public to tip it out and go home rather than arresting them and burdening the court system with petty offenses, but they'd probably take a large establishment knowingly selling beer to underage patrons pretty seriously. The use of discretion in when to apply the law to its full extent and when not to certainly doesn't equate to it being unenforceable, and as the OP puts it counter-productive.

The countries I've lived in (NZ, Australia and the USA) all care a fair bit about the enforcement of alcohol age restrictions. Enforcement comes in at the level of policing retailers and licensed venues who violate age restrictions - with pretty hefty penalties for establishments caught selling booze to people underage. In addition, all of those places had public drinking laws which are policed - i.e. if you are caught with alcohol in the park, you get in trouble, or at least told to stop. Ergo, at least in my experience, laws to restrict underage drinking are enforced. As a mechanistic explanation of why age restrictions on alcohol consumption are a good idea, research has shown that teenagers are vulnerable to brain damage related to alcohol in ways that adults are not. I.e. both the short and long term effects of drinking are not the same for adults as they are younger people: "Clinical and experimental studies demonstrate that alcohol affects adolescent and adult brain functions and behaviors differently and that adolescents are more vulnerable to the deleterious effects that alcohol has on brain functions and behavior." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0741832909001712 Therefore consumption by both groups should not be treated identically.

I think it would be tough to be a biologist without accepting that virtually any definition has grey areas and exceptions which don't fit neatly. As such I'm content with them falling somewhere in between autonomous organisms and part of their host.

Defining life is a prickly subject when you get down to the details of it, but to grossly oversimplify - one of the defining features of being "alive" is being able to reproduce. Most bacteria are capable of independent reproduction, whereas most viruses cannot reproduce without the co-option of another organism. Ergo, as a virus can't reproduce on its own, it isn't "alive" under many definitions of life. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, such as symbiotic bacteria who can't survive without a host, and encapsulated organelles like chloroplasts that grey up the boundary.

Anecdotes and fiction ≠ evidence. Do you have anything other than "my teacher said so" to support your 50% value? Many things about you are entirely determined by genetics - e.g. if a person has down syndrome they suffer from trisomy 21. I.e. the reason they have down syndrome and most people don't is genetics. Many traits are entirely determined by genetic factors, and almost all have a genetic component. A statement like "Genetics probably make less than 50% of who we are" is vague and seemingly unsupportable. I was curious if you had anything to actually back it up.

Err - citation please. The genotype - phenotype link is one of the most well supported causative links in science. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIA1Genotypevsphenotype.shtml

Congratulations on being the only scientist I've ever heard of who has never had a paper or a grant rejected.

The point of my insistent questioning about whether or not you've ever submitted an article for peer review is that the criticism you've received here is NOTHING compared to what reviewers for a journal will do. Even if the idea has merit, it will be picked apart. You'll be told to revise many points of it. And even if your methodology is sound, the idea is of merit and the written in a concise and understandable manner, it can be (probably to almost definitely will be in top journals) rejected as "not being a significant enough contribution to the field". Criticism of ideas is part of science. Rejection of ideas and work is part of the game. Virtually EVERY single scientist - even the most brilliant has had a paper rejected. Virtually EVERY single scientist has had a grant application rejected. It's not personal and it's part of the job. Sure, it's not fun being told your work "isn't a significant contribution", or being told your new idea has been tested before, or you forgot to incorporate a fundamental parameter, rendering your model fatally flawed, but it happens. And it happens to everyone. Throwing a hissy fit and accusing people of being dictators for critiquing your work wins you negative points. If you can't handle it, science isn't for you.

Without trying to flaunt - I managed to produce 6 publications last year and regularly post on the forum. Your assertion that forum participation and scientific productivity are mutually exclusive would appear to be incorrect. Fortunately, my employer considers public communication and outreach to be an important part of being a scientist, so I don't think he would care too much about me spending a sensible amount of time participating in discussions here. However the institution I work at has strict policies regarding information officially affiliated with it, so I restrict that to my personal webpage, which is not connected to my profile here as to allow me freedom to say things without the risk I will inadvertently say something that breached my employer's policies.

Again, have you ever submitted a manuscript for peer review?

Given you're a self proclaimed scientist, how do you feel about anonymity in the peer review process? Do you demand that a journal make the identity of the reviewers of your papers be made known to you? If so, how does it usually work out for you?

Ever think it might be perhaps something to do with well, you?

Welcome to the internet - just as a tip, those emails aren't actually from Nigerian princes who need you to hold onto their fortune, for a little while. Science has a long and heralded tradition of anonymous peer review. There is nothing untoward about protecting one's identity whilst critiquing an idea of a colleague - in fact it's that standard model for how science is published.

Unfortunately, Przemyslaw is partially incorrect. A placebo treatment will work, even if the patient knows the treatment is a placebo. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug What you need to do to prove the efficacy of homeopathy is to conduct a double blind, controlled study. Fortunately, this has already been done, several times. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9828870 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3911965 http://journals.lww.com/clinicalpain/Abstract/1998/09000/Homeopathic_Arnica_30x_Is_Ineffective_for_Muscle.9.aspx etc. Homeopathic treatments have been shown, conclusively to be no more effective than a placebo. That is to say, they don't work.

I look forward to seeing the p values on your treatment results vs a placebo once you're conducted the double-blind trial.

I worked as a zookeeper part time while I was doing my MSc and I am now a postdoc in life sciences. The first thing I notice is that you're really discussing two different career paths. To be a zookeeper, at least in my experience, no formal qualifications were required, and the directed career path was through trade certificates at technical school. That said, it's a highly competitive career path and me and most of my colleagues had bachelor's degrees in some form of biological science, however, most staff did not have graduate degrees and it certainly wasn't a requirement. A PhD would not be a logical path to working in a zoo. The zoo I worked in hired heavily from its pool of volunteers, almost every person with limited experience at other zoos previously was a volunteer (I guess it's like an extended interview) so I would highly recommend volunteering at a local zoo. On the other hand, you're talking about a career in biological research. While the zoo I worked at did have some staff who had a background in research, most people in research are not working in zoos. If you're more interested in a research path, I would research the labs at the university you're intending to go to, and offer to volunteer or intern in your freshman year. Our lab prefers to get people to start as soon as possible, as it takes a while to train someone. As such, they'll get more out of you and you'll get more out of your undergraduate training if you start earlier rather than later. Just make sure it's a lab who are genuinely doing research you find interesting. Personally, I didn't see zookeeping as a career for me. Neither of those paths leads to riches, so don't expect to make a lot of money (you'll earn a living though). Zookeeping involved a lot of face time with the public, a lot of tasks which in any other setting would be quite manual and menial, and generally the same routine each day. I personally find a research career to be more varied, challenging and rewarding, but I am not outside actually interacting with animals on a daily basis, and it's a lot less unsung in how much gratification from others you will as a zookeeper. If you're undecided, you could do a semester volunteering at a zoo, and then one at a research lab to see where you'd more like to invest your energy.

The risk of a serious allergic reaction to the DTaP vaccine is less than one in a million. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682198.html The mortality rate for tetanus in an ICU in Brazil ranged from 36.5% - 18%. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-002-1332-4#page-1 Regardless of what you assert - that's an exceptionally high relative mortality rate for a bacterial infection. For a comparison - the mortality rate for botulism is around 8%. http://diseases.emedtv.com/botulism/botulism-p4.html The DTaP vaccine also provides immunity against Diphtheria and Pertussis - which also have high mortality rates for infectious diseases. Your assertion that the DTaP vaccine has no benefits and substantial risks is pretty absurd.

You've brought up this topic before and had it explained before. It's only a mystery if you refuse to read evidence. 2) Wolves will not "eat you if they can". You've been reading too many fairytales. The actual risk of being attacked by a wolf: http://en.wikipedia....acks_on_humans. 11 Known attacks on humans in the previous decade. One in a zoo. Your chances of being struck by lightning are considerably better than being killed by a wolf. http://www.lightning...gov/medical.htm 1) There are demonstrable benefits to wolf reintroduction: http://rspb.royalsoc.../1612/995.short

To put it in lay terms, allergies (and other autoimmune responses) are caused by an overactive immune system. Human immune response evolved in a world where our bodies were constantly besieged by pathogens and parasites. In modern, western society we have eliminated most of these pathogens from our environments and comparatively, our immune systems have little to do. In some individuals, their immune systems are still on high alert, looking for the expected host of attacking foreign organisms trying to invade our bodies, and because they don't find any, end up overreacting to non-threatening things like pollens, or even attacking our own cells. The idea behind treating allergies with parasites is that by introducing an actual parasite, this over-response of the immune system can be dampened, as the immune system "learns" to recognize what an actual pathogen "looks like", and stops attacking benign objects and the host's own cells. For an otherwise healthy person, research is starting to suggest that a small load of relatively harmless pathogens like hookworms is comparatively unnoticeable in comparison to the over-reaction of the immune system and can improve the person's quality of life. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5567/490.short, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03187.x/full

1) The largest risk factor for schizophrenia are heritable components (i.e. genetics). http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7610/91 To say it is entirely caused by the behavior of "their families" is demonstrably false. 2) Evidence shows that schizophrenia is associated with abnormalities in brain chemistry http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609609958. If you wish to assert that it isn't you'll need to provide a more parsimonious explanation for observed evidence. 3) Anti-psychotic medication ameliorates the symptoms of acute schizophrenia more effectively than a placebo in double blind trials. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/17092691/reload=0;jsessionid=Pnr6vvoMrdexrQ9jY25G.2 Given that's the gold standard for proving the efficacy of a treatment, we'll need evidence beyond your say so that brain chemistry isn't a factor and psychiatry has no ability to predict. 4) Hallucinations and delusions - key symptoms of schizophrenia are not listed amongst the symptoms of stress. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stress-symptoms/SR00008_D assuming that's what you mean by "besieged" workers. Therefore it does not seem that the symptoms of stress and schizophrenia are synonymous. Do you have any evidence that they are? 5) The "fundamental feature" of science is the application of the scientific method. As the study of anti-psychotic medication above demonstrates, psychiatric clinical trials follow the scientific method. Ergo, studies of psychiatry are science.