badchad

First off you can't lump all "narcotic drugs" together since many are distinct, with unique mechanisms of action (at least across drug classes). The reason why some are illegal and some are not is a complex mix of politics, morality, and objective assessment of abuse liability and physical harm. Personally, I think managing drug use should focus on "harm reduction". Reducing the impact of drugs on society. This strategy often focuses on drug use as a health issue, rather than a legal one.

I remember this clearly. My dissertation was exactly 100 pages (including references). I thought it was pretty efficient. My graduate work resulted in three peer-reviewed publications so essentially, my dissertation was three papers linked together and bound.

Didn't seem to work on firefox on my mac. The first pic popped up but I couldn't rate it. Lines of strikethrough text everywhere as well.

I think the reason the old adage stands is purely behavioral. As someone hinted at earlier, I suspect that the more intoxicated someone is, the less aware they are of their own intoxication. In addition to this as one becomes more intoxicated, their sensitivity to alcohol, and the speed at which they drink probably increases as well. Thus, is you are already drunk (from drinking beer) you are more likely to drink a larger volume of "hard liquor", because: 1. you are less aversive to the taste of it. 2. You are less able to gauge your own level of intoxication and/or "stopping point"

As others have stated, if you simply want to do research medical school is not required. In a very basic, you would get a BS in a basic science, then go to graduate school. While in graduate school you would determine the "angle" you wanted to take on psychopharm (e.g. animals or humans, at the molecular or behavioral level etc.). I got into the field with a background in basic "pharmacology and toxicology", and took on a "behavioral" approach (using in vivo techniques). I have now ended up doing the exact research you are interested in. You may PM me for details.

When you obtain a higher degree, you will be judged on the work you do and your training. WHo you work for and what you do are whats important. Thus, as someone said earlier, make your choice based on the professor you want to be trained by.

If you've ever actually seen it though, upscaling really doesn't work all that well. You just can't create more resolution where none existed in the first place.

As of late, HD-DVD has had some serious setbacks in this "war". It seems Blu-Ray is going to win. I can wait another year or two to see who comes out on top.

I did well in math and science both in college and afterwards. Thus I think high school had me adequately prepared.

Smoking is an interesting phenomenon. It's "addictive" properties are largely psychological in nature. In fact, there are no blinded studies where humans choose to self-administer non-tobacco forms of nicotine. This, and the dismal success rate of NRT, suggest nicotine may not play as large a role as once thought in smoking, and frankly, has little abuse liability. It will take a major effort for you to quit smoking.

Count me in on Psychopharmacology. More specifically drug use/abuse.

Caffeine is one of (if not the most) widely consumed drug in the world. There are very few health effects of caffeine (regardless of the source). There are reports suggesting beneficial effects of antioxidants in coffee, but other than that you have essentially nothing to worry about.

When I applied to graduate school, my prior lab experience really helped me and was in a completely unrelated field. I had experience in entomology as a summer technician and ended up in a "biodmedical sciences" graduate program (which led to a pharmacology/toxicology degree). Interestingly, I was in the same SUNY system as Stonybrook (SUNY Buffalo on the other side of NY). I guess my point is that experience is good idea regardless of the field. I can tell you that doing human research is going to be MUCH, MUCH slower than microbiology so you'll have to be patient. I moved from an animal lab to human experimentation and the slower pace has been my biggest adjustment. I'd say go for it to broaden your research interests.

I can only speak for (what I refer to) as "biological sciences", but in most cases, it'll take you 5 years to complete a Ph.D, and then a 2-3 year post-doc to get your foot in the door. Thus, in the context of 8 years, another 2-3 for an MBA isn't that much.

This is a broad question since you can obtain a Ph.D in so many fields. One thing obtaining a Ph.D. can get you is practical experience. For anyone who has done it, reading a paper and saying "okay, I understand the concept" is a much different thing than actually doing the experiments that produce the paper. This is important because while you are doing experiments, you will often come across situations or problems that need to be solved. It forces you to think in ways you wouldn't if you only read the paper (e.g. "final product") ANother thing a Ph.D. can provide is resources. Often times, Universities have equipment and resources you cannot obtain on your own. For instance, my thesis looked at the mechanisms of action of abusive drugs. Were I to try doing something like this on my own, I'd be breaking the law. Now that I'm in my post-doc, I am doing human research. The resources involved are tremendous (nurses, physicians, equipemtn etc.). It would be impossible to do something like that privately.

My main problem with drug laws relates to alcohol and cigarettes. Here we have two drugs with a high addictive potential, serious physical consequences, and adverse social consequences. Yet these drugs are completely legal. It is a difficult thing to justify why these drugs are legal and others are not. Furthermore, if the money spent on the "Drug War" and housing of people jailed for drug offenses were put in social programs, it is very likely the number of people using drugs and the harm caused by drug use would decrease. These are the goals of the "war on drugs"; decreasing use and harm. These goals would likely be better served by a reallocation of resources and legalization.

If you're using a recombinant protein, the amount of IgG formed will be relative to the immune response generated against the protein. Theoretically, a benign protein wouldn't generate much of a response and you could inject tons of protein into your rat and get nothing. As you stated, there is absolutely no way to tell. I suggest looking at some previously published literature.

There are other things to consider though. Most notably is the absence of a source capable of taking advantage of the abilities of such technology. Right now, we are limited by HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. The existing format war will make the adoption of either technology very slow. Also, consider who benefits the most from either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray: people with 50" TV's and above, and the ability to display a "true" 1080P signal. This represents an extremely small proportion of TV owners. Even as prices drop, there are people who simply have no interest in owning a TV screen that large. Lastly, consider another major factor: resolution. An increased resolution is not even mentioned. Increasing "pitch" and color depth will only take you so far. In sum, while the "tech specs" of these TV's would indicate they are superior, the reality is going to be "what you see is what you get". While completely anecdotal, I bet 95% of the "normal" consumer market will NOT be able to notice the claimed improvement offered by this technology.

Just as an aside to reinforce danzman, I always remember the "Film Studies" major that was accepted to our medical school. Although this probably isn't the norm.

hmmm, Now, if I lived in an impoverished country, I think I'd be more worried about things like: eating, staying alive, whether or not I had running water, etc. Rather than how the double helix works.

During my graduate work, I did a rotation in a laboratory that at things such as this. Essentially we surgically rotated an eye in a xenopus frog early in development. They adapted and compensated for this.

I went to the Dr. yesterday with a sore throat. The response I got was: "WEll, unfortunately the laboratory is closed today, but since you're throat looks a little swollen I'll give you this prescription anyway". Not the first time I've had this happen to me either. Can anyone reference me some public health articles pertaining to antibiotic resistance? I understand the conceptual aspect, but have their been any epidemiological studies showing increases in antibiotic resistance or trends toward this?

I'd assume you're referring to some type of novel drug/treatment. In general, however, many stimulants decrease appetite. Taken to an extreme, you won't find many cocaine addicts ordering a pizza. There are some obvious health consequences to this though.

I could be way off on this but another thing to consider: Aren't numbers basically a human construct? An ant may keep track of the steps it takes, but I didn't think other animals had the construct of what a "number" is.

I thought the giant centipede eating a mouse was a bit better: