CharonY

Serogroup is a classification above the serotype. A tricky bit is that the original definitions and classifications have shifted in various species due to the use of modern genetic tools. However, in the medical field, the immunoresponse (or the identificaiton of antigens) is still the gold standard (in academic research there are calls for a more unified view, however). If we use Salmonella again, The sergroups are based on the presence of specific O antigens (part of the cell wall). But each serogroup is further divided into serotypes based on flagellar antigens.

You generally do get paid (at least in natural sciences). However, MSc and PhD is essentially training. While your work contributes to research, typically it is a bumbling process in which you slowly learn how to do things (and perhaps more importantly, how not to do things). Typically only at the end or in retrospect do they get a real grasp at what they are doing (and quire a few not to a satisfying degree). That being said, there are rare exceptions who kind of do some level of self-directed research (typically by getting really knowledgeable in a small area) so that they can use the last bits of their PhD to do actual research. In the end it really depends on where you are. In some labs you are cheap labor where you just work your way through existing pipelines. These are typically good for building careers as you can get a decent output. In others you may be more or less independent but for the vast majority of students it means dealing with a string of failures combined with a slow learning process. However, the rare few come out of it with quite a decent set of problem solving skills. Though their CV may look less impressive. Even as a postdoc that issue crops up. As whole, the image of a researcher as someone who ponders about problems and solves them is mostly a myth. There is a short, transient phase when your skills are actually adequate to do it and you actually got time allows to do it. But rather quickly your career dictates a different direction. The rare exception to this in my mind are permanent research scientist positions, which are quite rare (but you can find them in some larger institutions and at the NIH, for example). It is a pity that the middle layer in academic research is so thing, as I do think that it would alleviate a lot of limitations in academic research. But that is probably going far too off-topic already.

I have friends and colleagues working in various biotech and pharma companies. Almost none are doing significant proportions of fundamental research. At most, there is product/process development and optimization. The reason is rather trivial, actual research is expensive with no guarantee of a return. Sometimes they get to a point where they hit a place where they think it could help them to do some more academic-like research. That type of research is typically outsourced to specialized labs and academic groups. Rather obviously, the goal is to generate profit and any research will have to be very applied to be useful to that goal. Also note that in academia there is not a lot of space for full-time bench scientists. Most of the bench work is conducted by students (i.e. transient workers) whereas the PI (if successful) can be less and less involved in the actual science but becomes more of managerial role (to various degrees, typically dependent on funding). The only job that could fit the bill would be technicians, but everyone below a PhD is not necessarily expected to have a self-directed project.

The discussion goes in circles because it is down to semantics. But considering the rest of the discussion one can make a the distinction that they can only see light (i.e. differences in brightness) but are unable to see objects. Or, as has been mentioned, we perceive light directly (on the retina) but need additional information (and mechanisms) to perceive objects. As most have conceded, that is a meaningless distinction in terms of OP, but it is pretty much one of the distinctions that spawned these nine pages. Obviously, we always need the former to be able to do the latter. But if we wanted to make a distinction, we could.

The process of "seeing" requires brain activity if we define it as being able to "see" objects. I.e. it is the reconstruction of an object based on patterns sensed by the photo-reactive cells. The actions on the retina itself is insufficient to see objects. It is only able to sense photons (or rather the absorption of photons by pigments). To use Eise's example, photons hitting retina would be the perception of light (see2, I believe) and reconstructing these patterns would be another definition of "see". Even colour perception is an ensemble activity and requires higher wiring. A disruption in the wiring would allow you to see light (or rather, perceive brightness differences) but could destroy the ability to perceive colour and/or objects.

It is important to note that CO2 fixation is not directly coupled to the efficiency of the light reaction. Rather, energy obtained from the light reaction is used to fuel carbon fixation. However, in many circumstances energy availability is not what ultimately limits CO2 fixation efficiency. In cases where the light gathering abilities are higher than the metabolic abilities to fix carbon, it may be more efficient to limit light absorption. Reasons include the fact that the mechanism for carbon fixation is heat sensitive and excess energy can lead to generation of heat as well as reactive oxygen species. Thus in some species reducing antenna size has increased carbon fixation rates (see e.g. Beckmann et al. J Biotechnol 2009). On a side note, this is why metabolic engineering of organisms is very tricky. Pathways are not straightforward and increasing flow in one area usually have unintended consequences. There is a reason why optimization via strain selection is still very common compared to rational strain design for activities that are at least slightly complex.

I think it is simply based on misunderstanding how silly US politics can be. I am not sure whether you heard, but during Obama's term folks (i.e. Fox and right-wing pundits) were criticizing for example the fact that he once wore a taupe suit, had a certain mustard on his burger and tried to make a scandal out of him forgetting to salute a marine (or rather, he forgot then came back to salute). Each of these events ended up on the news. Considering these minor things the threshold, a military parade would likely cause a meltdown of sorts.

While rare, you are aware that they are still around, including a handful of celebrities?

In addition, with crops there are relatively simple properties you want to optimize (often in terms of yield). Those are more often than not obtained by random mutation and selection (with exceptions). When it comes to designing complex traits, we still lack knowledge about how to manipulate the system to yield the desired results (and in some cases, clarity regarding what the desired results are).

This trope is based on the occasional finding that people with head trauma could appear lucid shortly after injury but then slip into coma. However, studies have shown that this is a rare event (see e.g. Arbogast et al. 2005 Pediatrics) where only 1.9% of tested children suffering fatal brain injuries appeared lucid. While I am not an MD, I was told that the current recommendation is that after initial assessment (and if the patient appeared lucid) it is fine to let them rest in order to accelerate the healing process.

Epigenetic inheritance is actually still under discussion. For starters, epigenetic markers would need to find a way into germlines, and then, there are mechanisms that allow elimination of these markers. However, more recently evidence were found that some can in fact be passed down, though it is still unclear what the health impact could be for humans. Data is still fairly limited and in some cases it seems that these modifications did not happen in the germline (and thus passed on) but rather that these epigenetic markers may be acquired during embryonic development. I.e. the status of the mother during pregnancy would be a critical factor. In other words, the effect of transgenerational inheritance of epigenetic markers is still under active research and it is still difficult to draw clear conclusions.

Did you actually read on any of those stories? Searching the Spokesman review I found this article regarding a secret society: I have trouble finding articles outlining criminal leaks by the FBI, and the lost texts were recovered. But yes, obviously folks don't see things your way not because of the fact that even your sources contradict you, but clearly because people are not reading up on things. Also, I cannot remember anyone else bringing up salacious details from Wolff's book other than you. It rather seems to me that you are busy fighting windmills of straw at this point.

That is what your link describes. Also note that Fall/Winter 2016 the growth was >3% (see US CPS statistics). So if there are any wage gains specifically due to the tax reform, they do not seem to have manifested yet.

I hope you mean politician. Because clearly that is not the case for republicans per se.

Apparently you are missing the point.Regardless of their political orientation, they are a law enforcement institution (which was OP outlined). The fact that they are starting an investigation targeting politically affiliated people in power (in fact, higher in the hierarchy than themselves) indicates that there is a ground which is not political. If they were attacking political opponents, you may have a point.

Thing is that the FBI is known to be conservative leaning and IIRC most directors were Republicans. What has happened is that there is now a new rift along the Trump fault line among conservatives that will test loyalties.

Actually your link indicates that wages still go up. It just does not happen in gig-jobs which will depress the averages. That is fairly consistent with what has been described by iNow and swansont.

It is difficult to say that there is nothing if so far four people close to the administration and campaign have been indicted and/or plead guilty. In most investigations I would presume that this alone would create cause to look deeper into a given organization. Who in the Clinton campaign was arrested due to dealings with Russia?

Partially correct. Essentially there is a SNP assocciated with the functions of a protein (I want to say ABCC11) increased activity of this proteins results in higher apocrine secretion as well as a higher metabolic content. The latter increases bacterial activity, which ultimately results in increased sweat related body odor. In Asians a variant is more prevalent which results in lower activity (which is one of the reasons why in East Asia deodorants are rarely used). However, this is specific to sweat-related odor and AFAIK there is no known difference between black and white folks. For overall odor, a mixture of diet and the microbiome is more relevant. The latter can be dependent on where you live, who you interact with and what you eat. Also personal care products.

Saying that things drop to the ground is an observation, not a scientific prediction. Theories why it happens are valid to a certain degree, only. In theoretical sciences as well as philosophy (and mathematics) you can create a framework and make valid deductions within them. What you seem to refer to is apparently the degree of accuracy with which these frameworks can predict empirical observations. However, that could be considered a limited subset.

There is no absolute validity in science, either. Validity is assessed within theoretical frameworks that agree with observation to various degrees.

It is poorly normalized, I agree. But unless you work in cell-free systems, reality is even worse. Mic will depend on growth conditions and strain, for example. Due to the overall sloppyness and variability many see added precision as superfluous. It really depends on the precise question. Also, if your lab works with extracts as well as characterized compounds, often the lowest common denominator is used out of convenience.

It is a matter of convenience. Especially in micro labs the compounds in question may not be fully characterized or purity may be unknown.

You are not wrong and it depends on the water source. UV serves a similar purpose as chlorination. However, if the water is already highly contaminated it may still be unsafe (including e.g. neurotoxins from algae blooms).

This sounds like homework. Think about what immune responses are triggered by which strategy.