CharonY

I assume you have measured protein concentration after lysis to ensure quantitative release of proteins? Have you tried a positive control on your sample (e.g. GAPDH?) to ensure that nothing is wrong with it? qPCR is a relatively weak evidence of presence as the typical semi-quantiative nature of the measurement does not necessarily tell you much about detectability. Though a positive immuno-stain (assuming it was specific) is usually a good indicator.

In that case, let's talk about the bobbit worm (Eunice aphroditois). It grows up to 3m (I believe around 10 ft in silly units), It can get into aquariums by hiding in rocks. It also seems to produce a nice toxin, though I think it has not been properly characterized. https://vimeo.com/28280553

1) It depends on how you define not capable, but cancer cells are the most notorious ones in which it does not activate. 2) generally not. However, there is some research that suggests that at least in vitro some recovery is possible. I am not certain whether it translates well into actual organisms, though. 3) Generally speaking there are two main pathways. Either TNF-receptors are activated or the outer membrane of mitochondria get permeabilized. The former, (extrinsic or receptor pathway) is initiated by signaling factors that tell the cells to undergo apoptosis. The mitochondrial pathway (intrinsic pathway) is triggered by cell damage and stress. 4) relatively fast, we are talking minutes here

The main reason for limited degradation, especially over longer period is usually dehydration and temperature. If the food was stored under high ambient humidity it will degrade fast, especially when warm.

Though the way they control it is quite primitive, to put it politely. Seems a bit like a toddler found with the cookie jar claiming that he couldn't have stolen a cookie as he already has eaten it. I guess I got spoiled by House of Cards. I kind of expected at least some mastery in spin. But hey, maybe they really do not need it anymore.

Based on your description you seem to propose a novel drug, which needs to be approved. That process alone will cost you more than the budget you propose. It won't be a small amount. Getting a bioequivalent approved would be cheaper but still eat up most of it. For that budget at best you can try to get a small startup rolling and get some preclinicals done so that one could find an investor to actually get the required money in. Even ignoring that bit, trying to build facilities to produce drugs on a 2 mill budget is.... ambitious. But honestly, the biggest warning sign is probably the expectation that one could start a business by doing some rough estimates and then asking around on various boards. It may work for Etsy products, but certainly not for drugs.

Well, and it seems to me that the control over the story is fairly weak, too. Well, and there is that.

That seems interesting: The account seems to corroborate the notion that the Trump tried to get hands on the info and only lost interest when it did not seem to be that useful.

Sometimes it is really bad if the research impacts commercial products. For example if you figure out that certain chemicals may (or may not) pose health or environmental risks. If you are not meticulous in documenting potential conflicts of interest one may get in hot water easily. Or anything that may have any impact on politicized issues, mostly in environmental or health sciences. Sometimes things can be very complicated when you have multiple projects funded from various sources.

Conflict of interest is certainly a big thing in many biological or life science areas. For some reasons it never occurred to me that it may be less so in physics, though it does make sense.

Hmm that is quite possible. I kind of missed the online and blogosphere trends. As a matter of fact, I can't actually recall any blogs that I have read regularly, aside yours. I guess I am old-fashioned that way.

The post surely stimulates the fluidum of craniostenotic irreverence and as such medionic estimates of gyrs must take precedence.

There seem to be few biologists around, it seems. Most that I can think of are more in the areas of evolutionary biology, which is kind of the cosmology of biology. Of course there are field biologists, but those tend to be specialized communicators in the area of conservation and ecology. The rest is stuck in labs and never see the sky (please send help). Edit, actually it may be because we got a really poor training in mathematics and much of biological stuff is not really easily generalized.

You don't need to incorporate that, if you assume that they act upon all the information they get. After the first Prisoner the following combinations remain possible (in order P1, P2, P3) RBR RRB RBB BBR BRB BBB As you can see, from the viewpoint of P3 only RBR and BBR are possible combinations where they wear a red hat, all other would be black. With P2 we first can eliminate RBR (as that would require seeing two red hats) and also BBR, because if P2 saw a red hat on P3 he would know that he had to wear a black hat (otherwise it would be BRR and P1 would know to have a black hat). Thus all the remaining combinations would default to P3 with a black hat.

It is kind of interesting that many, if not most of the pop sci folks are actually cosmologists. I guess it is maybe because they find themselves used to ask big picture things that may be conducive to popularization.

That is very well expressed. It is about popularizing and not teaching science. While doing it is still worthwhile I am sometimes worried that the popularizers may become figurehead and fetishized or demonized by some, and taken for representatives of the broader science community.

Also anyone else that may disagree, so it's a wash. Science communicators are likely the only ones they heard of (other than a handful of stars like Einstein).Also, most often there you do not need to be pissed off. At least the few that I met kind of enjoy the attention to some degree in a perverse way, though you may need to alcoholize them to admit it (well, and for the really famous ones I guess it becomes part of the job). Also, now that I think about it, those guys probably do not distinguish between science communicators or mainstream scientists in the first place. Also, completely unrelated, I kind of found it funny that you listed Paul Davies he is one of the better known Christian sci communicators (and got in a I of a spat regarding faith in science and other things).

Pop sci is not generally used as a derogatory term, rather it is used to distinguish it from the level of sci in the academic and/or professional sense. It does matter, as informing the public is an important goal. Yet one should not confuse it with the discussion within sci communities as the former can obviously only provide relatively simple narratives. Thus it is far more easier attacked as it only synthesizes part of the existing knowledge (and in a simplified form). Basically, it serves a different purpose. Such as highschool, undergrad and grad studies are all on different levels, they all serve their purpose and are not easily interchangeable. Or read the pop sci books, textbooks and papers from the same author, for that matter. Also I should add that science communicators sometimes move out of their field of expertise, sometimes with somewhat cringy results.

To be fair, to some it may appear to be an extraordinary skill.

That makes a lot of sense. I missed the NYT part. But then so much is happening with this administration, it is like reality TV show where you need to watch every episode to be on top of all the drama.

That is quite interesting, thanks. So the solicitation part together with the fact that the lawyer was introduced as foreign official is sufficient to put it into the criminal area. It does make we wonder why the decided to publish the mails, though. Unless one assumes total ignorance of the laws as well as massive incompetence.

Foiled by autocorrect. Yes I was referring to the likelihood of an eventual prosecution which would lead more credence than there was an intent for obstruction of justice. But I fully agree that at minimum it warrants further investigation.

It actually does not relate to evolution at all.

Typically those are found after pregnancies, but they suspect that during intercourse some may also be detectable from the partner. The article severely distorts those findings.

Hmm is that sufficient cause for persecution? If so, I stand corrected.