CharonY

While I largely agree that the focus on exams is overall detrimental, I will have to say that many stakeholders, including students often object to project-heavy courses. One reason is that evaluations can feel arbitrary (though, to be fair, any evaluation to some extent is) and often there are extremely time-consuming discussions on whether those are fair. To some degree I do not understand the focus on fairness (mostly because I am cynic), but from the viewpoint of those that are involved in the process (educators, students and administrations) tend to prefer the road of least resistance. Ultimately, most really only start to work on a proper project in Honour's theses or when they start their Master's or PhDs. That part often comes as a culture shock for many. However, it basically only works because every student has a direct supervisor, which is unworkable in courses with 200+ students.

It is a bit different though, as especially smaller predatory journals can change create new umbrella organizations and push out some new journals. Most are not really in the business of making a name for themselves. Thus, even keeping the old list online, it will be outdated rather quickly. I get basically daily requests to submit in journals I have never heard of, most of which are likely to be predatory.

One general thing to note, assuming there are physiological differences, one should consider that not everything is due to direct selection. It could be a consequence of an entirely different physiological aspect (say, developmental one) that leads to these outcomes, but are not under direct selection (for example, different activities of pain receptors in dependence on hormonal status). [soapbox] This is why it is why so many evolutionary ]stories in areas such as psychology or marketing end up being "just so" stories without any actual scientific merit [/soapbox]

Actually there are many, many companies who do that. Primers (short fragments of about 20 bps) have been around forever (now at the cost of few bucks) with all kinds of modifications that you might need. Longer fragments (up to ca. 3000 bp without additional cost for stitching) are also available, but I think the cost is closer to 0.2 cents per base, meaning that an average gene may cost more than ~100 bucks a piece.

I am not opposed to a discussion on the topic per se. However, in my mind it is one of the topics that have to be navigated carefully, especially by scientists, as an hyperbolic extrapolation by some scientists have resulted in a large set of popular beliefs with rather unsavory results. While i am no expert on this area myself, the mere issues with IQ as a measure in itself as well as the common occurrence of spurious correlations has led me to believe that extrapolations on this measure alone have to be treated with the highest level of scrutiny before we can embark on what is essentially the second part of the question of OP. There are psychologists (Lynn and Rushton for example) that have published heavily on these areas, but are considered to be controversial by experts. On of the biggest issue I have with this or similar works is the evidence is entirely correlative, whereas the conclusions are strongly describing causal relationships in broad strokes. Some of these appear make the use of IQ rather questionable to me in the first place (such as the IQ of Kalahari bushmen). To me (as a non-expert) there does not seem to be enough meat to it (if I apply the rigor of biological rather than psychological research). While it is true that this thread was moved here, I think that before starting the discussion one has to preface it with a longer discussion on IQ and other issues. One, which we clearly cannot do exhaustively. And from that standpoint I think it is fair to say that as laypersons we must be careful to do extrapolations (and no, it is not the issue of PC, it is the issue of making strong statements based on weak data).

I don't see that fall even close to the issue of dysgenics. The main issue is not whether it was nicely worded or not, but not recognizing that in humans fertility is not simply a biological, but mostly a social trait. How many offspring someone gets in many societies (with at least a sense of gender equality, for example) is decision-based as humans have the ability to restrict offspring production. Thus, in the end, it is not a question well-suited for the biological section. Rather than the example your provided a better analogy would be trying to figure out whether we are evolutionary driven to like Apple products.

Mix of phenolic and epoxy resin benches as well as a few stainless steel ones., depending on when the lab was built.

Doesn't the whole thing (including brexit) has a shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly aspect to it?

You need to reference the basic assumptions in your proposal. For example, under which condition does the pH of blood actually changes and how does that tie in into your proposal (which I frankly do not get).

It is also relevant to note that the genesis of the term "race" is based on social inception first and then filled with associated biological properties. I.e. depending on time and place certain categories were defined and then filled with certain traits (such as skin or hair colour). The modern use did not really start before the 19th century.

I think he even said "president Comey". It was really bizarre.

Alternatively, if you know from which organism you want it, just get it (or its DNA) from a culture bank, get the right primers and amplify it.

The highest rate of non-eu immigration to the UK was around 2000 and plateaued/ declined since then. I would be interested, if someone actually found a correlation between immigration and terrorism as I have not seen such studies. Well, actually there's one that claimed a significant increase in right-wing terrorism (which seems to be true in Germany, at least).

Evidence in humans is still very limited. There are short-term studies that may indicate benefits, but long-term information were mostly gained from retrospective cohort studies which are difficult to interpret. People are trying to get mechanistic insight in cellular studies (e.g. using adipose cell lines) but they are of course difficult to translate to the organism level. There are a handful of controlled studies which do suggest that some markers found in mice may also be activated in humans under moderate calorie restriction (not fasting!), in young people. The health benefits are still unclear, though. Major benefits are expected in the areas of metabolic syndromes and inflammation.

Recent history, perhaps. Which is why historians tend to like some distance before looking at things. More accurately one could say that sources are written by survivors when dealing with ancient history. But then most sources on the Vietnam war are American accounts. I think one needs to distinguish between primary sources and their use by modern historians. Though the latter may have biased independent of the historic subject, of course.

Well, I think that should not require knowledge in history. After all, the mechanisms are fairly obvious and independent of human history.

History does not give us lessons on how to behave. It contextualizes events and helps us understand (but not prove) why certain things may have happened. History is not amenable to experiments. I.e. we cannot recreate the society, change a thing and see what happens then. It is an inherently chaotic system and it is difficult (or impossible) to derive predictive models from history. On the other hand it is important to note that historic research is important to disabuse the notion of said predictive principles such as Marxist view of history, manifest destiny as a form of teleological narrative or even simply to counter attempts to re-write history to push an agenda.

Race classification as commonly used is entirely a social construct as it is often based on vague traits and do not really take ancestry into account. For example someone looking like Barack Obama would in many cases be classified as black, yet we know that this is not an accurate reflection of his ancestry. The definition of races has been borne out of socio-historic contexts and are not based on actual ancestry. The latter is far more defined by geology rather than skin colour (i.e. people that live in close proximity are much likelier to interbreed). The historic component is also important. And again, the classifications we use today (Hispanic, black, white etc.) are borne from history. The classes were first made up and then filled with biological content, not the other way round. Whether one identifies as black (or any other classification) is only loosely (if at all) dependent on the actual traits that have been associated with it. Again, Barack Obama could be as much identified as black as he could be identified as white. The fact that we choose one over the other is a social construct.

Seeking biological answers for historic events is at best lazy thinking. It is a bit silly to lump all sub-saharan countries together as there are marked geohistoric differences. A part why Northern Africa flourished is due to the the connection to the Islamic world and participation in large trade routes connecting to major trade routes, including the famous Silk road. While trans-Saharan trade existed, it waned over time and much of Sub-Saharan Africa did not have a connection to major trade routes. Due to economic isolation those kingdoms tended to be smaller as others commented. Then, the rise of European empires (to a significant extent fueled by the riches of the New World) eventually led to the age of colonialism. First the trade with Western Africa eventually led to the decline of the Trans-Saharan trade routes, then in the late 19th century the rush for Africa resulted in full-on conquest During that age African kingdoms were effectively transformed into delivery vehicles of raw materials to Europe. While some consider that a form of modernization, it is important to note that the infrastructure was designed to benefit the conquering powers and not the indigenous population. And thus, wealth was transported out of local economies little, if any industrialization was conducted in order to prevent competition with the European countries. Independence for the various countries was gained very recently, sometime after WWII until the 80s. The various aspects of the cold war, the instability and poverty as a result of colonization, the lack of industrial infrastructure led to the rise of many dictators (often backed by either Soviets or the US to fight against the influence of the respective other cold war power). This situation obviously resulted in further social and economic instability, including civil wars. And there are of course many more, local aspects to look into. But sure, let's cover it all with "lazyness" because that explains so much, doesn't it?

Not an immunologist but the approach is one of many in the area of cancer immunotherapies. As with all approaches, it has to show the right balance between efficacy and potential harmful effects. One has to understand that in most cases therapies are not designed around bold ideas or precise models that whose merit can be discussed in a theoretical manner. Rather most of the time we e.g. analyze cancer cells and try to find molecular markers that are significantly different to reference cells. Then one tries whether there are ways to leverage these differences to specifically target those cells. This could be by trying to develop a specific delivery mechanism of cytotoxins or, as in the case above the use of biologics. Why some work and some others don't is often unknown and mostly derived from empirical studies (i.e. animal and then human trials).

I am not entirely sure whether bioinformatics still has a lot of growth outside academia, the initial run has cooled off over the last decade or so. But as others have said, the topics are not necessarily what gives you a job (especially in the private sector). However, you need interest in order to successfully complete a PhD.That being said, if your primary interest is to build a career, it is worthwhile to look at the job market and figure out rough venues that you could see yourself go into. There are many options that do not require a PhD. And a PhD does not necessarily result in an automatic boost in income.

Well, it is like getting rid of seat belts and hope that because of that people will become better drivers.

That is silly, as extinction is also a natural process. It is a weird argument that doing things a certain way will lead to better results. If humans or other animals stop use means to improve their survival that is actually the more likely case as there are no guarantees that there are genetic factors that can deal with challenges...

Unless, of course, other lifeforms decide not to e.g. detonate nuclear weapons at high altitudes .

Obviously, for some diseases it may be a rather bad horrible idea. Sure, the advantage is that you know it is coming and at least you can ensure that the kids are in a healthy state when they get it. But then things can go wrong (as well as some of the viral diseases can break out once one is an adult...).