CharonY

I suspect it is the phrasing, which leaves a bit to be desired.

STDs are inversely correlated with income and access to health care as well as quality of care (and education).

It depends, really. Typically for publications you generally use the full name to make identification easier. Within departments that is rarely an issue and some find it a bit on the pretentious side. But ultimately I doubt that it really matters.

I think when talking about white Millennials the exit polls indicated that there is ~ 5% advantage for Republicans (presumably more when looking at white male Millennials). It has been reduced from 7% in 2012. The data sets are a bit different as, I believe the Pew poll was based on survey of registered voters.

It really depends on what your goals are. If you want to be a researcher, often it means an academic position, with all the uncertainties of such an career. As an MD, on the other hand it is often not trivial to establish a research program for a variety of reasons. Most of my medical collaborators lack training in research, but what is even worse is that they can basically only allot their free time to do so. Some, who are affiliated with research organizations can get a reduced workload that they can spend on doing research, but it is difficult. On the other hand, at least it has a somewhat more clear trajectory in terms of career (even if one never gets into research) compared to a purely academic career.

There are generally no rules but rather conventions that can be institution or even department-specific. If used as part of a title page typically Prof. is used, in some areas the specific title (e.g. Dr. rer. nat. or med, in Germany). But that is not necessarily the local rule.' Generally, the idea is to keep things respectful, and if some insist on being called Prof. Dr. something, use that (regardless whether it is a MD or PhD for that matter. In fact, in a mixed setting I prefer to keep things equal in order to avoid any squabbles). PhD students do not have a title, and are normally not indicated as such, unless required by some internal documents. If the document is part of you getting a degree, you should indicate your current degree and for what degree the document is part of. The use of periods does not matter much, just keep it consistent. Note that in North America, it is often common to just use Dr. to indicate degree, rather than Prof., in case you see those examples. In short, it does not really matter. It is fine as long as you use it in a way that does not piss off your advisors.

It is well known that bees react to neonicotinoids. The actual question is how large the impact is at common concentrations and whether these effect can explain CCD by itself. There are a few groups who champion that line, mostly based on model hives, but it is somewhat contested by people who base their data on field work. Global warming cannot increase the effect of a chemical per se. But if you are wondering whether climate change can be an additional factor leading to CCD, I am not sure whether data is anywhere near conclusive. There has been some speculation that CO2 levels could affect plant physiology, and hence the nutrient source for bees. But evidence is at best preliminary. Another thing to consider is that is often observed by loss of bees through the winter. It is possible that changes in weather patterns could contribute, but again, afaik no definitive answers from this area either.

I would phrase it a bit more carefulky. It is suspected to be one of the causes, but the research implicates several other potential factors in colony collapse disorder (CCD). These factors include a range of common parasites (such as mites and viruses), for example. These factors appear to be more likely to be the determining factor and to have been replicated in several countries (France, Germany, USA, Canada, but I have not seen the Belgian study, do you have a citation?). From what I read a current hypothesis is that neonicotinoid pesticides can make them bees more vulnerable to other stress factors, but the data does not support the notion of it being the sole source. The good news is that many countries have limitations or bans in the pipeline (and in France the use on certain crops have been banned since the late 90s).

Forgot to add, Monsanto is being taken over by Bayer. The merger is not finalized yet though (I think).

Not necessarily, as the "modern" use is often derived from the latinized version of the greek words (and is more common, but not exclusive in taxonomic terms). But even then, isn't the Greek plural not also rhinocerotes? I.e. ῥῑνοκέρωτες ? I only learned Latin, so I am really only guessing (though I am fairly sure of keras-> kerata).

Haven't read the whole thread, but lesion (and other) studies have shown that certain brain areas are responsible for various aspects self-perception (including in a spatial and temporal sense). This includes simple things like recognizing parts of your own body (or failure to do so) but also includes out of body perceptions, where you do not feel in sync with your physical body. While it is not clear what self-awareness is (it could be very well be an illusion that emerges from the various signals the brain gets and the processing it does) there are associated mechanisms that can be traced. Linking the mechanism to outcome and perception is arguably the big challenge.

I missed the CO part, it should be emphasized that a general assumption is that air particulates overall have one of the strongest effects on lung health and associated mortality.

If there is a strong mechanistic link you would expect that most if not all premature infants will be homosexual, with a gradual decline toward term birth. Does the data actually show that?

Well there are large studies looking at co-occurrence of air pollutants and incidence of cancer, asthma and other lung diseases. The issue there is that most categorize the participants as smoker or non-smoker. However, there are a couple studies out there that used indicators as outlined above to include passive smokers. For example Hoek et al (Lancet 2002) which concluded that long-term exposure traffic may shorten life expectancy, but they adjusted for active and passive smoking, Unfortunately, without the raw data one cannot easily figure out the contribution of smoking to overall mortality. Obviously, passive smoking is still an independent factor, and tends to dominate in-door (or in-car) exposures. What one could look for the is the opposite study design, I.e. looking for effect of second-hand smoke adjusted for air quality.

I think the most worrisome bit in recent times is that worked at suppressing findings with links between glyphosate to cancer, apparently with some collusion with an EPA official (a bit difficult to tell as most was based on comments in emails). But at minimum it casts doubt on a 2000 study. However, apparently other agencies have taken a closer look after that event and found that the link is currently too weak to be verified. Further studies and and some panel reviews largely agree that the observed molecular pattern do not fit what is traditionally known to be associated with genotoxicity nor does the epidemiological data. A synthesis of current research suggests that the effect is overall low, though more data (including the use of body fluids) could bring more insight. The overall issue is the influence of companies can have over research, which, in my mind, can only be counterbalanced by a host of independent researchers to verify (or invalidate) claims. The issue there being that funding could be a controlling factor.

I think in Latin the plural would be rhinocerotes. Transferring these terms into English do create weird pronunciations, it tends to be more uniform in Romance languages, but also in German, for example.

Harm from environmental exposure is difficult to trace and often one has to rely on longitudinal study studies to find associations. In such cohorts second hand smoking is different to establish and often relies on indirect indicators such as e.g.having a smoker in the household, but not smoking oneself. Short-term effects generally are not terribly helpful to establish public health effects. I could try and dig out relevant data if there is interest, though.

Or reading own links. Or reading.

Obviously. Though I suspect that the comment was at least somewhat facetious. If you think that your post was carefully worded, I would encourage you to carefully revisit your statements. Stating that there are exceptions to your opinion is a sneaky way to around it. Then you re-iterate a couple of assumptions and believe you made a fully fleshed out argument. Except, that nothing (except that there are gender-specific brain differences) is actually substantiated. Take a close look at your argument. You would need to show that the observed differences would translate to performance differences in specific disciplines, which is incredibly difficult. Instead you just reiterate your assumptions a few times and claim that any deviation are actually exceptions. Assuming you are a biology student (as I believe you claimed) you'll have to be very careful in your assignments if have the tendency to extrapolate things wildly. As it stands, the real only difference that has been observed was an advantage if girls for language and an advantage for boys in maths (except in Jordan) based on OECD studies. Even if that was true it would not fully explain the large differences in the distribution when comparing different STEM disciplines. And as I already mentioned, men with lower scores then women still have a higher likelihood to enter physics (or mathematics) compared to their female peers, who performed better. But the paper that Hyper mentioned deconstructs even the small difference found in the OECD studies (which are best on tests). If your hypothesis was correct, (almost) all academic courses should be dominated by women.

Huh, I can't believe that I have not read the metastudy (or if I did, I forgot, which would be even worse). I only had data from OECD studies but they were basically achievement scores. Now the distinction is quite interesting. Hmm the authors seem familiar, though. Thanks for sharing, I am not entirely sure whether that is a great approach, though.

The fact that the study of a certain condition or position is scientific does not render the position scientific itself (whatever the relevance of it may be).

You don't need a specific paper for that. Think about how a carbonate buffer works. What is the acid and the conjugate base in a carbonate buffer? Note the effect of changing CO2 concentration. Then check the case for HEPES.

But OP has nothing to do with evolution per se. Learning and teaching words are passed on independently of genes. Likewise, the development of a language would also be an independent mechanism. One could try to select for those that show the highest prowess in solving language-associated problems. But that would be independent of (or at best co-dependent) on the development of language.

Is your question whether CO2 influences pH of HEPES? If so, why would you expect it in the first place?

Here is the part that I am skeptical about. I have little doubt that the young ones realize that e.g. gender stereotyping is a bad thing. I am just not certain whether they are aware of what it entails and miss that behaviour as they assume it does not exist anymore. I.e. complacency has set in and you can hear quite often that people claim that things like racism, sexism etc. are non-issues as they do not consider themselves sexist/stereotyping/racist etc (after all, what we really have achieved as a first step is to associate these terms with a negative perception, which does not mean that the perception itself is eradicated). Hence, so goes the reasoning, it must have stopped existing. For example, just because gay marriage is now legal, it does not mean that discrimination has vanished. While there is significant improvement, much is being shifted from the over to the subtle. And the latter is often not considered an issue by perpetrators. There have been a number of surveys among millenials (including e.g. biology students) and sadly, it appears that the trend is actually reversing when it comes to gender equality. I will have to dig those out, but students systematically overestimate the ability of their male peers and in other studies millenials were also less open to female leaders. Now, one could argue that it is still an improvement. But the sad thing is that in direct comparison, the males in the younger group (below 29 years or so) were more likely to have this views compared to males in the 30-44 year group and above 45 were even less likely. The same trend was also observed in females, where the youngest group was more likely to agree with an increased role of women in the household (instead of an career) than the older age brackets. What really appears to happen is that the older ones, that have seen the massive shift in attitude seem, on average more willing to change their attitude. This observations fits well with what I have observed in academia, but is also in agreement with the study on physics teachers, I mentioned earlier. So one possible explanation is that one actually needs experience to recognize these attitudes, which means we may have to wait until the young generation gets older to see another shift. As usual, things are complicated.