CharonY

It doesn't. Question, though. Do you happen to read papers while being high and feel that you understand them? Have you tried it without and maybe tried to summarize the content in your own words and then explained it to some of your friends?

An interesting concept could be to have sufficient coverage to dispense with the need to actual own (and maintain) a car.

Yeah, there are a lot of proteins that can bind Ni specifically or non-specifically. Running a lysate through a column usually yields you a relatively complex mix of proteins, with your target hopefully being the most abundant fraction.

Even worse is if they start making stuff up and decry actual research as a conspiracy.

That implies that somehow the prefrontal cortex influences synpatic connectivity by a computational method, which is kinda silly. In general cortical computation refers to how activity patterns can discern e.g. patterns or information from inputs. As such it is not even necessarily linked to the prefrontal cortex. In fact, most work I have seen (though it is not really my field) seems to be focused on the visual cortex. The review discusses how gamma band synchronization can play basic role in establishing these patterns, rather than being just a secondary effect of the underlying mechanisms, and as such does not actually explain the concept. The scale in question is quite different to effects that would require QT effects (as it deals with, basically, network behaviour and timing).

Why is the composition relevant when used as fertilizer?

Amount as in different types of proteins? Electrophoresis does not have the resolving power to do that (and even 2D would be too limited). Or are you talking about total abundance? In the latter case any protein quantification method (Lowry, BCA, Coomassie etc.) would work. Most of it is going to be albumin, anyway with a decent chung also being hemoglobin, IgGs and so on.

Fair point, butI am actually thinking more in terms of people management, rather than teaching.

This is true and the role of a PI and mentor should be to mediate through all that. A task, I have to add, quite a few are ill-equipped to fulfil.

Since you described the results, it is obvious that the situation is detrimental. However, it is unclear why. As SJ mentioned, there are always me too people who need to claim at least some bit of the spotlight, but it would be to your own detriment to give them any attention. A PI is also a bit in a bind here, as he/she probably should not reprimand someone for doing something silly but not terribly offensive (unless you chose to interpret it as such). That being said, it sounds far less of an issue than some of the more toxic environments that I am aware of. If it seems to be such a big issue my suspicion is that there is something else going wrong and this is just a symptom. If, on the other hand, this was the main or sole issue in the group, one could count oneself fairly lucky.

Even that is not quite trivial, depending on whether you just simply want to grow modified E. coli or whether you actually want to modify them yourself. Half of the biohackers have no clue what they are doing, whereas the rest had at least basic education or, more likely, are somehow affiliated with experienced people involved in it. It also has certain health risks that are difficult to assess for many laympeople. For example, many media are not selective against pathogens. So if one is not careful the bottle of assumed harmless E. coli may in fact contain something far less benign. This is especially an issue when dealing with human material (even if it is your own).

Also immensely dependent on geopolitical strategies, as evidenced by the actions of the various factions during the cold war. Motivations may shift over time, but it is often difficult to see someone as a partner who may have toppled your government a little while ago, for example.

Without specifics it is hard to interpret the situation being described in OP. Among peers there may be competition and dismissal, even among established scientists. The usual way forward is to manage to scrounge up data and provide evidence. That is, of course, often contigent on funding and requires a whole other debate. Among young scientists egos obviously also flare up, but if it is e.g. within a research group, often the PI is to blame. In this situation I agree that it is mostly detrimental. Now if dismissal comes from advisors it depends on a lot of factors. A good mentor will try to guide students into paths that they perceive as aligned with the student's career goals. Others may not. There may also be limiting factors such as project deadlines that would make it problematic if students want to play around a bit. As a whole there a lot of limitations to academic research and how they may influence interpersonal behaviour. As such I find it difficult to make a sweeping comment on that situation. Provided, of course, we are talking about academia in the first place. In the private sectors there are even more limitations.

I think the "feel free to leave" comment is often used when someone claims infringement on free speech. It is given as a counterpoint to establish that this is a private site rather than a federal forum. What is asked for is adherence to the rules, which have been established to have this site not decay into a conspiracy whacko discussion site, of which there are plenty. And as String said, the Mods are usually open to discuss necessary changes and act in good faith.

Actually, for work with primate cell lines you need cabinets certified for BSL2 (just to nitpick as well as to maintain a modicum of safety). It is safe to say, however, that regardless of that, most amateurs are likely going to cultivate fungi.

Microarrays are a completely different beast as they just refer to dense printing on a surface. They do not need to be antibody based (as opposed to ELISA). In fact, it is more commonly refering to nucleic acid-based arrays. Analytical they offer different advantages due to the technical aspects of an array. For example, the dynamic range tends to be less than in ELISA and the quantification requires is not trivial as variance in the printing process or even the way they are printed will alter the process. As such it is more often used in explaratory rather than in quantiative studies, though with proper normalization they can also be used as such. I.e. there are a lot of techical differences that affect outcome making them very differnt tools. The overall issue is that upscaling and method transfer are not trivial things. even if the methodology appears to be roughly similar. As an analogy, one could argue that all chromatography is basically the same (using a stationary and a mobile phase) but obviously the actual execution matters a lot.

You need a lab, tools and an understanding of at least bsasic cell culture techniques. It is an entirely different endeavor compared to growing microbes. To give a timeline, the average grad student needs about half a year under supervision to successfully establish primary cell lines.

I agree that it is likely to make the text flow better. It may not appear like much in isolation, but it adds up and it gets more convoluted if you need to add additional information into the sentence. For example: contralateral prophylactic masectomy would be translated to: "preventative removal of the opposite breast" or something similar. The former is also more likely to get an abbreviation (CPM) whereas the latter, more loose lingo could lead to any number of abbreviations that are less likely to become formalized. That being said, I am not saying that science lingo is perfect. More often than not there are ways to describe things more easily, but it actually takes a lot of effort to make a manuscript to be easily readable. Often, (but not always) you will find the most convulated lingo among beginners (such as grad students or people entering a new field) and over time they tend to write clearer and simpler as concepts crystallize in their thoughts and become easier to describe.

There is a significant body of literature linking high doses of THC as well as chronic use to psychoses. While more studies are needed it is simply wrong to claim that there is no evidence. For example Bambico et al. J Neuro sci 2007 highlighted that low doses helpes with depression, but high doses seem to worsen the symptoms. That is not to say that cannabis components may not have uses as antipsychotic treatments as other studies have found beneficial effects. Yet there are also plenty of studies that suggest the opposite. There is also speculation of a genetic component as the reason for the different effects on individuals. Ultimately at this point the jury is still out, but stating that it is absolutely safe and beneficial is just wishful thinking (as well as dishonest) at this point. Most would agree that it is less harmful than inmodest alcohol consumption, but that is not a particularly high bar. Just for perusal, some very recent reviews discussing the link between cannbinoids and disorders as well as therapeutic benefits(all 2016) Colizzi et al Neurosci Biobehav Rev Curran et al Nat Rev Neurosci Mandelbaum & de la Monte Pediatr Neurol Sherif et al. Biol Psychiatry Castellanos & Gralnik World J Clin Pediatr (the authors discuss the interesting point that synthetic cannabinoids may be more strongly associated with adverse health effects than marijuana which may indicate that that the type and composition is an important factor) Skosnik et al. Biol Psychiatry (Potentially relevant due to your interest in neuronal oscillations) Campos et al. Pharmacol Res (one of the reviews focussing on the potential benefits of CBD) Ksir & Hart Curr Psychatry Rep (here the authors argue that cannabis itself may not cause psychoses but that cannabis use is more likely in individuals with vulnerability to psychosis) So even if we take just the recent lit, one would need incredible selective reading to dismiss all issues. It has to be said that more work is being presented that indicates a level of disruption of the glutamate signaling pathways and that these may lead to neurological issues, which is discussed in some of the reviews.

How about you first outline how you see how the different concepts align with each other? The are huge gaps in each of the elements (both in terms of mechanistic as well as conceptual models) and just mashing them toghether in unordered fashion is generally not helpful.

If you had at least read the abstract, you will notice that the protective effects are via modulation of inflammatory events. Which obviously has little impact on long-term use unless you are suffering from certain autoimmune diseases or are in the habit of bashing your skull in. Context matters.

Agreed. I may regret this but actual research involving fMRI and other methods have found that especially high levels of THC adminsitration lead to impaired saliency processing and reduction in the ability to perform tasks. The former is also associated with psychotic symptoms. A general limitation is that the number of studies is fairly limited and requires larger cohorts to make definite statements. See for example Bhattacharyya et al. 2015 Neurophsychopharmacology or Colizzi et al 2016 Neurosci and Biobehav Rev, which discusses the potential of chronic cannabis use to disrupt glutamate synaptic plasiticity. Note the lack of quantum hyper thingies in them. I will throw in a couple of free nanos, though.

On the other hand I noticed an uptick of the actions by the lizard people. Maybe it is part of the preparation against the incoming uprising of the cenobites rather than due to the presidential election?

Specifically in medicine the creative component is low as it is very outcome based and as standardized as possible. However, for most other areas and especially in fundamental research creativity, as well as curiosity are core components. You won't figure out new things if you are not wondering about something odd. And then you are in an area where there is little precedence so you have to develop new means to figure those things out. Doing these kind of things has a large creative component, though it does entail technical skills as well. However, this is also true for basically any art form.

It's the difference between maintaining structure or viability. Typically you also need to treat cells prior to freezing.