CharonY

I have moved it to homework for now. Now as you may have noticed your question is about how to separate the compounds better. Note that the retention time does not need to change (though it can) as a narrower peak would also give you better resolution (i.e. less overlap of the peaks). So basically you want to influence retention time and/or peak shape and there are many ways to address this. Your two first answers address the column. Do you know the relationship of length and diameter with chromatographic resolution? I am not sure how much is taught on the HS level, and you may not need to know it, but it certainly will help to understand the concepts if you look up the concept of theoretical plates and the resolution equations. Same thing regarding flow rate. What do you expect to happen if you increase/decrease it. What other parameters can you think of? Also think in terms of peak shape. Are they nicely symmetric?

Also look into the method and therefore material limitations that can be used to get a given resolution (the highest resolution possible today is based on a very specific approach).

The components such as microchips still required to be produced traditionally. 3D printing has the possibility to get away with soldering. Messing up the process is fairly simple, you do not need something major for that (depending on instrument). But yeh, what you are thinking about to achieve is more in the realm of sci-fi.

That does not address the issue. The limitations include all material that contain the drug, i.e. obtaining the plant will fall under the same limitations, which is one of the hindrances of research on their effects. Fractionation will not solve this issue (method development would surely take longer than "a day"). However, if you think about isolating cannabinoids from other plants, that has actually being done, but I am not sure whether they are past the preclinical. In that context usually there are only very few shortcuts in the testing that you are allowed to make in the development of drugs and stating that it should be fairly safe is to my knowledge not something that they accept. Especially considering the effort you have to put in even if just change the formulation a bit. I.e. for anything that is supposed to show medical efficacy you have to go (and document) the full mile. But feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I have only a passing familiarity with the regulatory details. Another option that is being explored is to find other compounds that can effectively target the same receptors as cannabinoids do. While there is a bit of research out there I am not sure how close they are to clinicals. Also of course there are components being tested currently, including CBD, but afaik it has not shown efficacy for dyskenesia.

First, you'll have to develop a method to successfully fractionate the components and characterize the content of each fraction, otherwise the exercise may be rather useless. Second, you have to ensure that either the extraction method is safe (many involve harmful solvents) or that there is a subsequent purifcation process that is safe. This step often involves animal models. Third, you have to ensure that each fraction contains reproducible quantitative composition. Fourth, every human study, even those that do not satisfy the rigour of a clinical trial, require a review by an ethics board and the informed consent of the participant. I.e. overall a suitable animal model would be preferred over human studies. There is, however, the big issue that the effect may not be down to a specific compound but potentially requires several found in the extract. In that case you would invest a lot of effort into finding something that works less well. I have no idea how any of this has anything to do with getting around state law as per OP.

IIRC the president is elected for 5 years (and is more powerful than many European presidents) just as the National Assembly. The Senate is elected for 6 years. The National assembly is currently dominated by the Socialists but I am not sure how polling has shifted recently. The next election that could be an indicator of current affairs is probably the Presidential election in Austria, which is between a former Green party member (Van der Bellen) and a right-populist (Hofer), which is a repeat-election as the previous voting was annulled due to procedural errors..

It has been said by many (among them, Barack Obama) that Trump is not an ideologue, which is a rather hopeful statement, considering the things he said and declared to do since the start of his campaign. As such, it is interesting to take a look at those that he surrounds himself with, as they will most likely be extremely influential in the way his policies. This is especially interesting as during the campaign he has allegedly promised Kasich significant influence on domestic and foreign policy as a VP. It can therefore be speculated that Pence may play a significant role. It is quite worrisome that Bannon has become the chief strategist as he has turned his media outlet into basically a white supremacist site (his personal stance is a bit more complicated, but he certainly does not denounce the movement he is catering for). Priebus is more mainstream conservative as chief of staff. While he has run a campaign of anti-establishment and catering for the working class, his cabinet picks are anything but that. Former Goldman Sach banker Mnuchin will join the Treasury Department, for example. A complete list of current picks can be found here. So what do you make of it? There are some unusual picks, for sure (Bannon, potentially Carson) but for the most part how different do you think it would have been from a more mainstream conservative? Does this assuage your worries about a Trump presidency or worsen them?

Yes.

To be fair, I am only guessing myself. It is somewhat incoherent.

Not sure what you are asking, but you can easily transfer genes between bacterial cells (certainly no arms though, cells obviously do not have those, and calling fimbria or other appendages arm would be silly). However any technique will only result in a proportion of any population that pick up the genes. What you generally do is take clones out with the trait and propagate them. Also obviously transferring genes does not necessarily mean that they will express them, nor that that even if they do they get the desired trait.

agreed and should be moved

Well Reince Priebus seems to re-affirm that the "default position" is thinking that climate change is "a bunch of bunk". So since the mainstream part of the inner circle seems to be sharing or re-affirming that view I have my doubts that it will change, regardless of whether they call it having an open mind.

It is unlikely that they went through the trouble to make a detailed analysis. More likely that (if anything) they ran some standard testing for contraband.

These are specific terms typically used in engineering. It would help if you could elaborate on the abbreviations and add what you think they could mean.

Depends on context. Physiologically, the regulation is mediated by a feedback loop that is based on blood sugar levels and involves glucagon and insulin as the key (antagonistic) players. At least, that would be a decent starting point.

That is entirely false. We got many cell types in our bodies and the life cycle of them, depending on type ranges from days to years. It is not directly coupled with the organismal age. We have stem cells and other less differentiated cells that can proliferate throughout our life, otherwise wound healing and regneration would be impossible. If you arrest cell division you are going to die.

There is at least one study that found that in addition to CO2 black flies use other cues (Schofield & Sutcliffe) J Med Entomol 1996, though it was not clear which part of the breath could be involved. No idea whether there is something newer around.The only other thing that I remember is that pattern also played a role (striped and spotted were less attractive).

Black flies would make sense, as they lay eggs in animal hosts thanks for that. So it appears that most likely only flies that actually attack humans are going to be CO2 attracted, whereas other are likely to show aversion. Question is how it is the case for houseflies and others that lay eggs in decomposing substrate (as they ware also likely to emit CO2). (this lack of knowledge also betrays the fact that I am obviously not an outdoors biologist....).

That is pretty much my understanding, too.

Yes and no. For the most part anaerobic bacteria as a whole are able to degrade most compounds that are degradable under oxic conditions. However, the pathways are different, as they e.g. cannot use oxygenases. As a consequence anaerobic degradation tends to be much slower. Also it often requires the action of larger communities as a single species may not completely decompose the substrate. Even in cases where oxygen itself is not involved in the degradation process, anaerobes are often somewhat more energy limited than aerobes, which to a large part is the inherent inefficient of anaerobic respiration but also due to the fact that many anoxic habitats can have other unfavorable aspects (such as nutrient limitation, for example).

That is not the reason. Assuming you mean humans or other animals the oxygen requirement is due to the fact that mitochondria are only able to use oxygen as terminal electron acceptor. Specifically, cytochrome C is involved in this process. Bacteria have other proteins in the electron transport chain to utilize other substrates. In either case one hard limit is the redox potential between the electron donor and acceptor, as that determines how many protons can be pumped. Incidentally oxygen is the most efficient substrate that is used for respiration. Other substrates have the issue that they a) are far less effective and b) are usually solids which limits the rate they can be utilized.

Really? I was only aware that they have a negative taxis at least in fruit flies. Do you have a reference at hand?

I think you (and others) may misunderstand what the basic skill set of a PhD is (or is supposed to be). I is is less the specific subject they were investigating, but the ability to take a complex project, disassemble it into work units, acquire skills to tackle these units and fulfill the project in a timely fashion. Another common skill set is communication. You learn how to communicate your findings, and explain it to people outside your field. These problem solving skills are mostly independent of the subject matter, though with different emphasis on how a problem is approached. Biologist tend to be more empirical, for example, whereas physicists are better equipped to deal with problems of numerical nature. In almost all instances you take the skills you obtained and mainly use the specific topic you dealt with as an example how you managed a project. That does not mean that there are not important technical skills that one should learn during that time, but I would be a bad mentor indeed if I let people out of my lab with nothing but data and protocols. Actually, if we take actual work hours into account postdocs are quite close in that bracket (though one could call that a special case... to some degree).

Few PhDs actually develop their own products. What you market are your skills.

Entry level jobs are hard to get, if you do not have any obvious skill sets that you can sell. A PhD does not help in itself as your competing pool would be other PhDs. Also note that a PhD level degree has almost nothing in common with school work, which is why it is accepted as proof of higher qualification. How to get a job? Figure out what your employer wants, network and make yourself a good fit. If you do not know what you have to offer, no one is buying it.