CharonY

I find a judgement call from moral superiority deeply troubling. It implies that we can take away the right of an individual on the most private matter based on how we judge a person. "Obviously someone who goes through repeat abortion is making bad judgement calls. so we should take her rights away and limit those of others". Normally this would only be justifiable if someone may get harmed. And again, at the early stages of pregnancy I do not see it happening. Just remember that many mechanisms contraception do not prevent fertilization, but simply create an unfavorable environment for the pregnancy to proceed. So what does it leave us? It is not that much about officials making decisions on women, after all, they are the extension of the will of society. So we impose limits because once there is potential of life and then we argue that because someone contributed sperm will should also have a say in it. If we enshrine this legally, what does it tell about us as a society? That we value a person and give the rights only to waive them once pregnancy sets in? That a woman has the moral obligation to stay chaste in order not to fall into the trap? That a man that arguably would also have made a bad decision suddenly gets to decide how it is going to pan out for the woman? I appreciate that posters here do not think that the stance is inherent misogynist. However, it is hard to overlook the significant power imbalance in the situation. The discussion is entirely focused on our ability to take women's right away. And make no mistake, it really is about judging the morality of women as so far no propositions have been brought forward to fully support the child.

That is pretty much what I am seeing.There is a mix, obviously though aside from "not my President"-like signs I see more things like "against bigotry" "no hate!" etc. There are certain different motivations, but many simply want to show solidarity with targeted minorities (though for the most part I doubt much will actually happen, since Trump is more of a populist than an actual ideologue). After all, the president was endorsed by groups like the KKK (who I sincerely hope will end up being pretty disappointed). tar, remember, his platform was based on fostering fear, painting black communities as desolate cesspools of poverty and crime, Latinos as rapists, Muslims as terrorist and characterized women as sex objects. I really think this is far more divisive than calling someone who made those statement unfit, because I can really see where they are coming from.

Oh but it didn't. Blue dog democrats blocked health care reform well until a provision was passed via executive order, I believe.

I think protest is fine, as it sends a signal. Rioting not so much. However, if it anything like Germany the damage and violence are incited by certain youngsters (typically, but not always associated with the anarchists and extreme lefts,or extreme right, depending on the type of protest) that just want to incite violence while hiding behind legitimate demonstrators. I would bet that most did not even bother to vote. As such both elements should be viewed at separately as you did in your last post.

Also amending the constitution is quite different from repealing laws and regulations.

I think phrasing of OP made it look like one of the low-effort soap-boxing posts. That being said, while I initially disagreed with the decision, after reading the whole thread it was rather obvious that OP did not intend to initiate discussion. Though other members may not be entirely blameless, the quick turn to the worse of the thread was clearly at least encouraged by OP. What I would suggest is to request OP restates the post in a way to facility discussion, such as "can/will Trump reverse Obama's policies" and we can start talking about things that may or may not happen. Alternative just move them into Lounge, let him be happy and start a thread with the potential policies and consequences thereof (including the fact that Trump just made a reversal on ACA).

The issues are not limited to climate change but also a host of other environmental issues may arise in the next four years which may take the next few hundred to address...

The overall energy production is set to increase. But non-fossil production is going to rise by 48%.

There are actually at least two things with long-lasting effects: environment and SCOTUS.

I would agree with almost all of your points but the last. The mere presenting of data is never wrong, but the way you contextualize it. It is precisely by pushing an agenda that it creates sides that shout at each other rather than trying to make sense of the data. By deflecting attempts to discuss the complexity of the issue it becomes impossible to form a discussion which inevitably results in some PC or anti-PC nonsense shouting match. For example, one could easily ask a) what is the evidence for the black IQ gap (such as which populations have been analyzed) b) what are the contributing factors c) what is the uncertainty of the data, especially for complex traits. And anyone who has read even a little on the topic can point to a dozen issues ranging from what we measure, to the lack of a mechanism. Yet equipped with the certainty of the ignorant some just take factoids and have generated the perfect model how muscle fibers and hormonal levels (not to mention melanin) lead to stupidity and violence and hence crime rate. Conveniently ignoring the complexity of the issue or the simple fact that the biggest predictor for violent crime is being male. If we applied the same level of extrapolation we should all pushing for complete female rule or something silly like that. Yes, contrarian views are important, sometimes even for as a sanity check. However, there is a difference between challenging assumptions and trying to replace reality with a complete mock-up. No one would argue that any assumptions based on violation of the laws of thermodynamics are not worth exploring too much. But just because in other sciences there are larger gaps of understanding, we cannot just summarily dismiss what is known nor can we dismiss the shape of uncertainty and replace it with gut feeling. Here is the thing: whenever we discuss science, we should always approach it with the willingness to learn something new, regardless what your original position is. And for that it is important to contextualize findings (on complex issues), otherwise we just shout at each other because we create caricatures of reality which no side can accept. And if our agenda is so strong that we are willing to build up small scientific factoids as the new reality then we simply have not a sturdy groud to found a solid discussion on. And if we go down that route, I am going to declare all day that storks deliver babies all day long by providing charts to show the undeniable correlation between storks and birth rates. Now regarding unpopular views, As I mentioned, they are important. However, I think it is also important to mention that perceptions can be heavily distorted. For example, one can often hear the moan of PC-thought police claims. Yet in reality I have encountered far often acts of subtle or blatant racism and sexism but not a single time got yelled at by a "femnazi". That does not mean that extremes do not exist, in fact, they may be more common in a weird place like academia than elsewhere, but they are not the prevalent school of thought. The obnoxious ones are those that interestingly share pretty much the same traits (absolute certainty in their position, paired with ignorance) and if not for what they happen to believe in, they would make good bedfellows. Now, getting back on topic, for each case where an academic is fired, one should carefully look into the overall reasons, not just the soundbites. The whole reason for tenure is that people can speak and teach their minds. And I know plenty of academics that have distinctly non-leftists views and go on their business without issue. As a matter of fact, if there is conflict brought open in academia, it is rarely because of a one-time thing someone said, but usually it has (as with all other human groups) more to do with the underlying dynamics. I have never seen a situation where someone was shunned just because of their religious or political position. However, academia is also fiercely competitive and stupid in specific ways. Sometimes there feuds between people and usually than personal views are getting used as ammo to undermine someone's position. It is almost certain that firings in situations with non-TT people is mostly connected to either budget, or that someone has gotten into dispute with someone (usually faculty or admin). It is no different from companies: you do not get fired there for your political views, you get fired because either you underperformed or the boss hates your guts. If you do a cock-up in the public it adds another issue. However, tenure usually also offers some protection from that. To add another thing: much of this outrage can be prevented by not feeling to be entitled to something. You can't expect a respectful discourse if you are disrespectful and disruptive yourself. A recent example: a colleague of mine was approached by a few students who politely requested to be addressed either gender neutrally or at least different than one might expect. His answer was that he will try to accommodate their wishes but since it is counter-intuitive he may not always maintain it. He certainly means no disrespect by that however. Both side were reasonably happy without the need for a youtube/twitter war.

I am not entirely sure what you mean, but damaged cells (as well as part of normal turnover for some tissue) are eliminated via apoptosis. There are several networks involved in the process and not just a few molecules. There are internal and external signals that initiate the process, though the external. Note however, that body injury does not necessarily cell injury. I.e. if you cut yourself you do not basically cut the membrane of cells. Rather, there is injury in the tissue which releases signaling molecules directing repair.

And as you get older you discover a lot of new things about your body (mostly as they fail or do funny things).

Except, of course, it is more and more obvious that his views are actually not extreme.

I am pretty sure you do not mean it that way, but the way you phrase it, it appears that you draw an equivalence between the inconvenience of getting with your business with pregnancy. The latter is not only longer but also carries significant health risks up and including severe maternal morbidity in about 1.6% of the cases but also many other syndromes and diseases such as gestational diabetes, thyroid issues, risk of embolism, increased cardiovascular incidence and so on. Would you think a law is moral if it forces you to help others even at risk for yourself? If so, what level of risk would you find acceptable to be enshrined in law?

In that case I seem to have misunderstood your point. However, in that context medical necessity. For example, no medical provider will amputate a healthy limb, just because you want to. Thus, the risk for the mother is sufficient reason not perform a late term abortion. This is especially the case as there is a much safer procedure such as a initiating labor or caesarean. So while the right to their body is not violated, it is up to medical professionals to utilize the correct procedures and deny them if they are going to be more harmful than not.

That never happens outside of medical emergencies. It is simply a matter-up fantasy as at that point birth would be much easier, safer and cheaper. Even second-trimester are rare (ca. 10-12% of all abortions) as at that time the health risk for the mother is about the same as carrying to term. The required procedure is far more involved than in the first trimester, where abortion is safer for the mother than giving birth.

I do not understand, either. Good Samaritan Laws in North America (afaik) do not force you to help others, instead it protects from liability should you decide to help someone. Germany has a rarely enforced law where one should render assistance according to their abilities but even then I do not see equivalency in suspending someone's right to their own body for months. A slightly better example could be a law that forces you to donate a kidney. Do you think that such a law should exist?

How can a real estate shark from a rich family come off as a country boy?

OP: Well, now you know.

Considering his current rating I doubt that it is down to him. What he may have done is to alienate the uneducated white vote, possibly by virtue of not being white (considering that most administrations have done little for them) and thus galvanizing them. But I guess there will be many more analyses of the demographics soon enough.

Even the popular vote.

I found that rates is often less of an issue but rather what aspect they can pick up efficiently. The nice thing in biology is that due to its complexity there are so many different aspects (theoretical, practical, analytical, biochemical, descriptive, predictive, etc.) so one often can guide students toward something fitting (finding that can be a challenge in itself). The one big exception are those that actually have little to no interest at all and/or are not willing to work harder than they used to. Self-motivation is an extremely important element here. Edit: maybe I should be more precise in one bit. Many mentors like to guide people in their lab toward a similar trajectory as they themselves experienced, with all the good and bad it entails. It can be a very effective way of guiding people to an academic career and pruning out unsuitable ones. My goal is usually to try to mold them into the best version of themselves that I can make them into.

Looking at the election results as they come in and with Trump leading all I have to say: seriously?

It is very common for people just coming out of school and having to switch from "passive mode" (memorize, do as told, take exam. forget, rinse and repeat) to have to actually take ownership for a job or project. Obviously I mostly see it in grad students, but from discussions with friends in industry or small businesses, it is pretty much the same thing all over. If anything, outside academia it is expected that you make the transition a bit faster, as there is less emphasis on teaching. In contrast, in grad school there are still courses and exams and the transition is often slower. Also, some supervisors like to micromanage which often helps them to get things withing the tight time frames of typical academic research projects, but which IMO hinders the development of the student (although they may come out with more publications). Needless to say I am a fan to let students mature as fast as they can.

I can make a few educated guesses about the issues as it sounds to me like pretty standard issues, though precise wording would be helpful to figure things out. One key work is independent. While seemingly innocuous it implies that you are expected to proceed with less guidance. Mind you, this is not something unusual but part of the normal growth process after getting an actual job. What often is the issue is that as a beginner one is only focusing on the next part or a specific part of the next protocol (and questions are mostly aimed at these things) but what is lacking is the big picture. I.e. you do as your are told as to what the next thing is but there is little feedback and initiative on your side so that the supervisor is not comfortable in handing you the project and let you run with it. I cannot be sure in your case, of course, but what is expected or helpful is often something like the following: - Have a vision or model of the whole project, start to end - Visualize every step that moves you along the project - Create a timeline of steps to conduct, be as specific as possible - Figure out where you got problems to in figuring out what to do or why to do something. In other words do proactive troubleshooting. Troubleshoot yourself as much as the work - Use that timeline and protocol to those with more experience or your boss and ask about every step that you are uncertain about. Make sure to make notes! - Finalize the project timeline, workflow and add expected results as appropriate. Check again for gaps in the flow -Use that project plan to go to your supervisor/boss/head honcho and discuss whether this all makes sense and use that to benchmark your actual work and to guide meetings and discussions In addition, continue to expand your knowledge over the stuff you are doing now to things that may be useful later. I like to use ripples in a pond to illustrate what I mean. Identify the main thing you need knowledge in. It could be knowledge about a very specific biological system or a particular technique, just something that is central to your work. Learn everything from that small part. In fact, become an expert in it. Make the thing small enough that you can comfortably call yourself an expert on that thing. Pay close attention to how deep you need to go. For example if a group of proteins is your center, you may want to know their enzymatic properties, but necessarily need to know their 3D structures. Or maybe you do but then often you need to know less about other aspects (regulation? evolution? biological roles? etc.). This is your center and rippling outward from here add information that expands on that. A related regulatory network, another technique, a specific enzyme function, grow with time in your field and identify where you have comfortable expertise and identify parts that you need to add. However the further you are from your center the less detail you need to know, most important is the relationship to your main thing. However, be prepared to make something else your new or additional center, if need be. Does this make sense to you?