CharonY

There are different roles and you'll have to figure out what you want to be. If you enjoy lab work, it is mostly a technician type of work, for example.

From what I understand the only safe way to kill a Scot from Glasgow (without dying yourself) is alcohol poisoning. But that could take a few years and will leave you very poor. Source: had a colleague from Glasgow

The easiest is sticking with the same font throughout the body, as others I would also prefer serif (no one is going to be bothered by Times). If must be, use sans serif for e.g. figure legends to distinguish it better from the body. I think you have done it, but make sure to leave sufficient space at the edge for scribbled notes.

A) Figure out what kind of job you want to have and whether it actually consists of the things you like to do. The higher you go, the less lab work you will do, for example. B) Figure out the job opportunities and see if it aligns with your life goals. C) Once you know what you want, network for it. D) Network. E) Network more.

The redox potential is what drives the transfer, which becomes possible once the electron is in a higher energy band (and hence becoming more mobile). Also, during electron transfer a tunneling step is usually needed as the distance between redox centers is too large. And again, the redox potential influences the rate of it happening.

Is your thesis in a creative field? If not I'd advise against getting too fancy. Advisers and the committee generally have little interest in the aesthetics of a thesis, first and foremost is being able to read and comprehend it fast (and figure out strength and weaknesses). There is usually a pile of them and similar work that are part of the work load and we prefer to be efficient with our time and appreciate it if people make it easy for us. I have never encountered a positive remark on some fonts, though plenty about students trying to make something fancy for the sake of it (such using different fonts for running title, title, sub title etc, resulting in one case in over half a dozen different fonts on a single page....). As such, choosing the fonts and layout (unless it improves clarity) is therefore something you do primarily for yourself.

Yeah, unfortunately federal and state (or equivalent) cuts on funding are big drivers in these developments. I am therefore surprised that they gave drop in enrolment as the main issue. After all, the tuition of students does not cover their cost but are matched with public funds.

Depends. One biggie would be budgeting time for yourself. Not for work, not to get things done, but a time slot that is only for you and your interests. What else may help depends on your inclinations. Some say that yoga actually works for them in many ways. Others work out, and so on. One of the most important bits (which is an issue for me) is probably getting enough sleep. Edit: crossposted with String

If you are actually more interested in uses, an engineering degree could be a better fit. The environmental sciences tend to more on either biosystems of impact of human use on them (for example) but does not do a lot in terms of optimization of processes, which is a bit of a limiting factor for algal use.

Even if you had the structure (e.g. via crystallographic approaches), figuring out their function is still a long. loooong process. Or take proteomics, we routinely look at hundreds or thousands of proteins and monitor their expression under many conditions. Still, we generally rely on our old-school knowledge of known biochemical pathways to make sense out of the patterns. Again, what is missing is not the patterns, but figuring out what they mean. Even if you know the general role of a protein (say, vesicle trafficking) it will fulfill many different roles depending on what they particular cells needs to be done. E.g. it could direct signaling vesicles, or nutrients, or direct lipid genesis etc. Now you have thousands of them of which you vaguely know they roles or not at all. It requires extensive manipulation and many many experiments even on simple cells to use that information to tease out potential functions. Edit: the movie is a cartoon we have no way of getting that. It is one of the grails in structural biology, where we use e.g. femtosecond X-ray crystallography to try to capture confirmational changes. There are only a handful of examples where we might have seen something, and it took years in each case (not to mention a massive X-ray source). And this is only for minute changes (say, photoactivation of a molecule), nothing like a complex folding. But to re-iterate, while structure can help in figuring out function, it is a non-trivial process. And even if you know that that enzyme specifically binds a certain substrate, you still do not know the physiological role. I.e. when does it do that, to what reason, and what are the consequences if does not do that. The reason being that all the proteins are connected via massive networks. If you poke a whole in one area, it may be caught by something else entirely, so you do not see a phsyiological reaction. Or the opposite may happen, where it actually affects a distal part of the network, which leads to entirely unexpected results. Again, the limiting factor are not the measurements as such, but good theoretical framework or models which helps us to understand these vast amount of data. This is where bioinfomratics originated. And while there have been approaches (such as in the biochemcial modeling frameworks) it is still very limited and barely works on the single cell level. Anything beyond that tend to be empirical models (if at alll).

You are still looking at the wrong/easy thing. We have a somewhat decent grasp to look at molecular composition (at least if we ignore dynamics for the most part). But the problem is that changes in expression tells you little what they actually do. The reason being that they are not activated exclusively by some event, but many are induced by a multitude of intra-and extracellular signals. And your repeated claims of imaging still does not make any sense as you do not add functional information to the mix.

The light absorption moves it into a higher band. From there you are looking at either overlapping bands and tunneling processes.

In general an excited electron obtained sufficient energy to leave its original orbital (i.e. leaving ground state) and entering a higher energy band.

You could, however, use any other animal (and have it approved by the ethics committee), after all, genetically the difference between mammals is not that large. And even with recent advances in developmental biology, we remain largely clueless. We do have a qualitative grasp on some major signaling cascades and developmental switches, but the vast majority is still a black box. Looking at the parts is the easy bit, figuring out what they do and how they interact with each other is another entirely. But again, we are talking about writing a literary masterpiece using a language of which we basically just roughly know what the letters are. Sure, we could continue to analyze the composition and frequency of the letters, but that does not automatically tells us what the words are, what they represent and even less about grammar. Then we add to the pile that the letter composition is dynamic and constantly changing.

Let me give a bit perspective on functional genomics from the bacterial side. Bacteria are unicellular and generally do not have complex cell/tissue differentiation to speak of. Moreover, you can manipulate most quite easily to look at gene functions. Now, the best characterized bacterium (and by extension, organism) is Escherichia coli K12 (clonal line, i.e. also ignoring mutational variants), which has been sequenced ~ 20 years ago (I think, gosh I am old). Since then we have poked it in any way we can, mutated basically every (non-essential) gene, profiled with proteomics, metabolomics and so on and so forth. Still, for about 25% of the genome we do not have a clue what the genes are doing. And if we are honest, for at least 50% the predictions are rather vague. So even in a simple, best understood organism we have a huge knowledge gap that we cannot fill by merely adding observatory analyses. You can imagine the added complications for multicellular organisms.

Could you define how you would define a "right" in this context? And how would you distinguish between the "ability" of someone to do something and the "right" for someone to do something?

As a molecular biologist I usually takes samples from the slowest student. .

None of these have direct impact on genomic research.

Pretty far. In fact, we do not have clear approaches to that end. Or rather, we have figured out a lot of things that don't work well over the last 10-15 yearxps. So any prediction would be a wild guess.

But antipasto generally does not contain much carb?

There is a difference in so far that the discussion is actually fine grained. For example we are talking about US gun culture (a small subset of US culture) and contrast it with Canadian or UK one. If we did that with Islam and e.g. discuss it at the same level and insight and detail I would have no problem. For example, if we discussed differences of e.g. feminism in Turkey vs Kuwait, vs Bosnia vs Saud Arabia, for example and using relevant news or other lit, I would have much less of a problem. The issue is that most (all?) of us have little more knowledge about the situation over there than we have on the US or Canadian discussion on gun ownership/violence 2nd amendment rights than we have of equivalent aspects of the various Islamic cultures (which certainly are not homogeneous). I am happy to be educated on these aspects, but I refuse to issue blanket statements based on my own ignorance. The real equivalence would be if we were seriously discussing that Americans are a danger to Western values since they all have guns and like to kill people, while citing selective the cases where e.g. gun owners made questionable choices resulting in unnecessary deaths (or the death penalty, while we are at it). This is, of course ridiculous. Yet we do not feel that if we discuss something that we have far less knowledge about.

Right, and out there minorities are, well in the minority and are likely to be exposed to stereotyping. So therefore they should not have a forum to exchange their experience without calibrating it against the dominant one? What I would agree with is that the use (that I honestly do not see in a campus environment, but that is maybe only me) of context-free and almost comical use of what some call trigger warning or safe spaces that some describe. Yet in actual action I have seen rather reasonable use. For example a lecture of a psychology prof was going to involve elements of graphic and sexual violence and he made it quite clear in his syllabus. You could call it a trigger warning, but then I would understand if some people would rather take a different course, if possible (unless, of course, it is essential for the degree). Likewise, I have seen discussions organized by certain minorities, where they sought to exchange their experience from their own perspective without the need to calibrate against the white experience. This is actually a quite relevant discussion to have and even if you are there just as a listener and not a participant I found it very useful to in order to challenge my own preconceptions. I will say that there are likely borderline cases where things get iffy. For example what if a student body wants to invite an Islamic hate preacher or another one a known racist? This generally turns into a PR issue and the admin steps in to protects its interests. One may agree or disagree with it but they are basically business decisions. Or putting a different spin on it, what do you think about the group of guys that chanted "No means yeas and yes means anal?" (on campus, IIRC). Is that something that people should just shrug off because it is something one would face in real life? Would your attitude change if you were one of the targets?

And why do you think do social sciences exist where people actual gather data and analyze them? Why would you think that an approach that works for something as complex as the natural world would suddenly break down if we look at one aspect of it (say, social interactions)? Why do you think that in non-natural sciences opinions supersede evidence? Specifically how do you look at the big picture if you only have your limited personal view on things? How do you look at trends if you do not have the data to plot them? In other words, how can we approach social aspects objectively if we exclusively use our own individual experiences? And if you do is it the least surprising that you won't find agreement unless you exclusively hang out with people who exclusively shared the same experience as you? How can you claim that your experience is reality whereas others are not? How is that approach different from stating that vaccines are dangerous because "I think so"? And how is it then different from living in an echo chamber>

Also, this is not what discussions are about. If one initiates one solely for the sake of winning one deprives oneself from the opportunity to utilize it as a learning experience.

Yeah, it is getting rather expensive and the purchasing department is getting on my case.