CharonY

You are conflating your perspective or view of things with the objective reality. It often helps to take a step back and try to see whether other viewpoints exist that one may have missed. For example, you assume that your C++ instructor was never interested in particle physics and your telling seem to imply that you provided all the necessary information to come to this conclusion. However, have you actually talked to the person to figure out his/her career path? Considering that the instructor works in academia implies some inclination to an academic career. Or having programming course does not mean that one is not involved in physics related research. Or that someone started of with interest in the field and then switched interests. Instead the conclusion you came to is that that person only got a PhD for the sake of one. This is called projecting.

Brian May is not a good example as he started off studying astrophysics implying that he had some interest in the subject matter. He then finished his work to obtain his degree way later. The thing is if it is your only motivation, you have to be an extremely driven individual to maintain the required work load. And according to your own account, it does not seem to be the case. With regard to PhD programs, usually you have to secure an adviser. I.e. you have to demonstrate a) ability to perform research and b) should provide some evidence of applicable skills (or at least be trainable). However, depending on the institution you may also be required to have teaching duties which requires some knowledge on the subject. From that viewpoint it could be difficult to find someone to accept a candidate, unless they have a strong research pertaining to computational neuroscience or something in that direction. But judging from how your position changes over a few posts you may not be certain about what you really want yourself.

Well, they were mostly dominant in Eurasia/Europe. A better example would be world empire built by the Mongols. It is also noteworthy that the dominance was led by number of European countries/empires and not by white people per se. Other aspects that one should mention is that having technological or other advances does not lead to regional or even larger dominance. There must be a political desire for expansionism and colonialism that fuels that. An example would be China throughout various phases of its history where it has been indubitably the largest regional power, but only had relatively few expansionist ambitions. One should also not forget that "white dominance" was not only a matter of rolling in with superior weapons. Rather it almost always involved significant alliance building with natives to destabilize and overthrow existing power structures (and then often turning on said allies). Diamond tends to see history almost entirely from a economic/resource level, which creates a simple and compelling narrative. However, as usual with simple narratives, it misses too much. Perhaps ironically he is doing the same thing to the field of anthropologists as a biologist, which other disciplines have done to biology. Stripping away important complexity to reduce it to simple questions that can be answered with the otherwise inadequate tools at hand.

The aldolase reaction from DHAB is found in glycolysis but not in the pentose phosphate pathway (note that there are intersecting products/substrates so combined pathways can be confusing to read if they do not provide the specific reaction). In the pentose phosphate pathway specifically look at the non-oxidative branch, you will find a transaldolase reaction there. And yes typically the enzymes catalyze both directions, with the few exceptions that are considered to be irreversible.

Sorry, I meant non-exclusive as the courses are no way related to prestige of the school. How would a PhD help your career ambitions? And if it doesn't the only way to invest the required effort without going insane is actually being interested in the subject.

If I understood you correctly, I think there may be two potential points of confusion. The first is that an irreversible reaction only means that with a particular enzyme (under physiological conditions) the reaction cannot be reveresed. In this case the phosphofructokinase reaction. A direct reversal would be catalyzed by the fructose-1,6 biphosphatase which catalyzes the reaction from F1-6 PP to F6P, This is an irreversible step of gluconeogenesis. In the pentose phosphate pathway F6P is formed from glycerylaldehyde-3P via a transaldolase reaction, requiring sedoheptulose 7P, if memory serves.

Well, if they want to produce and sell in the EU they still have to conform to REACH standards. I do not know whether they intend to ditch it internally (and whether it would make any fiscal sense).

I think what most try to say is put fewer rocks into your bag.

It is not a dumbass question. Most people in academia are there because of interest rather than money or a good life (in terms of work-life balance). You are clearly stating that you are not one of them and that is fine. But it is important to be aware of that, which is why MigL asked. Neuroscience is clearly not a prestigious field. I known neuroscientists which work in comparatively low-ranked universities how are decently funded. However, the question is why neuroscience, what career path outside academia are you looking into? Also you should note that quality scientists are not produced by the institution, they are produced within specific groups. An undergrad degree does not count toward much in the scientific community and after that it is a question of whom you worked for, rather than where you worked at. But again, this is mostly relevant for science/academic careers. But since that does not seem to be your goal, the question is still what your career path is and what those people are looking for (beside networking).

From my understanding under REACH it was concluded that the data for TiO2 was inconclusive and did not warrant a stricter classification at this point. I am not sure why ANSES tries to change that, and assuming that they really only referred to that single study (I have not read the report) it is highly unlikely to go through. It has been labelled under different regulations (and countries) as 2b, however. I should also add that there are more toxicity studies out there (especially on nano variants, though there is little indication of acute dangers. There is evidence for bioaccumulation in certain organs, for example. Dose-dependency of cytotoxicty was also demonstrated as well as certain amount of DNA damage. However quite a bit was based under exposure routes that are not commonly expected (e.g. injection).

Mixing biology and history is problem problematic. While Diamond offsers a compelling overall framework, it is really weak in trying to explain historic events. Looking at historians who specialize more on world history (e.g. J. Darwin) the theme seems to be focussed on relative recent events such as the industrial revolution. I.e it us nit a matter of inherent progression of something that was always the case. Rather it probably is more accurate to view it in the context of relatively recent developments with European dominance only being possible past 1750.

1) as already pointed out, cultivation massively increases the bacterial titer 2) many media for Bacillus are not selective for Gram+ cells 3) Even if it was, there are plenty Gram+ pathogens as well as Bacillus species. 4) the point was that neither OP nor his teacher were familiar with aseptic techniques nor biosafety (which includes safe disposal). Without proper knowledge or supervision cultivating unknown bacteria always carries a risk. In school it usually appears trivial as there is always someone around to take care of it and prevent something going wrong. But assuming that people will be safe without training is, well, risky. Note that the question was whether it is safe rather then whether it can be done safely.

It almost certainly is. Heat and pH lead to formation of different iron (hydr)oxides (which can range from red to almost black). Fe(II) oxidizes very readily and there is little to prevent that unless you add reducing agents or lower the pH significantly. At pH < 4 your Fe(II) solution should stabilize somewhat. Starting around 5 you will have a significant amount of Fe(OH)2 which oxidizes rapidly. If the water is near neutral or basic Fe(III) precipitates in form of iron hydroxides almost instantly.

DNA does not make any proteins. They just provide the template for all proteins. Proteins are made within ribosomes. And proteins do almost everything in and outside cells. The last part of your question does not make sense. Proteins do not turn into cells, they are part of cells (all cells). Basically, almost everything a cell does, such as metabolism, replication etc. as well as most of the structure are all provided by proteins. Lots of them.

Absolutely spot on.

Soo. Magic? And even if there was a way to do that in vitro, what does it tell us in vivo? And even if it was possible on the cellular level, what would it tell us on the tissue level (and so on). You are both overestimating our analytical abilities (molecular movies are a bit of a holy grail at this point and we are talking about very simple simple things like catching the confirmational movements) as well as our ability to translate measurements into biological concept. Not that I blame you, as out of necessity popular biology is very dumbed down.

It is not entirely safe and generally should not be done if the teacher is not entirely comfortable with safety supervision. The reason being that our skin also harbors a number of pathogens. Generally, one can limit their growth somewhat by using the right media, but there are still some that generally can multiply. It is therefore necessary to control exposure and ensure proper decontamination after the experiments. But again, if there is no one with proper training around it is probably better not to do it. My suggestion is to reach out to the local college/university and ask for help. Most are happy to do some level of outreach with highschools.

I would even argue that we (well, not me, but you know what I mean) know more about fusion than we know about aging. Bits and pieces yeah, but working models not so much. And at this point throwing in technologies is a like waving a magic wand. It is always the next technology that somehow magically solves all the issues, whereas in truth the process is typically slow and methodical. Note that some of the proposals made here are more word salad than approaches.

I will just say that the Sanger method of sequencing was developed in the 70s, the human genome project started in the 90s and was finished ~2003. Now, the most it has given us is providing a scope of the lack of understanding we still have on many aspects of molecular genetics. We are gaining at best a toehold in understanding certain concepts and validating some ideas we had for decades (and invalidating many more). You are severely underestimating the enormous gap that still exists in the fundamental understanding of aging (we barely scratched it on the cellular level, not mentioning the trouble in translating it to the organismal level) to even doing basic aspects of minimizing its health impact. And this is still another huge leap away from significantly prolonging life which is again another leap away from immortality. To put it carefully, a timeline of 25 years seems overly optimistic, considering that even the most ambitious organizations have yet failed to demonstrate damage reversal. I.e. the number of proposals massively outweigh outcome data.

Look, at the heart of it, you'll have to understand that any submission at minimum needs to have a certain standard in English. While I have rejected papers (I mostly review for medium impact journals) due to poor English, they were still far easier to understand than most of your posts here. There is no way around it, if you want to publish something, improve your reading and writing skills. I'll be frank with you: if your letter to the editor reads even remotely like your posts here, they will barely glance at the abstract. And if they do, they will likely have no idea what you are talking about, unless your content is on a vastly different level than what you presented here. It is not their job to make sense of your thoughts and there is no way to evaluate the quality of the work if you have to guess half of the time what you are talking about. If you do not want to further waste your time your options are to find supervisors/collaborators, invest the time to improve your language skills (take classes maybe) or publish locally in your native language. I will also say that given your education level and your inexperience with the scientific processes there is a decent chance that you still lack the skill to evaluate whether your work is publishable or not.

1) double blind means that in addition to you not knowing who the reviewers are (which is the most common case) you may also opt to not let reviewers know who you are. 2) basically they ask whether you want your name to be withheld and make it a double-blind review process. It is up to the author to decide. Usually it is only an issue if there are potential rivalries (though even then it is fairly easy to figure out from where a manuscript came from). 3) everything is a manuscript, but different journals publish different types of manuscripts. You will have to read the instructions to author to figure out precisely what they want. There is no universal convention (though for each field there are some archetypes). Either way, you will have to look into the instructions to see what they want. 4) I do not understand the question. 5) see 3)

That is not why education reduces child birth. The strongest correlation is between female education and child birth. There are various models that try to explain that observation including economic ones that for example: a) for higher educated women children are a higher opportunity cost b) higher educated women have a higher bargaining power within household and have therefore more self-determination when it comes to children number as opposed to single-income households, for example. Especially in less developed countries further effects such as improved child care due to better education that improves confidence that their children will survive. The awareness of how many people there are is meaningless if it has no direct noticeable effects. Also crowded does not seem to be a good indicator of anything if you see how concentrated people are in certain desirable areas.

Heh, yeah it is weird that people think that "compound in isolation" from a give source is different from "compound in isolation" from a different one. Or in this case one should replace "compound" with "diverse class of compounds". Whereas the nutritional aspect are more about what else you ingest and how much.

Depends, if you want to be park ranger or similar the educational requirements are not highly specialized as you generally only need an undergrad degree. Work experience after that tends to be more valuable. Often having some kind of degree/diploma for natural resource management/recreational planning etc. can help. However, often something related such as forestry, fisheries, conservation courses are also valued/acceptable. It is true that ecology in itself is not highly specialized, rather, there are highly specialized fields within. Some e.g. deal with macro systems (such as cabon/nitrogen flows, global cycles etc) other areas specialize in specific systems. Some ecologist work within specific (model) lakes or forsests, for example. However, the higher specialization is generally part of higher degrees and would be more applicable to a more academic career, which does not seem to be what you are looking for.

Nope, organelles also have their own turnover and repair mechanism. However, they are very different (due to the nature of different organelles) and cannot be easily summed up in a single post. You could start looking by searching for lit for each organelle of interest and look at dynamics, turnover and repair.