CharonY

Where did you read that? I have only seen reports that he pledged allegiance to ISIS. But apparently there was bi evidence to any actual links (yet).

How many has it been this year already? And this one is the worst in US history, it seems.

That is not quite correct, or at least not quite clear. I will note that the question can seem to be quite misleading, and it is likely that it is supposed to be a trick question, which may have gotten you confused. C) makes a distinction between activators/repressors and transcription factors. However, you will have to know that activators/repressors are just a sub-class of transcription factor and merely describe their regulatory role. So obviously both will be present in all organisms. Since I assume that you can only select one answer you will have to check what each implies (e.g. A) implies there are activators, what would it imply about repressors?).

I think the discussion misses on a large part of the issue which is how to create a stable nation. The conflict is a symptom of underlying issues and just letting one side (whichever it is) win does not necessarily to sustainable stability. Unfortunately, just listing the elements could easily exhaust the capabilities of standard online discussion. But one would also have to look into the formation of a well-educated middle-class, raising standard of living, reducing the gap between urban and rural areas, improving governance, rule of law, economy and infrastructure just to randomly name a few elements that will be crucial to sustain peace. The whole thing gets complicated due to recent history, in which the major players in the middle East as well as Western and former Soviet forces actively shaped and destabilized the region and let various forces attain power whose aim is anything but a stable region (as it would diminish their power).

Well, these would include at minimum: diabetes, stroke, dementia, cardiovascular diseases, resistant bacteria will create a comeback for infectious diseases. On top of that especially low-income groups suffer disproportionately from malnutrition, which may act as an amplifier of other conditions. You would really an exceptionally narrow mindset to conclude that the ability to watch movies must be on top of our priorities.

It is also an incredibly ignorant and infuriatingly entitled perspective. How about these anecdotes: I have got collaborators who have the issue that an otherwise relative routine operation can end in catastrophe due to accidental Clostridium difficile infection. Please go ahead and tell the patient's relative that if only they had an entertaining platform using E-ink. Or ask some of the researchers who work in Malawi who try to implement improved measure to avoid children dying from diarrhea in Malawi and other countries. Or hey, provide them with gadgets that they cannot use anyway, since they lack sufficient energy supply. Or if we just want to ignore all the people who lack even the necessary basics to survive (cause, hey screw them, I got mine, right?), how about things that even rich societies suffer from. How about recent progress in managing chronic conditions such as cystic fibrosis or diabetes and even AIDS? Would any of that have happened just wit a better toy? Really?

Even then it does not make a lot of sense. Serious injuries are costly, either prohibitively so if not or under-insured or it may cost you your job (especially for non-specialist jobs) or revenue (e.g. if self-employed).

Also considering that the scientific method is not a single basket, but utilizes orthogonal approaches. It is like saying that knowledge is a bad thing as it relies on methods that generate knowledge.

Heck, simple selection for auxotroph mutants after exposing colis to mutagens is covered in undergrad practical courses.

As others have said, your perception is wrong on almost all levels. What really holds sway in science is evidence consensus only exits around a large body of evidence gained over time. In science, opinions are cheap. If you have no data or other evidence "speaking your mind" is the same as gut feeling: It has no sway and it shouldn't have. And as others have said, starting off with a flawed premise and taking it for reality will not shape a a good discussion.

That is not what our current knowledge says. Since the Libet expertiments there is evidence that either the decision is made before it becomes conscious, or that it is a concurrent event. The weight of evidence is against a full-formed decision and then initiation sequence of events.

That would be my guess. Actually there have been some crowdfunding successes, though in my mind there were more outreach than research programs. Such as bringing in samples, looking at the bacterial community via sequencing, food testing etc. I guess I was thinking more in terms of maintaining research programs, which includes salary and other big items.

Do you have any reports on this? Also note that fracking is not illegal throughout Europe. A number of countries, such as e.g. Netherlands have put a moratorium, France has banned it, it is legal in Germany, but not economically viable, Poland is actively trying to start or have already started and so on.

Yeah, at this point Monsanto has become the face of evil though to be fair, their practices as whole does not appear to be more problematic than, say certain pharmaceutical companies or large corporations in general. Incidentally, Bayer (German company) is trying to buy Monsanto...

If we mean actual scientific communities: Is "a bag of cats" a valid option?

I think that is part of the problem as ttip is not a formalized agreement (yet) that could be scrutinized in detail. This is used by proponents and opponents to utilize half-truths to sway public opinion. For example, I doubt that there are any imitations that either company could enter a market, but it could regulate the product they sell. It especially does not make sense to bring walmart into it, as it does not create its own products. But its business model is not profitable everywhere. For example, Walmart operates in 28 countries and was in Germany (and still is in the UK as ASDA), but exited from Germany due to massive losses. Likewise, Monsanto basically operates worldwide with facilities on every continent (maybe except Australia, but they sell products there). So the claim has little basis.

You even say "more or less" which indicates a continuum. Where in this continuum do you put the boundary? How and when does a continuum become discrete and how is it inherent?

I find it funny that in this thread Mayr is taken as a point of contention, considering that he had a very careful view regarding race which actually echo the posts from quite a few posters here. To him, geographic units are the main defining point, with a geographically isolated population and defined populations. However, he continues by stating that a) there is large variation within population and that b) humans specifically are usually not that confined. As such he has always emphasized that individuals have to be evaluated and judged and not races. I will quote here from one of his assays published by the AAAS That has been the center on many of his essays and letters regarding race and his opinion on the IQ gap. I.e. he always emphasized the individual experience and the difficulty distinguishing environmental factors pertaining to a complex trait. Another quote: He also strongly rejects the notion of any kind of superiority as meaningless The main contention that I have, is that outside of studies "race" is often applied in a 19th century meaning with being invariant and defining. Whereas in Mayr's essays we can see a much more modern and fluid concept based on our knowledge of genetics.

To be fair though, in the long run it would make more sense to directly test for genetic markers, rather than using ethnicity as a proxy (assuming they are known, of course).

This is my reading, too. My major concern that it would soften up regulations to the lowest common denominator in terms of safety regulations. The ISDS mentioned by John is another big point of contention. It is not an US vs Europe thing. It is more corporate vs individual interests. It is hard to figure out specifics due to the closed negotiations, which makes it even more ominous.

Yes, and there are not that many groups around that are "pure", which is generally good news as high levels of inbreeding usually increases risks of genetic defects. A small thing that they often forget. Also, partner selection to some degree also appears to favour different immunogroups in humans.

Why in the future? If you look at the US, many African Americans have a proportion of European ancestors, Hispanic Americans especially have very mixed ancestries and so on.

I'd be very careful in introducing culture to the whole mix. It is even more flexible and fluid concept than race, yet often is used in similar contexts. And that is despite the fact that cultural norms can change massively in short time scales, and transcending population boundaries.

As usual, politics is dominated by outrage rather than a careful analysis of the actual details. A recent book has taken a look at the differences in regulations and found that broadly speaking, neither country can claim to be stricter than the other ("The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe"), Rather the elements that are strictly regulated in either country are subject to dominating public opinion. For example, Europe has a strong anti-GMO sentiment, resulting in harsher regulation (but surprisingly, not for plants that are pretty much the same but not obtained by the same techniques, which again, shows that the divergence between science and politics...), on the other hand US has harsher limitations on fine particle air pollution. There are also areas in which some may state concern and have regulations, but not actually enforce them. For example, in the US antibiotics can be used to fatten cattle, whereas in Europe (IIRC) you can only do for health reasons. Yet de facto antibiotics use is pretty much the same on either side of the ocean.

a) definitions on species and race have moved on considerably in the last 100 years, so have to look into newer research. However, it has long been known that taxonomy below species level is at best problematic. Even at the species level it is non-trivial. b) you confuse clustering approaches in which you pre-select groups, and then select features that allow the distinction between them. This is not the same as having biologically separate (taxonomic) entities. c) as such, defining races can be useful in certain contexts, but remains problematic as most people, including OP have rather unspecific notions about how to delineate populations. Just to given an example, many African Americans as well as e.g. South Africans are likely to share ancestry with Europeans than certain, more isolated African populations (notably areas with little colonization). Yet in many cases all people with dark skin would be grouped into a singular race, which would not make a lot of sense. Especially as the African population as a whole displays a huge genetic variance, compared to other populations. If one wants to categorize the human population, a finer grained model would in many cases be necessary. However, especially in the context of traits that are immensely dependent on environmental factors, and are subject to wide variance in literally any group, it is typically not very useful at all. Edit: As race has become an incredibly loaded term, often weighed down history, stereotypes and also simple nonsense, many scientists have tried to utilize more precise terms when it comes to describing difference and similarity. The important bit here is that while certain classifications (say, haplogroups) can have the highest frequencies in groups, similar to the traditional races, yet may also contain significant number of members from a different race, which clearly demonstrates the large extent of genetic exchange between populations. It is usually only highly stringent in highly isolated and/or incestuous populations.