CharonY

Why do you expect the solution to be contaminated in the first place. From what you describe it seems that you were taking the test, so why should you have come into contact with others in the first place? From what I understand it is a home test kit, who else would have been able to add their blood to it? Or do you mean that you contaminated yourself...?

Indeed. Memorizing without understanding serves little purpose, especially with the modern means of storing and retrieving information.

To run a biogas fermenter you have to expend energy to maintain conditions under which hydrogen is produced even if you just feed it with waste. The overall yield is still so low that it is currently much more economic to use conventional means.

Well, let us put it that way (and again, with all the caveats you should take from a random internet post): these assays generally are not under strongly denaturing conditions (i.e. Tween or Triton is only added in low amounts to minimize unspecific binding) but at the same time do not specifically preserve large structures such as viruses (especially as antibodies are quite hardy to begin with). The actual issue is therefore less the buffer composition, but the titre and mode of exposure. Considering that at most there is only minute contamination with blood and that in most cases the amount of viral particles is fairly low (which is why it is easier to target the antibodies than the virus itself) an external exposure has likely much less risk than exposure to a blood droplet. But note that under no circumstances this is to be taken as medical advice.

See, your description leaves a lot open to guesswork, and assuming this is a biosafety issue I really dislike speculating. Let's put it that way, if the solution to isolate HIV from cell culture with high titre, or from blood (moderate to low) there is a risk depending on the final concentration and the time between isolation and exposure. John is right that detergents generally deactivate the virus, however it is not instantaneous (unless at very high concentrations, in which it is almost immediately). If the buffer is just being used by others but are not actually a suspension of viral particles/cells the risk is very low (similar or lower than blood splatter contact, for example). My point is that if there is any kind of uncertainty from your side you should take to the responsible people. Even if risks are low, if you work there (even or especially just as an intern) you have a right to be informed of the risks you are exposed to. Asking on a forum will only give general guidelines but you should not use it to assess your own risk as no one here knows the precise work you are conducting nor how the lab is working.

What parents mean is that one should be grateful to have access to food. Nowadays it is less of a topic (though there are still malnourished people in rich societies) but in the (post) war generation it was still a big issue.

As John said, organisms can produce hydrogen but it is quite inefficient compared to other methods.

It also depends on the buffer. Using standard lysis buffer retains the viral load at -70C , for example, but completely inactivate the virus in a very short amount of time. Considering that is a safety issue and that handling differs from lab to lab, it cannot be stated with certainty how much activity the sample may have retained. While infections are unlikely from mere spills, it should be recorded as a safety measure. I.e. communicate with the responsible biosafety person.

A bit of a side note, but it is not quite accurate to state that balance was best as it implies a kind of maximum. Rather, the effect just flattens out. In addition, higher income increases the positive life evaluation, just not happiness. There is also another study that indicates that not only income is relevant, but also how you spend it. I.e. expenditure that satisfies the personality of a spender (e.g. books for introverts) also affects income-related happiness. So in the flat part of the income bracket there may be populations that spend ineffectively to further increase happiness. Of course there will be a reduced return, even if the spending part is optimized. Best would make sense if taking a cost of increased income into account, though the study implies that stress are actually more correlated with lower income (i.e. the lack of money represents a higher net burden than a high-income job).

Pretty much. And since anything with sufficient circulation is considered news, it is easy to push agendas whatever they are. Sato, the point of disagreement is that in you are saying that in this particular case it is a "feminist" issue (in asterisks as those involved in feminism are not a monolithic unit or ideology. In fact we seem to be talking about the extreme here). However, my assertion is that this is happening to all kind of topics, in which spin has taken over the news reporting and is fashioned to generate outrage, one way or another. Take the black lives matter movement. You have outrage against the deaths by police shooting, at the same time outrage against conduct of members of the BLM, outrage regarding whether "all lives matter" etc. The whole discussion is framed outside of actual facts. Even ridiculous things (like war on Christmas) go into circulation. Tim Hunt was the victim of such spin. What you see as a feminist witch hunt, I see as a consequence of the modern Twitter/Blogosphere/media landscape. By having any crap being news you can easily take the tidbits out to give yourself an air of legitimacy while spinning a narrative that generates the largest outcry (i.e. readers). And if you look at his interviews, Hunt may somewhat agree with that assessment. Obviously there are then interest groups which further seizes these kind of news and use it at ammo to further their agenda. To be fair, this is a of a side-point to OP, but on the same note I do not see Tim Hunt's case as such, either. Any semi-public figure has now be careful about public statements as the "viral" world (thanks Strange) can take it out of context faster than you could contextualize with. In this case it was taken up but a rather unthinking part of the feminist movement, but as easily it could be anything controversial. It is especially bad if it feeds some kind of stereotypes as it just validates people's prejudices. It is ironic as Tim Hunt at this point of his career was more about promoting research (his lab shut down ~2010 and he has mostly published reviews and, I presume maybe leftover data from that point. If he had been still in an active (tenured) position people would have needed to go through the proper channels to terminate his contract. At which point they would have figured out that he was represented. Oh, if your overall point is whether there people on the feminist side but have an utterly uneven response to issues and/or prefer to utilize the outrage machine without checking facts? Sure, it is not either/or statement as you seem to think. It has just gotten easier to spin as you have plenty of material to choose from. But to be fair, I have a hard time to distill the main point of your post so am just trying to frame one of your examples into a broader context. However it seems that you insist on viewing it through a particular lens, which is similar to what certain interest groups like to do.

Well, he was a emeritus so his research output was (or should not) have been much of an issue. Notable researchers have, after the fact, supported him and the honorary president of the writer's association has resigned out of protest. So yes, there was a big issue but at least among the scientists and within Royal Society they were willing to reverse their position after the initial bad PR. At the same time, I have to say that the main culprits of the whole thing are not (IMO) the named institutions. Rather it is the modern news cycle which feeds off sensationalized tidbits, rapidly propagated through social media and with little regard for facts or clarifications. You will note that in a number of interviews Tim Hunt specifically decried Twitter blogging and similar outlets. After all, hardly anyone bothers to follow up anymore but it is so easy to twitter your indignation. And this is not a feminist or other group issue, it is a general issue with how we consume news and other information and where we take tidbits as knowledge. Since he is getting new appointments it is obvious that the professional world is able to cut to the nonsense. However, you will also have to see the whole issue from the administrative side of the organizations. They obviously care more about PR than anything else. After all an emeritus noble prize winner is one of the shiniest things you can get. While I certainly do not agree with those administrative decisions, I can at least see why they cut him off. Public institutions have to at least appear to react to public opinion as they can be put in problematic spots with e.g. politicians or others who may control funding. Many uni administrations treat profs as staff and/or decoration to attract student. Once one has been embroiled in something controversial, even if not of their own doing, they like to cut them off (after all, profs are a dime a dozen). That is one of the reasons why tenure is such an important fixture especially for research in potentially controversial areas. Here, it is an honorary position, and that is why they can do it. For them it is just the easy way out. Again, to me the issue is that we really have not learned to properly learned how to deal with modern communication, and frankly, neither do the media outlets.

Simply put, everything is either based on a lack of understanding of the terms and/or simply wrong. 1) Wrong dichotomy. 2) Proteins are made from L-amino acids, not D (D-amino acids exist but are either converted to L or have very specialized uses). 3)No idea what that means. 4)All extant organisms (including humans and onions) have the same length of evolutionary history. Neither of which (alone) directly determines genome size. 5) Yes tardigrades evolved as any other extant organisms. 6) That sentence also makes no sense. If it is that old, it is obviously that old. If the question is how is it possible that tissue got preserved: it appears that iron particles helped in preserving it (see Schweitzer et al. Proc Royal Soc. B, 2013).

With regard to Tim Hunt, he did receive significant support from colleagues once it got out that the journalist in question was distorting the facts. The wider reactions varied but he got another appointment by the Royal Society. The major institutions you are referring to are likely the UCL (which was an administrative decision) and the Association of British Science Writers who mainly stated that they are not going to investigate or sanction the journalist in question. Major outlets have reported that the original accounts were widely distorted.

That is not how bacteria reproduce. For all we know both daughter cells are identical. Due to the difference in reproduction we cannot directly translate the clonal model to our ancestry. In fact, the model is pretty much the inverse. Going back each generation, we have two ancestors. And after x generations we will have x^2 ancestors. In bacteria growth is exponential. I.e. after each generation we will have a doubling. Or if we got back, for two cells we will have one original (clonal) cell. The logic is not that after long enough time only the descendant of one individual will survive. Rather that given sufficient generations we will have sufficient relationship with everyone else that we share same ancestry. I.e. it is not that only Charlemagne's descendants survived, and all others died out, but rather that Chharlemagne's and many of his contemporary's children will have intermixed several generations down. I.e. they are not the descendants of a single person, but generations down they are all interrelated.

Maybe you are not liberal enough? (I don't get it, either).

It's genome, and no, unfortunately not. Actual traits (phenotypes) are the result of a complex interplay of genetics, physiology and also environmental factors. Just changing some genes won't confer desirable traits (even if we knew which genes are responsible for it). In this particular case physical limitations also play a role.

If you say that sexual orientation originates in the hypothalamus, then it is almost certainly wrong. Current research have demonstrated quite a number of brain differences associated with sexual orientation. Examples include assymmetric cerebral blood flow in heterosexual men and homosexual women, differences in amygdala connectivity, but also different activation of the anterior hypothalamus. Most likely the interplay of these and more components are required associated with either sexual orientation.

I think you are still misunderstand how taxes are applied (either in Switzerland or Germany). Some tax deductions can be taken several times (e.g. for each child, no difference between the countries). However others, such as costs related to commute have an upper limit (again, same for both countries). For example, you cannot buy a diamond encrusted race bike for 100k and expect to be able to deduct the whole sum from your taxable income. Income tax in Switzerland are levied by the cantons and the confederation, whereas the latter is usually rather low. This is different to the US system where state taxes tend to be smaller than the federal ones. In Germany income tax is only levied on the federal level. What you described for Geneva is a local difference. In Geneva a married, single-income household with two children only needs to pay taxes with a gross income >77380 (single: 26305). However take the other end, in Appenzell the same household would have to start paying at 22775 (single:4865), which is a massive difference. Such a system would not be possible in Germany as "Steuergerechtigkeit" (fairness of taxation) is an important issue there and at least partially mentioned in the constitution (though I am fuzzy on the specifics).

That does not make any sense to me. Do you mean that if you have a higher deduction for something then somehow the system is more liberal? How does that work? How is a tax deduction of 6500 more open than, say 4500? Also you are completely neglecting the tax brackets, if you really want to compare systems. While I discourage self-made definitions I would also like to add that in Germany the tax deduction in Germany for children is `7200 euros. So I assume that Germany is now suddenly more open? Also, if you use your bike for work you can also deduct costs from your taxes. However, in Switzerland as well as in Germany there is a limit you can deduct, and I am pretty sure it is lower than 6000 CHF. The real difference is that in Switzerland the taxes are paid at the end of the year. But other than that I am still not sure what your point actually is (other than that you probably have not prepared many/any taxes yet).

Yeah, especially as the German system is quite famous to be one of the more complex ones.

This is clearly wrong. You have tax deductions in Germany, and I am pretty sure also in France. While you pay taxes with your salary as an employee (it works differently if you are self-employed). This is known as withholding tax at source and is used also in the USA. You then fill out your income tax, claim deductions and usually get paid back some of the taxes. Also note that in Switzerland foreign workers are taxed with the same system, i.e. with withholding at source (Quellensteuer), whereas Swiss citizens only pay at the end of the year. Overall the only difference is when you pay your taxes, but the principles of deductions is pretty much universal.

I think you are thinking about a "Brave New World", which luckily is fiction. However, the part that people are seriously thinking about is to look for potential diseases and risk factors and ways to mitigate them.

The mechanism is not that it will get used to drugs, but instead there may already bee some that are resistant and if all others are killed off, they are the only ones that survive and spread. However, this basically applies to bacteria as antibiotics do not work on viruses. Also with regard to antibiotics it should be noted that the majority of antibiotics re used in agriculture with an estimated 63,200 tons in 2010 (which will have increased by now).

While it is not possible to track individual migrations, the time scale appears to be tens of thousands of years. I.e. the dispersal happened in time scales much longer than our entire recorded history.

Also note that it is not that people packed up and just left. The migration should rather be seen as an expansion of territory utilized by humans.