CharonY

Hmm what would be an example of a non-polymeric macromolecule?

To the first point, if personal choices make you drop out of academia, I have no issues with that. Likely it adds to the attrition rate, but there are also fixes for it, including child-care and offering their partners children time. Yet the societal norms put the onus on child rearing more to the woman than to the man. Again, no issue if the woman chooses to take the time out, but quite often they feel that they have to step back, whereas their partners don't. This is part of the societal issue, which does not need to exist. Also, but why is it that you also see the imbalance in postdocs, which are competing for faculty positions and have foregone the choice of children? It has been reported that women consistently evaluated their relationship with their (predominantly male) supervisors worse than their male counterparts (Nettles MT, Millett CM. PhD. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2006). Especially in academic careers, with the high demand for networking, having a good mentor is critical to success. This appears to be a common theme. While men and women obtain postdoc positions at a similar rate (according to NSF data 2004, which I have handy), which is about 72 vs 70% in life sciences and a bit lower for females in other physical sciences (43 vs 48), it is common that women reported less satisfaction with their supervisor as males. One thing that was found in surveys (one was compiled by Davis and I cannot recall the full citation) female postdocs were more often than males asked to write grant proposals (for their mentor). If you are familiar with that it is a huge warning sign for exploitation. Overall, there is overwhelming data that females are not treated equally throughout academic careers, putting them into worse trajectory than their male peers. Incidentally that is also true for minority researchers and doubly true for minority female researchers. And while this not necessarily the only source for the imbalance, it is almost certainly a contributing factor. It is also important to understand that above certain academic attainment (essentially after getting a PhD). individual contributions are not sufficient to build a career, but having access to networks becomes increasingly important. This does not follow, unless mean that women are overall less capable? What is missing is that on the faculty level, being positioned well by your supervisor is crucial for success. In elite labs it was found that males tend to place males more often, which is a problem if the field is generally dominated by males. The issue really is that much of a career path in high-competition fields, especially in academia are not solely dependent on your own (technical) abilities, but requires strong interaction with peers and mentors. If women do not receive the same amount of support, it will lead to fewer women on top, which then presents to the youth a seemingly unchangeable biological , which in truth is mainly caused by existing power structures. Forgot about adding a bit to the gender payment. The gap is not staggering, when controlled for similar background and job. However it is worth noting that while the female pay is within 6% of the male payment, I have yet to find a single case where the reverse is true (i.e. females earning more than males). Especially in high-paying areas there is suddenly a gap again. For example, civil engineers (median salary 60,800) are over 80% male, but both genders get paid roughly equally. Chief executives on the other hand are similarly dominated by male, but here the difference, corrected for education, skills and experience favors males by 13%.

This is not a biological question.

I do not think that this would explain the gender gap. For example, biology attracts more women, yet the career is as insecure as in other sciences. In contrast, engineering has somewhat better work prospects, but attracts far less women. Also it was found that female PIs ran labs that had much closer gender parity on the postdoc level (46% female) compared to those with male PIs (36%). Looking at so-called elite institutions (run by Nobel laureates and other prize winners) male postdocs outnumber females 3:1, whereas in female elite researchers the number is 48% or so. See Sheltzer and Smith PNAS 2014 p 10107-10112

Because that is not how science funding works. You do not get funds if you want to research something that is not new. In contrast, if your research unequivocally demonstrates that the current consensus is flawed, you are almost guaranteed to have a high ranking publication. However, your data must be extremely strong to do so. Politicians (luckily) do not influence directly funding decisions.

This is a valid point. However the issue is that biological gender imbalance can lead to unfair treatment of women, especially later in the career. The danger of biological explanation without precise quantification is that it is being used as an excuse for current state of affairs and explaining away other causes and issues. As referenced in the paper iNow links, gender differences in mathematical aptitude (assuming that at point of testing there was not bias to begin with) would explain about a tenth (precise values elude me, I do not have the printout here) of the observed differences, for example. It is important to note that I believe everyone is in agreement that gender parity in itself is not the goal, but the removal of gender-based obstacles. To bring up the example again, why do women entering academia in various disciplines end up being underrepresented in higher ranks (relative to the number entering the area, which implies interest to begin with). Is it really only child rearing? IIRC there was at least a study that invalidated that claim (again, it contributes, but to to the observed differences). Something that is often brought up is that women are not as career-oriented. That appears to be silly, especially when looking at the postdoc force (you have to be quite driven to hang in up to this point). And yet fewer female postdocs get faculty positions.

I have not seen that paper before. Thanks!

I think we are in agreement that we should remove or minimize gender bias. and yest, that also applies to nursing. To be honest, I am slightly less concerned at this point about gender differentials when entering and educational path, but rather about the difference in success. As noted in almost all disciplines (not only mathematics) the amount of women is reduced at each step. Again, there will be many issues at work here, but some of them could be alleviated by providing childcare (again, successful couples often take turns in looking after the children; otherwise the onus tends to be on the woman). The real worrying bit to me is if the imbalance is interpreted as a biological difference in terms of academic ability, which is then used to limit someone's career. Especially considering that many female academics delay having children or forego childbearing altogether in fear of losing their career. I should also add that because of that perspective I may have been conflating issues to some degree, though I do see them connected. I.e. lack of female seniority may discourage or reinforce gender stereotypes in academic disciplines. That in turn may discourage exploring ones interest in that area. And actually in the faculty of nursing, the low number of male candidates is also a concern. Again, less from the reason that there should be parity, but more that potential (and imaginary) limitations due to cultural, stereotypical or other biases should be minimized.

Actually, you can. There are different species definitions used in various (evolutionary) contexts. Thus, one has to define what concept one is using and for what purpose. You may want to check out wikipedia for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species For different type of research question the use and definition may differ. It is true that one has to have some knowledge of the literature to be certain what is used and what for, but that only highlights the complexity we see in nature and the fact that one need quite some effort to make sense of it.

Obviously these tidbits are anecdotal in nature (but from a sample size of about 30 ish science couples, no husbands have ever been asked to support their wives; whereas almost all females have, at one point or another been asked whether they want to give up their careers to have kids), but the discrimination part is evidenced in the study cited above. Personal experience is just in agreement with that (although I will not deny that these experiences are not strong evidence in itself). With regards to misogyny I may have chosen the wrong term. What I meant is unconscious misogyny. Especially in academia you will find few who openly suggest that females are less capable. Yet the actions (again referencing to gender bias in evaluation) points at it. This, is especially troubling in male-dominated seniority situations where the lack of females is taken as evidence of ones own superiority.

You are working under the assumption that females are encouraged to careers that require social skills and are discouraged from careers that do not need it, correct? That, however, is cultural bias as others have pointed out.

I am with you so far. But I have a hard time following you through the rest. For example, the fact that waitresses get more has little impact on academic performance. More so as studies indicate that females are getting underpaid relative to their colleagues and get underevaluated. For example in a simple double-blind study, people were asked to evaluate someone based on application materials. The only difference was that package had either a female or a male name. The "male" applicant was evaluated significantly better than the "female" (Moss-Racusin et al. PNAS October 9, 2012 vol. 109 no. 41 16474-16479). There are numerous more studies like that, too. While child care is an issue, i.e. a burden that weighs more on women than men, it should also be noted that female academics take significantly less time off (certainly not years) as compared to average. And here there is also the cultural bias. It is often expected that the woman takes care of the child while the husband continues the career. Successful couples balance these things out (i.e. the husband also takes time off), yet it is socially less accepted. Also many female academics forgo the chance of having children. Also note that the gender bias is not only enacted by men, also women are culpable of it.

How is it different from males? It is not that everyone chose the degree solely because of interest. This is an example of unintentional misogyny, where one attributes different motives to females but does not examine the same for males. Perception is a huge part in this. Look at biology. It is as complicated as a natural science can get, yet you see often over 50% female enrolment. However, take a look at the faculty. There it is again male dominated. There is a strong cultural influence in this whole matter. For example, in scientist couples who work in different areas it is not unusual that the woman gets asked why she does not join her husband to support him. And that is even if her track record is stronger than his. The male is almost never asked the same. On the higher hiring rank there are also a number of other aspects that I found that makes it harder for females to succeed, including the type of networks (but that is probably outside of the discussion). Thus in areas with predominantly male leadership there are also unintentional misogyny that may extend throughout the ranks that may further discourage women to enter the field. And note, this is in academia, an area with is traditionally a more progressive institution.

Hmm, is there data available? Cannot say that I have noticed that (based on small personal sample size).

It is a matter of scale. When we talk about competition between organisms (and cells) mechanisms and principles are different from the molecular scale. To use the same term to compare those to is bound to obfuscate matter. For example, protein actions are guided by thermodynamic interaction. Biological systems, such as cells, react to stimuli and produce answers, including production of proteins.

Competing in what context? Substrate? Sure, different proteins can bind to the same substrate. But this is not analogous to bacterial competition.

For that it should be fairly robust, provided the overexpressed protein is not stressing the cells too much. If it does, it may render them more susceptible to dioxane exposure.

I have to expand your view on what is dangerous (let us say pathogenic) or not in this context, because that is the main aspect of your misunderstanding here). There are harmless E. coli and pathogenic ones. The reason some are pathogenic is not because they are suddenly invading parts of your body, but because they have the ability (typically genes associated with virulence) that allows them to do so. That includes secretion of toxins and/or invasion of host cells. For example, K12 cannot cause diseases by itself, whereas EHEC strains, which are also E. coli, can. That aside, in immunocompromised patients, a lot of otherwise apathogenic bacteria can cause issues, but that is probably not what you are asking for. In short, localization and associated disease are just a symptom, bacteria got there because they a) have the ability to do so (goes for all pathogenic strains) or b) the host is compromised in some way that allows passage of otherwise harmless bacteria. As a general rule of thumb, all bacteria are harmful once they get into our body. Remember, lung, skin, gut are all physiologically outside and present a barrier to bacteria entering our blood stream.

I do not know what you mean by that. Could you elaborate? Non-pathogenic E. coli strains such as K12 are harmless pretty much everywhere (except in huge concentrations). Or do you mean inside the body? In that case pretty much anything is bad news if for some reasons it reaches the brain, for example. But this is one major factor that distinguishes harmless and pathogenic bacteria. The former are unable to mount successful infections.

It is hard to say, as cheaper batches may contain quite a varying degree of dioxane. It also depends on what you want to do. For standard induction assays to screen blue-white screening in E. coli (for example), it tends not to be a huge issue. It is rare that a batch contains enough (after the usual dilution) to kill them off completely. However, if you want to use IPTG to induce something and then do some molecular analyses on the same strain (e.g. transcriptome or proteome analyses) the varying amount of dioxane can skew the results significantly. There may also be mutants or specific species that are more susceptible, but I do not have data on that.

As John and Phi pointed out, one important aspect is concentration. Another one is the form of the metal (be it mercury or arsenic or anything else). If the bioavailability (i.e. the ability of it entering your body) is low and it does not accumulate (as it is secreted fast) it is of no health concern. According to the FDA mercury is allowed to be used as preservatives in certain creams in concentrations lower than 0.0065%. I assume that is what it is used for in hospitals and it is considered to be safe. Harmful levels of mercurous chloride in skin whiteners were 6% and above.

I agree. One has to remember that these are the actions of few. And while these things (just like mass shootings) cannot be prevented with absolute certainty, society should not change because of that. Threats like these are ideally opposed by further ensuring freedom of speech and not curtailing (voluntarily or other wise).

I cannot really say much about the differences for the whole of Europe, as I only taught in Germany. The UK system, for instance is much more similar to the US system. The main difference is that the bachelor in the US and to some lesser extent in the UK are more like extended school. In the old German system, school was 13 years in the "Gymnasium"-tier, and much of the bachelor things were already somewhat incorporated in high school. Then, a major difference was that upon entering Uni you would choose a degree (e.g. Biology, Chemistry, Political Science etc.) and your whole curriculum is based on that. US has more of a pick and choose aspect, although for certain courses and degrees you have certain prerequisite courses. Still, you have more freedom to choose and hence, there is more emphasis on a broader education. In the old system after 2 years yo do not actually get a degree, but you are then allowed to enter main studies (for at least another four semesters) upon completion you can start working on a diploma thesis (in the natural sciences) that would take about a year of labwork and writing for completion. Only after that you get a degree (Diploma) which is roughly a Master's degree. The old system was very hands-off and very motivated students could learn a lot (as in the main studies you basically have practical lab courses, rather than lectures). Disadvantage is that those that are not, tend to stick around forever (as education was basically free). Now the German system has converted to a Bachelor/Masters system, but have kept the degree tracks (i.e. if you study Chemistry you enter a different track than Physics students). Moreover, there is more emphasis on exams so that binge-learning has become the norm and there is less money and time for practical courses, which, in my mind are where you learn the most. Furthermore, grades have an impact whether you can enter Master's courses and there is a stricter limitation on how long you can stick around. As a result, students are better in getting high marks in exams (though grade inflation is also an issue) but even the motivated ones tend to retain and understand less. They learn for the exam, which is also somewhat the norm in the US. That leads me to the point that assessment of student quality on the undergrad level (i.e. pre-bachelor) is very hard as you basically only have exam grades to go by. Lab reports are a bit better if you can squeeze in something more difficult and read something that shows that students have been thinking about the problem rather than googling the answer, but even then it is not trivial. Typically, I get the best sense during 1-on-1 interactions during (under-)graduate research in my lab. I was not in an ivy league uni, but I had a few grad students and postdocs (most as part of collaborations) from MIT, Stanford, UCLA, Caltech and UCDavies. Based on that my impression is that the research group they did research in, has a far higher impact on their abilities rather than the university itself.balance write excellent papers, for example. Some of the most impressive students were not ivy leaguers but rather highly interested and motivated individuals. The reason for this is that the basic science education does not differ that much from uni to uni. In some you may have nicer facilities or better equipment in the course labs. But honestly, to understand principles you do not need either. If you are interested you can learn basics equally well almost anywhere. Truth is, you gain the real skills not in the lecture halls, but by diving right into problems, which, in epxerimental sciences, means that you need to join a lab. How much you learn is pretty much dependent on how the PI sets up the lab and his/her strategy to transfer knowledge (or lack thereof), If the group is dysfunctional (it can be social issues, not just scientific, e,g. bullying or mobbing), it does not matter much how well it is funded, your potential to learn will be greatly diminished. As a final point to the Bologna process, it gives the unis confused guidelines and they try to adhere to them, but since it is pretty much an administrative thing, it has only brought issues on the academic side and from what I hear from my colleagues the student quality suffers from it. While politicians may think of it as a great success, I have not heard from any faculty that consider it well-implemented. One issue that I brought up earlier is that different countries had different visions of higher education (e.g. broad vs. focused, career-oriented vs academic etc.). The Bologna process ended up with providing administrative rules that basically steamrolled the institutions without providing a proper vision of the goals of higher education.

I have in both.

Well, it is a bit optimistic all things concerned, but obviously, if one has a drive for this field, there is little like it. It can be challenging to build a successful career, like all highly competitive jobs. Due to the long timelines and attrition involved , regret is somewhat common at every step, unfortunately.