CharonY

A typical GPS device is a receiver, not a sender. AFAIK flight recorders come equipped with transmitters, probably with a few km in range. A cheap, tiny solar powered emitter would probably have a range of a few meters.

Absolutely. However, if you bring your expertise to a complex problem it is worthwhile to actually try to establish the foundations first. The reason why biology exists at all is that we are not able to rebuild the system based on first principles. As such, biology has developed methodologies that are less precise, but can at least tackle the questions to some extent. The point where progress happens is not where biology does fundamental physics and vice versa but where the problem is dissected into components that can be optimally addressed by the different methodologie (and ideally assembled into a coherent body of knowledge). What the authors in the OP did where recasting a biological problem completely in different terms that actually do add little to its solution. In a way they are revising a straw man. What they (correctly) challenge is a deterministic flow from gene to phenotype. At the same time, it ignores another point typical to biology is that it does high-level simplifications with implied complexity (if that makes sense). However, depending on which level you investigate genetics (from molecular to population, for example) there are different methodologies that investigate this issue either by e.g. normalizing against environmental aspects (as in many molecular biological/biochemical approaches) or using models to take them into account. The simplistic view being challenged is rarely maintained above bio 101. With regards to your example, it sounds faintly familiar but I only recall a paper from the MPI in cybernetics in which the lead author was actually a physicist, IIRC. While the paper phrased it in terms of noise of sensorimotoric system, the explanation is the same. The question why they looked at it was also from the direction of how we are able to recalibrate our positioning. So that is actually a great example how physics can be used and phrased into a biological context (by using noise analysis in a sensory feedback loop). I actually do not think that they expected a straight line at all (at best as null) but may have expected a more systematic bias. In the end they found that the patterns match up better with noise accumulation. What is true is that biological research sometimes is a bit too empirical and lacking certain theoretical frameworks in many areas. But again, these are the areas were collaborations may shine. The Dutch and German system is (or used to be) a bit different to both the Australian and the US systems as most of the selection happens before graduation. Only a fraction of the students enter actually graduate with a degree (before Bologna it was a Diplom). Only with that degree a few can actually obtain a PhD. Also, there are generally no grad schools as those in the US. Instead, you have full-time research and the ability to obtain a PhD is solely in the hand of your PhD advisor. There are so-called grad schools but they were not comparable in terms of workload. Especially younger Profs are letting their students get a PhD eventually, as it may reflect badly on them, if they do not have sufficient graduates from their labs. Often the Diploma time (which is about 6-9 months of research) is used to gauge their ability to eventually obtain a PhD.

That is quite correct. Though I would think that the rules are a bit clearer in the pharma area as neglecting to present the assessment data in full does automatically result in punishment of the company (though I am unclear about the scope) whereas in the financial sector the situation appears to be more ambiguous.

That is what I meant, the advice the MDs are giving advice based on risk assessment on incomplete data because a) they have no other option and b) they generally are only peripherally if at all involved in the ongoing research of mechanisms. This risk assessments tend to be based on epidemiological data that are occasionally cross-fed by molecular information. As such, it is obviously not that the scientific view of system immune function that has been changed but rather the medical advice that is being derived from what we know. Both are quite different beasts.

Oh, but in academia everything is a success, too. Problem is only that there are not enough journals such as Applied "why the heck dioesn't it work? It did last time?"; Journal of the Royal Society of "the new student did what? Why is he/she still alive?" and Proceedings of "which hypothesis can we make up to fit the data?"

Interesting. I am pretty sure that I have read about that before (or another GlaxoSmithKline product). But you are right, these incidents do come to light only after an audit , if someone decides to obfuscate things in reports. I believe something similar also happened with weight-reduction medication. That being said, unless their profits offset all these issues it should have been in their interest to put the label on. But there is another issue, that comes to my mind. While the company may not benefit from this type of misreporting, the involved managers could. I wonder what the backlash for them is. If they get a golden parachute (or no repercussions at all) there is an incentive to push products out to appear more productive within the company...

Just as an update, China decided to abstain on a vote one the UN resolution on Crimea. Yupp they are really pushing very hard to start a conflict...

Supplements are an excellent example. But I am not so sure about reporting negative results. There are relatively strict audit trails (including e.g. the use of software that does not allow deletion of runs) and the company has an interest in detecting toxicity before mass use is initiated (could be different for specialty drugs, though). There may be attempts at lowering the bars to prove efficacy, however (but I do not know sufficient details to go beyond mere speculation).

That xkcd popped into my mind immediately. It is not that uncommon, unfortunately. But I also had very positive collaborations in which all sides at least made a token effort in trying to understand each other. Obviously having access to copious amounts of beer and coffee helped.

Lobbying will mostly revolve around factors that could affect their overall bottom line. This could be for instance legislature especially in federal programs such as medicare or medicaid that would keep prices high. Other areas could involve intellectual property issues and inhibiting entry of foreign drugs into the market, for example. Meddling with trials and testing would be a bad idea as negative effects would then only manifest after it hit the market. And that is going to be a very costly matter, if something happens.

I think the basic underlying mechanisms have been well-researched for decades and while there are incremental changes I am not aware of something radical. If you are thinking about prevalence of food allergies, risk assessment and risk mitigation the question is still quite open (some some progress is being made in understanding the role of immunoexclusion and immunosupression mechanisms to module inflammatory responses. Again, advances rather than radical changes.

Also one should note that development in pharma is a high-risk-high-reward endeavor. Only something like 10% of all drugs that they try to put into the market actually survive the pipeline (including clinical trials). As such I am sure they are heavy lobbying to maximize profits on those that do. But as swansont mentioned, it is hardly unique to the pharma industry.

They are interesting, no doubt. I just wished that science journalist would try to stick to facts instead of resorting to hyperbole, if they are not familiar with the subject.

Sorry to say, but the article is badly misrepresenting the results. Far from inferring taxonomic distinctions, the paper is showing that they do possess regulatory mechanisms (specifically their post-transcriptional regulation of mRNA) that are similar to those of plants. However this does not change in any way that they are cnidaria and firmly belong to the kingdom of animalia. They are nowhere near half plant. In fact the article does point these things out but for some weird reasons draw completely false conclusions and put that into the title.

I probably should have added the M (though his prose in his non sci-fi novels is still very good). Use of weapons I presume. One of the few authors that IMO are able to evoke some degree of alienness even if much is still (intended or not) fundamentally human. Which, in turn is a limitation of our own imagination.

Three-letter abbreviations without context are just pita and hti.

For higher throughput arrays would indeed be the better option. I have not done it myself but I believe LaBaer's group has done precisely that. I do not have the paper titles off the top of my head (I am more an omics person) but if you search for his name in conjunction with protein microarray you should find quite a number of hits.

Absolutely. Especially since Iain Banks is no more...

Actually I think in most religions (e.g. outside the related abrahamistic ones) there is little evidence that humans were formed after the mystical creators. In fact. In fact, if anything these forces were personified and if anything were modeled after humans, rather than the other way around. I.e, there is no reference with regards how the deities may have looked like but they are often depicted as humanoid. There are other creation myths, of course that do not refer to humanoid beings per se, In the Haida tradition Raven has created humans, for example. Of course in their mythology the concept of humanoid does not make a lot of sense. The Australian aborigines have various creation myths surrounding Dreamtime in which shapes are but fleeting concepts. So especially with what Phi and others have said, the premise does not really hold.

Depending on the means there a lot of potential approaches revolving around a standard immunoassay or mass spectrometry. As for an immuno approach, a bit of a separation as in an inverse Western. Also specificity would be better if detection was conducted using ABs raised against the proteins.

Since I have some experience with the German system (though a bit outdated) I would like to respond to some aspects here. Overall, in first year Uni you will see a distinct difference between German and and US students. The distribution in the US is much broader and you will have to adjust first-year lectures towards the lower end. This is especially true when mathematics is involved, even at a very low level. That is not to say that the US system is absolutely abysmal, they are pretty much middle of the pack when it comes to OECD countries, but certainly not the top performer. It should be noted that in the old system the top-tier school track (gymnasium) was aimed to provide an education level somewhat close to a two-year bachelor. Now that has changed quite a bit, concomitantly with adding a bachelor system to university. The vocational part was an important element, however it applied to the mid- and lower tier secondary schools and there was to my knowledge no system that a) had a mixed vocational system with school, you go to a company after school and b) the companies are not forced to take them in, but there were incentives to do so. The German system has one serious issue it shares with the US system but for totally unrelated reasons. In the US the high schools are heavily financed on the local (district level). As such it is harder to perform well coming from these schools. In Germany, surprisingly there is also a correlation with parent income and academic attainment (though more moderate IIRC, but I may be misremembering), despite the fact that universities are practically free (they are rolling back fees almost everywhere and even then it was not more than maybe 100-500 euros per semester). One of the criticisms was that the split in secondary schools happens too fast (at age 9-10) and even worse, it is not solely based grades or tests (and there was some heavy discussion whether grades have any meaning at that age where developmental differences are vast), but teachers also take their family and socioeconomic background into account. The reasoning (which is faulty imo) is that a student from a working class will lack the family support to attain academic achievement. That being said, there is a chance of students switching tracks later on, however people tend to perform within the context they are given, so extra effort is required to be able to switch. One could blame parents for following the recommendations, but quite obviously the class thinking is still well and active in Germany. There is quite a lot of criticism surrounding the German system, but for ideological reasons it is not going to change. It should also be noted that the German system has alternatives, though the tripartite system is the biggest element.

Plants are long lived for a variety of reasons, including their ability to just shut off areas of themselves without killing themselves. That being said, there is little evidence for immortality in the practical sense. From a quick search it appears that the oldest individual plant specimen are only about 5-6k years old.

Just because your body produces against something does not mean that it is actually harmful. Autoimmune diseases are caused by the body creating antibodies against itself, for example. Take Chadn737's advice. I would recommend starting off with reviews (in the various search engines, including pubmed you can often filter for them) to give an overview about the topic.

1) I agree, but the same is already the case with modern agriculture in general 2) My biggest concern overall, especially with the existence of quasi-monopolies. 3) For the vast majority of GMOs I think the biochemical consequences are lower than the context they are being used for (e.g. pesticide use). I do not think it is worse than the toxins we spray around already. I think we underestimate the consequences of modern agricultural practices and are overly concerned about a (relatively) minor aspect of it. For example, the majority of our foodstock is based on a handful of highly inbred strains. And there already have been massive losses due to viral infections. Just because we have been comfortable with it for a longer time, it does not mean it is safe or safer.

Yes.