CharonY

The beginning of the post is kind of correct, although the gene in question is not really a cultural one. Variations of DRD4 alleles have been associated with novelty seeking, but also of ADHD. The precise mechanisms remain speculative. The next paragraph pretty much breaks down especially with reference to European pioneers in North America. In order to understand the patterns much longer time spans have to be taken into account. A study by Chen et al (Evolution and Human Behavior Volume 20, Issue 5, September 1999, Pages 309–324) has shown that prevalence of a long allele variation is indeed associated with migration, but over much longer distances and timescales. For instance, the highest prevalence is found in the Americas, but from populations that came from Asia (e.g. Ticuana, Karitiana, Quechuan, Cheyenne). The average frequencies of North Americans (just to avoid confusion, of course natives Americans are meant here) is about 32% for the long alleles, in South America 69%. There is the usually caveat with how populations are assigned etc. but as a whole there appears indeed to be a correlation between the long variant frequency and migratory patterns of certain populations. Note that this does not indicate a gene for a given culture as all humans have that gene. It is just that certain allele frequencies are more common than in other population. Conversely it means that if someone has a certain allele one cannot assign the individual with certainty to a given population. Europeans had a lower frequency (around 20ish) but there was no significant difference between populations emigrated to the US and those in their original countries. This was taken as evideence that the pattern did not emerge from founder effects but rather due to selection (I have no idea what self-selection is means in this context). I.e. in populations where a sedentary lifestyle is more beneficial e.g. by developing strategies to utilize limited resources novelty-seeking could be selected against (as being too wasteful), whereas the opposite may be the case in populations that rely on exploration and migration (which may include nomadic lifestyles) the opposite may be the case. But again, the time frame we are talking about are in the order of millenia. Relatively modern emigration does not really factor in. Especially considering that the selective forces are/were quite different ten thousand years ago that would have shaped the DRD4 frequencies.

I am not sure about that, but I remember vaguely that at least for mice being subjected to starvation periods increased metabolic pathways that lead to increased storage of fat. It is obviously a combination of many factors. Without sufficient food intake obesity is impossible. However there are variations in the utilization of food depending on genetic but also metabolic factors. One should keep in mind that metabolism is not a completely homeostatic system as it is sometimes depicted at. It changes due to internal (e..g age, stress, activity) as well as external cues. As such it will be very difficult to get a decent predictive model of everything that ultimately leads to obesity.

The only thing one would need to take into account is the rate of permeability and how much it differs from free diffusion.

Why would you think that is the case? More precisely what is the mechanism of nutrient transport through the phloem, what determines direction? (Hint: check mass flow hypothesis).

Oftentimes wealth and higher level of education go hand in hand. But yes, that is an excellent point

Also one should note that it is not necessarily religion that causes the issues, though it is a convenient rallying point for extremists to push radical agendas. The more important thing to look at is stability of a region and wealth (as well as distribution thereof). And of course there is a huge bias in terms what we see in Western media. Just to pick an example, remember the Rwandan genocide in 1994 with nearly a million deaths? While it was an ethnic cleansing, the killings were sanctioned by parts of the church (Rwanda is about 93% Christian). Essentially they created a moral climate in which these killings were justified (Timothy Longman, Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010) The same arguments are made for Islam and e.g. honor killings. In a similar note one could decry Christian influence in outlawing homosexuality. Bottom line is that religiosity can and is being abused to legitimize atrocities and no religion has a monopoly on it. Their overall policy change over time but it always depends on who the persons in power are and what they agendas may be. Something that media like to tell us is that it is the others who do the atrocities. What history (and psychology and sociology) has taught us is that it is everyone of us, given the right (or wrong) circumstances and excuses.

Depends on the details. Assuming that the chamber is filled with a liquid, the main issue is that oxygen may permeate the chamber. In that case the bacteria would just utilize the oxygen instead of transferring to the anode. Also the medium most be low or devoid of alternative electron acceptors, or again have means to limit bacterial access to them. However, if there is a rich community in that thing and something that limits diffusion (e.g. densely packed particles and/or a slurry) it should work. If a liquid medium is used I some kind of membrane is required to separate the electrodes (to limit diffusion).

There is a good chance that much of it would have been slightly misrepresented, anyway. There has been a slow but continuous shift in perspective with regards to teaching of the material in the last decades. I know that I teach things quite differently now as compared to what I learned as a student. Edit: What I meant is don't feel bad about it in Bio everyone is wrong. Just some less than others....

Nitpick: GTP itself is a source of energy (the energy is in the phosphate bonds) during translation, for example. Also, cellular respiration is the means to gain energy rather than to utilize it. More precisely, respiration generally refers to the electron transfer reaction resulting in the proton motive force required for the ATP synthase. To avoid (promote?) confusion I should add that most textbooks also include catabolic pathways that deliver reduction equivalents to the electron chain, which IMO is too broad for many purposes.

With regards to microbial fuel cells. The material is usually graphite, however they are not simple to establish and maintain, if they are supposed to have any amount efficiency. You have to maintain the bacteria in a an anaerobic chamber (the anode) which is not quite trivial. The material does not determine what the cathode is, but the direction of electron flow, which goes from the bacterium to the anode and then to the cathode where it has to have some kind of electron acceptor.

Very hard to tell and depends (obviously) how well it was treated. Typical issues are stuff getting below the weighing platform and forming crusts or causing corrosion. For the most part they are quite sturdy and I have used much older instruments that still worked fine after calibration (the oldest must have been from the 50s though at some point a gear broke). Assuming it was not abused and buried in a thick layer of gunk it should be fine. If possible I would ask for close-up images especially of the platform and the parts below for visual inspection.

I would not say that it is fairly down the list. As the list states, it is on top of all developed countries and in the vicinity of Costa Rica, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Barbados and Gaza (though for the low population countries the numbers may be skewed a bit, the reason why Liechtenstein actually pops up, for example). Omitting Liechtenstein (for said reasons) the next developed country would be Switzerland with 0.77 homicides per 100,000 (3.2 US).

I am only aware of using U as a unit of amount and the other one does not make any sense to me. You can estimate enzyme activity from that (by normalizing it against amount) but that is not the definition or usage of U.

Usually epigenetics falls into the broader range of regulatory control. As such it is not a completely new phenomenon, as due to their very nature regulatory mechanisms are highly dynamic. It is in the end a oversimplified view that DNA alone would tell us the whole story, and researchers were very aware of that from the beginning.

Not likely to work. AFM studies have shown that the juice affects bacterial fimbriae. So you would have to have a constant flow of the juice to suppress adherence (once the juice was removed from culture, the bacteria regained adhesive properties). At the same time the juice has sugar and other nutrients that can promote bacterial growth (and formation of acids) even in residues. So unless you have your mouth full of juice all the time the chance is that benefits will be easily offset by the other components of the juice. It should be noted that while the reduction of adhesion was seen under lab conditions, large meta-analyses of the benefit of cranberry juice for urinary tract infection showed only little to no effects.

I think this topic is in the wrong thread, it is more about societal issues rather than biology. In addition, biotech is but only one branch that deals with issues relating to human health,there are many more out there. A bit ironically, biotech is somewhat more applied (and includes things like fermentation processes and production of pharmaceuticals) and is as such closer to money making than, e.g. fundamental sciences.

I guess it depends on school, school year and curriculum. Oftentimes simplifications are made that are alright in the precise context but not in others. A precise way to refer to the genetic material of an organism would be genome, for example.

We need to breed more storks and develop better frog recipes.

Each chromatid contains one DNA molecule. After the S-cycle an (eukaryotic) chromsome contains two identical chromatids. However between chromsomes the DNA varies significantly even within a single organism. The basic structure of DNA is identiical in all living organisms. However, DNA consists of a series of nucleotides that have different bases. The number of nucleotides and the sequence of bases is what makes all the difference.

Well, medicine as a whole has applied as well as science parts. Most MDs are not engaged in active research but follow procedures to diagnose and treat illness. At least clinical psychiatry falls into the latter category. As all medical branches success rates tend to be connected to the knowledge of the particular condition, for which science is needed.

Except for the advice already given I would also add that while putting together a talk, distill the salient points and organize your talk accordingly. Assuming a presentation type of talk, you do not do yourself a favor by reciting one slide after another (though it may be the easiest thing to do) but to use those only to convey a point. To give an example from a academic viewpoint: Many students construct a presentation about their work by showing one experiment after the other and finish with something like:" and these data indicate that gene X is involved in Y". While this approach may highlight that you did a lot, no one is really interested in that. Instead, you should have a story ready and tell them what you are going to tell them. For example:" In the following I will show that gene X is indeed involved in Y" then use the data to support your point "assays bla and bla showed that it does indeed Y but not Z". This has at least two important aspects. The first is that you do not get lost that easily while talking, because you have the main theme in your head and you already arranged your talk to support it. There is less risk of getting lost in small, unnecessary details that no one is interested in. Second, the audience can follow you easier and you will sense less negative feedback e.g. in body language that may arise when they have to concentrate too much (or just get bored). That reduces the anxiety for already nervous speakers.

Could be confirmation bias or the fact that I have seen similar things floating around, but no real surprises (except the gender gap in Eastern and Middle Africa was lower, but the I am completely ignorant in that area). I expect that there will be a drop of the proportion of malaria in the mid-future, as there is some significant progress in understanding that parasite. I think it also underlines the probably obvious point that prosperity has wide-ranging effects prosperity has. Finally, as India and China modernize, they pretty much undergo the same environmental issues that Europe and other Western countries have faced. While they do invest more into alternative energy as the West did, the short timeline and population sizes makes this endeavor incredibly complicated. And obviously they will not give up their shot at prosperity for environmental reasons (as any other nation, really).

Also note that microbiologist would formally refer to viruses as inactivated rather than killed, the same way as it is first referred to in the linked website. They just clarified it for layperson what they mean with that. To reiterate, categories are just a matter of convenience and context. Thinking that it has a deeper meaning just because we name it a certain way is a fallacy. When we talk about how virus structures have evolved it makes perfect sense to apply models of other living organisms as the base mechanisms we are looking at have overlaps. It makes absolute no sense to do so when we look into catabolic processes, for example. I should add that this worship of definitions and their relevance is likely a remnant of high-school type learning in which students are drilled to give the expected and precise answer to narrowly defined questions. One should keep in mind that especially in complex sciences a lot of time in college will be spent to unlearn this behavior. Well, later on at least.

The premise is faulty. I really doubt that applies to most or even many people interested in this subject. First of all. eukaryotic life is highly specific and based on terrestrial life. There are no meaningful predictions about what it could be elsewhere. What is being assumed that there is likely not very complex life within our solar system. But as all everything about extraterrestrial life remains speculative. With regards to silicon the best counterargument is that carbon is just more versatile. Under most conditions that we know life exists metabolic activities are easier to handle. For example during metabolizing carbon you can end up with carbon dioxide which can be eliminated passively from cells. Silicon oxide (being solid under known physiological conditions) would require some kind of export system, which is less effective. Carbon would simple have an edge there. With regards to DNA and RNA, again there is a specific extrapolation of terrestrial life. Note that one hypothesis posits that proto-life on Earth was potentially based on RNA. Temperature limits have a basis on thermodynamics which makes life less likely above certain extremes and so on. In other words, many of these speculations, some with more, some with less merit have been around for a long time, but in the absence of any research and evidence it will remain just that. Speculations.

There are no basic laws of biology. They are guidelines based on lifeforms that we found on Earth. The actually issue is also less that of structure, but that of metaboism. Viruses have no active ones by themselves. For that reason they are mostly considered to be mobile genetic elements that are propagated via their hosts, akin to transposons plasmids etc., which also encode functions for propagation but have even less structure. That being said, it is not an issue of great contention, most if not all biologists are aware that these distinction are a matter of convenience and are applied depending on the research question (rather than as a law of sorts).