CharonY

That is heavy sci-fi and most certainly not realistic (if at all) within a timeline of 20 years.

Nope. All replication is protein-dependent. Think of the mechanisms of cell growth and DNA replication. Would a protein-free cell be able to do any of this? If you inhibit novel protein synthesis, the cell would have to rely on what it already has. Depending on what it is doing it could kill it, or just inhibit further growth. For the latter question I advise you to look up precisely the function of beta lactams. Then think about what happens to the cell walls of actively growing cells as opposed to resting ones.

The important bit regarding bacteriostatics is that they reversibly inhibit growth. If, at any point, it result in cell death, they are generally classified as bacteriocides. Note that lethality not only depends on the molecular target of the antibiotics but also the physiological context of the cell. Quinolones have different ways to interact with DNA, resulting in cell death. Generally intefering with DNA replication is not necessarily lethal, however, interference of certain quinolones as trovafloxacin during dvision will mess up the replication so much, that the division does not work and the cells die. Other quinolones act upon RNA synthesis, for instance and are lethal under different conditions. Bet lactams inhibit cell wall synthesis, thus cells that are actively growing will be killed (i.e. it is bacteriocidal), however it is ineffective against cells that are not actively growing.

You should also think in terms of what the goal of the expression is. E.g. figuring out functions and physiological effects or simply enrichment and purification of the protein. Also think about posttranslational modifications.

1) Theoretically you put in the agarose and fill up to the desired volume. Though for practical purposes you can neglect the volume of the agarose. 2) Yes

I think you just need a shave.

QFT An important aspect of science is to add knowledge to the scientific corpus.

For biological buffers NaCl is usually there for osmotic stability. Obviously Tris-HCl is adjusted by adding HCl (hint in the name) as Tris is a base. You have to be careful, though, as with Tris pH is also concentration-dependent. Strong dilutions will show a pH shift. For the rest of the salts you have to calculate the weight of the salts for a given volume that you are going to prepare to obtain the desired molarity.

It should also be noted that the title of the thread (i.e. is medicine a science) is not the same as the question posted in the OP (i.e. whether GPs are scientists).

Medical research is not the same as practicing medicine. An MD is normally not qualified to do medical research, similarly a PhD in biomedical sciences is not qualified to treat patients. There are certain overlaps especially in diagnostics and knowledge diffuses between the two areas. Also note that there are specialized PhD\MD programs that try to bridge the two. A scientist has a totally different set of questions and skills as compared to a physician. In a very crude way one could assert that the former is dealing with the unknown, trying to figure out how nature works. The latter is using that knowledge to find the right (already established) diagnosis/treatment. A GP does usually not, for instance, figure out novel pathogenicity mechanisms. It is fair to state that there are overlaps (especially in the area of clinical research), though.

Good point. I should have mentioned that the mode of speciation that I described is termed allopatric. That and variations thereof are best supported by empirical data. It should also be noted that polyploidy (which can be considered a case of sympatric speciation), is not necessarily more rapid than allopatric speciation. I suppose it is obvious but the occurrence of a single polyploidic mutant would not signify a speciation event. Only if it spreads through the population (and hence, create a divergent population), does it become recognizable as such. Whether it is faster would depend a lot on the usual parameters, such as population size, frequency, selective pressures, etc. It is correct to state that the number of mutations required is drastically reduced, though.

I have one that is less about the graduate program itself, but regarding the eventual decision to join a group. Everything from my point of view, of course. Most departments have lab rotations. Use this time to gauge the atmosphere in the group and not only the work/science. Talk to individual members over a coffee/tea. Keep in mind that everyone can be nice for 15 mins, but you are spending 3-5 years with those guys. While a good group name can be important and working on a high-profile project can put a science career in a good trajectory, it is also important to know whether you can click with the other members and the boss The latter will become important come graduation time and possibly even more so afterwards. If the lab climate is bad, you are in for a miserable time and being a grad student is all about having fun in getting into and doing science (somewhat) free from politics. So do not only focus on big names alone. Also maybe a word regarding classes: at some point they will take a backseat compared to actual research. While one should not fail, it is often not worth it to put that extra time into it to get a few additional points, if you can use it to further a research project. Transcripts are rarely requested after graduation. Finally, a certain measure of humility is often helpful. People are more likely to mentor you, if you do not pretend to be a know-it-all (even on the off chance that you do, which would indicate that your research is most likely not very original...).

The first photoreceptors can be found in bacteria. Usually in photosynthetically active ones that also exhibit phototaxis.

"A poet once said, 'The whole universe is in a glass of wine.' We will probably never know in what sense he meant it, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look at a glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe. There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflection in the glass; and our imagination adds atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth's rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe's age, and the evolution of stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization; all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering, as did Louis Pasteur, the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it! If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts -- physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on -- remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let it give us one more final pleasure; drink it and forget it all!” -Richard Feynman

Hybridization can be used in different contexts, but if you mean fusing human and bonobo gametes I would expect that no on has done it so far, for ethical reasons. Whether it would theoretically work I cannot predict with any level of accuracy.

I should also mention that depending on the precise procedure DNA could form complexes with histones and thus change the migration behavior somewhat.

It is hard to assess from that blot, but it could be minute run differences (as e.g. a smile). To me it seems that the run is slightly irregular and overloaded. I would repeat the experiment with less protein (so that one gets a nice band instead of a blob) and put the control/marker left and right to the sample. That way you can see whether the gel ran straight.

Speciation is a) not a spontaneous process, and b), as in all evolution, happens within populations. What is usually necessary is that e.g. from a common population (or species, if you want) subpopulations are getting separated and the genetic flow between them is very limited or zero. Over time both populations accumulate different genetic properties that may eventually render them genetically incompatible. At that point the two subpopulations can be considered different species.

I think I found at least one source for your confusion: Cofactors can very well be part of the active site. Metal cofactors, for instance, are often directly responsible for redox-reactions. In fact, the majorities of cofactors that I can think of are part of the active site. Hence, holoenzymes are referred to the whole active enzyme, that contains the apoenzyme as well as any necessary cofactors. Thus allosteric inhibition (or activation) is not the primary role of cofactors. For ligands you have to shift your viewpoint. Ligands essentially to non-covalently bound molecules, that could include substrate, cofactors as well as allosteric inhibitors.

The premises in the OP are faulty in several regards. First of all, all research that may lead to harm, pain or suffering of humans and (depending on the local laws) usually also includes vertebrates or at least mammals is to be approved by an ethics committee. This include non-medical research. Also note that it is usually not a rigorous control per se, but it has to be documented that either no harm is done (which in case of humans may include e.g. social stigmatization) or at that at least the benefits far outweigh the costs (e.g. experimental treatment of terminally ill persons). Drug trials follow slightly different rules than basic research and are more strictly controlled. That being said, there are no regulatory elements in place to establish potential harm (with exception of trials, in which a test population is exposed to the harm). Toxicological parameters are treated especially lax, for instance. The data is usually very limited (e.g. LD test on, say, ten rats) and the majority of compounds below a certain production volume do not need to be tested at all. This is not matter of overseeing the research, but rather the lack of regulation of the industry. Toxicological projects are rarely getting funded. The EPA, for instance has declared interest in figuring out the potential harm of nanomaterials, alas, they do not have the budget to fund it. Scientists (especially toxicologists) are interested in researching harmful long-term effects, but the funding agencies (in a way the regulatory bodies of research, if you will) and hence, politics, disagrees. Other points with regards to DDT have already been argued by Swansont, but I just wanted to add that the harm of DDT to wildlife appeared to be more pronounced than to human health. But again, it was individual research that figured that link out. A politics-driven global oversight would most likely just have cut funding, due to lobbying... That being said, there are universities who try to implement workshop that try to put ethics and science on a global scale and dream the impact of research on human society. But in the end, without investing actual research these things are more or less a mix of imagination, opinion and science fiction. I would think that a global oversight would be pretty much the same unless it comes up with an enormous pot of gold dedicated to adding actual research to the mix. QFT

Regarding early multicellular life, one can look at bacteria that exhibit multicellular life styles (e.g. Myxobacteria). Another textbook example for eukaryotic cells is Volvox. Also note that the in principle eukaryotic cells could be considered kind of multicellular as they most likely arose from associations of Archaea and Bacteria. However, this is not part of the common use of the term.

It depends on what you define as merits, but certainly it is not equal to, say, scientific abilities. Inequalities are somewhat self-perpetuating, and I am pretty sure that it is harder for a female to become member of a male-dominated faculty. I am not talking about overt sexism, but more about other aspects as e.g. differences in communication (which can include things like body language and voice). In the end, hiring is also highly dependent on fit (or the perception of it). Does not really correspond to my experiences.

Economics has the same issues as other complex sciences. The large numbers of known and unknown variables make it very hard to created decent predictive models. Based on that, the effects of corrective measures are equally hard to predict. This is not much different in natural sciences, when one reaches certain levels of complexities. For example, even something seemingly trivial as metabolic flow within a single cell is incredibly hard to predict with any kind of accuracy. One should note that while psychology plays a role in economics, it is not absolutely necessary to take that into account if you can generalize certain behaviors. One interesting aspect of economics as opposed to, say, ecology, is that in many cases price can be used as normalized metrics of resource flow. This makes it actually easier to study than very complex interconnected compound flows and interactions in nature, for example.

Do you mean that you get different migration in the same gel when loading the same sample into different pockets, or do you get multiple bands in the same lane, or are they different samples (or extractions) in the same gel are are they different blots?

Nope, agar is a polysaccharide derived from algae. Citrated sheep blood is used as a medium however (and can be mixed with agar to create plates).