CharonY

It is quite possible, even likely that the placebo effect plays a role. The original theories behind it are clearly non-scientific (or at least have to my knowledge not put into a modern model with explanatory powers yet). The problem with these uses (pain control, sleep, etc.) are highly affected by the placebo effect. A quick overview of the published papers with trials showed that the placebo effect was mostly not accounted for (e.g. Chen et al Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Mar 3). In at least one case acupressure was only simulated by touching rather then massaging ( J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012 Mar;57(2):133-8). But if te placebo is due to general massaging (and associated prolonged contact), it would still be an insufficient control. Finally a short study showed that acupressure, placebot-acupressure and relaxation CDs had similar effects for stress reduction: (McFadden et al. Complementary Therapies in Medicine Volume 20, Issue 4, August 2012, Pages 175–182). As a general note, the complexity of pain, stress etc. makes it really difficult to distinguish "placebo" from "real" effects. If lying down relaxes you and thus reduces pain sensation, is that a placebo or successful intervention?

That is a very generic phrase. It essentially mean proteins being expressed at different levels. It can apply to all kind of different contexts, i.e. without further info it is virtually impossible to discuss it more.

Yeah, sounds like there is still stuff on it. Is the backpressure ok? Otherwise I would rinse it with several more column volumes of water and check whether baseline (I assume UV in your case?) is stable (as well as pH). If the contamination are precipitated proteins (as e.g. indicated by random UV signal) or lipids, additional wash steps might be necessary. This may include protease treatments or, in case of lipids and hydrophobic proteins, washes with compatible mild organic solvents (often ethanol/isopropanol).

IIRC it is a pBR322 derivative with nothing terribly fancy. As such Top and DH5alpha should both be fine. Main differences are found in the methylation/restriction systems (and recombination apparatus).

Well, technically yes. I never really used the Lancefield classification (as I come from the molecular side). Technically the Lancefield system groups are based on the detection of specific carbohydrates in the cell wall, not on their hemolytic activities. While it was supposed to classifiy streptococci, though some misclassifications (i.e. the mentioned enterococci) occured. In any case the D group are generally alpha or gamma, using the hemolysis system. I.e. these are two unrelated classfication systems that look at different properties. Also the name of the researcher is Rebecca Lancefield. Not lance field.

Unfortunately especially in academic settings this is what you get when you follow your interests rather than market demands (and trying to figure out the demand in academia is pretty much a networking exercise). But yeah, job prospects (esp. in academia) are generally not good with a kind of limbo state between graduation until the time where you can actually settle down somewhere (often close to the 40s and above, depending on the academic system). Also, you seem to be in the same spot/mood as every (non-naive) postdoc is going through. Or at least those that are not heavily promoted by prestigious advisers.

IIRC Lancefield Ds are weakly to non-hemolytic.

Also in addition to having ruined your clothes, they will also smell nicely of stuff that has been autoclaved. Especially nice if the autoclave is also used for inactivating bacterial cultures.

One problem with organic agriculture is the precise definition of what is allowed under this label and what not. For instance, pesticide use is allowed although many (but apparently not all) synthetic ones are banned. Health effects are incredibly hard to assess and it is usually not possible to de-convolute effects of food and exposure from other parameters that affect health.There are (contested studies) that look at the effect of certain types of organic agriculture on biodiversity and sustainability, for instance (e.g. Maeder et al 2002, Science). However it appears that more data is needed to draw conclusions. The results vary quite a bit depending on landscapes (see Wingqist 2011 J Appl Ecol), the scale used for assessment (see e.g. Gabriel et al 2010 Ecological Lett, IIRC) and environmental conditions (e.g. droughts). Then some proposed to re-introduce certain principles to modern agriculture in order to increase efficiency. In short, again a case of complex problem and no simple answers, confounded by the way the "organic" is actually implemented.

What is the difference between an active and an inactive metabolite?

The null is not clearly formulated. I.e. what is meant by "same"? From the way you described the experiment and the respective statistical tests it appears that you formulated three nulls (i.e. one for each concentration). In each case the null would be that at the tested concentrations (let us call it c1, c2 and c3) the compounds x&y have no effect on z. In other words, each test requires its own null. Alternatively, one could apply statistical tests that account for more than one group (e.g. ANOVA). Thus, the null with c1 and c2 cannot be rejected (i.e. we do not know whether it has or not). Whereas the null with c3 can be rejected. I.e. at c3 there is a significant effect on z. As already mentioned, a null is never accepted, we either reject, or fail to reject.

Another fun accident: grad student imbalanced the ultracentrifuge. For some reasons the centrifuge did not shut down (maybe something happened to the vials during spinning and caused the imbalance only after a high speed was reached). Result: the rotor (a heavy metal thing with roughly 30 cm diameter), punched through the centrifuge, though the plaster wall of the room and embedded itself in the concrete wall in the next room. Lab course: after telling the students that acetonitrile is toxic one girl decided to drop the bottle of acetonitrile that she was toying around with. Cause, you know, she did not want to poison herself. Of course the bottle shattered.

Just some random memories from student's labs: a student set himself on fire while sterilizing equipment with ethanol and heat (hooray to cotton labcoats). The only time I was legally allowed to tackle a student and throw him to the floor. I could not convince everyone that the best to put it out is to kick him once wrapped in the fire blanket. Another dropped over two liters of KMNO4 while trying to refill a tiny bottle from a considerable height. No white labcoats to be found in a largish diameter. Dropping a large bottle of mercaptoethanol. The lab smelled for weeks afterwards. Another one filled a mix of H2O2 and H2SO4 into the waste bottle but used the non-vented cap and closed it shot. I saw it boiling up and slammed down the hood before the bottle exploded.

I think you misread the paper. Zinc deficient strains had five times less zinc as compared during growth during replete conditions. That being said, it is expected that normal cells accumulate nutrients, how else are they going to survive? What they measured in the end is that they found more total zing than they added, which is indicative that there was contamination after all. Finally, they were mostly interested in finding elements of zinc transport as e.g. ZinT. I.e. genes regulated in a zinc dependent way. To figure out whether a mutation exists that e.g. upregulates ZinT higher than WT would require a different set of experiments.

There are a lot of misconceptions in this post, also misquotation. Let me just point this out. The original quote is a bit longer (also note that this is from the 60s): The latter part bluntly refutes

Evolutionary effects are not going to play a significant role in the presented time scales, unless they only require very small changes. The goal of this paper is to figure out molecular mechanisms that cope with extreme conditions. If you apply mild ones, many effects can mask the mechanisms you are hunting for. Extreme and well-defined cultivation can better elucidate adaptations, although you are correct that in some cases effects may occur that do not occur in nature. Yet, one should keep in mind that growing under replete conditions as found in the lab, is actually much more unrealistic than hunger conditions. In nature, hunger is more likely that normal state as each bug is competing ferociously with others for limited resources. Note that there is nothing like an adaptive pressure as your post implies (i.e. if faced starvation the chance of occurrence of a super zinc acquirer does not increase, only the spread of mutations that may result in it, which is on a different time scale). There is a certain selective pressure, but the base assumption is that the cells are already adept at acquire low level of zinc. Whether that is true for E. coli or not is rather a physiological discussion rather than an evolutionary one. If we assume mutation, the most likely one to actually affect the physiological state is within the regulatory mechanisms and it may be true that some mutants have spread that actually express higher level than the WT under the same condition. But then this study is aimed at finding targets using semi-quantitative approaches, and is not a quantitative inspection of the regulatory network.

For better reproducibility it is easier to measure zone of inhibition, or count live titer after a defined exposure of a given culture.

Highly relevant bit. Regarding species: as it has been explained numerous times by Arete and others, nature does not create strict boundaries. They are sometimes there, but then often times not. Just look at prokaryotes trying to find hard species boundaries is an exercise in futility. As such Arete is absolutely correct in saying that the delimiters are somewhat arbitrary. But, and that is the important bit, even if they do not reflect nature perfectly, they are useful. This is a basic thing that all biologists are aware of.

The distinction of man-made and natural is arbitrary to some extent. E.g. are current crops and pets that have been bred by humans natural? For legal reasons genetically manipulated organisms are classified as such (i.e. GMOs). Tthe extent of manipulation are generally very minor, as we are not able to really create living organisms (yet).

Xitenn, I am not sure I understand your point. However I would say to an interview you should be at least one step above the attire of the organization you want to join. But not based on your own level. I fail to see the dishonesty of that. A suit or other work clothes are a type of uniform. What you wear to a job is supposed to reflect well on the organization, and not on you. An in an interview you are expected to go a step or so above that (at least).

In an interview people expect you to be on your best behavior, not your average. And you will be judged accordingly.

There is little evidence to suggest that there these are innate abilities. In contrast, many young geniuses spend an extraordinary time into their talent. You will note that talented artists have spent an enormous amount of time to become talented. There are basic capacities that have a biological basis that will strongly affect or the outcome (such as a good memory, good senses, etc.). However, complex traits (artistic abilities, reasoning abilities) cannot easily be reduced to a simple basis are therefore much more dependent on training (and hence, interest). Again, if you simply do not like playing the piano, you can slog through hours without improving skills. If you are a Mozart, you will go through the same thousand of hours, with much more focus and learn from it. There are a few problems with this assertion. Remember, the students you get already had exposure to maths in high school. A good teacher could make all the difference. Second, the student in question may be interested in certain aspects of physics, but not in maths. If the person is not willing or able to focus on the latter (and again, I would put lack of interest before lack of talent), he/she would not be able to catch up on the foundation that should have already been built up before you arrive at college. Again, I would consider something like a good memory as a biological basis that can affect academic outcome. However, I would have a hard time clearly defining an innate affinity to logic. Biologically we all are actually very bad at logic. Our brain is a much better at finding positive correlations, for instance.

For postdocs suits are not necessary. I cannot recall if I wore one but I hardly see anyone doing it. On faculty level it is often a slightly different matter (often less with other faculty, but somewhat when meeting e.g. with the dean etc.). However, in academia you can get away with much more clothing-wise than elsewhere. Mind you, I have absolutely no sense of fashion, but I know people that apparently have, so here it goes...: An all purpose business suit would be indeed charcoal. Dark blue (e.g. navy) is a bit trickier to pull off, from what I heard. Style-wise most two-buttons would be notched-lapel anyway (other types are more commonly found on double breasted for tuxedos), just check that the width fits you. In general, smaller lapels are probably more universal. The most important part is proper fit, rather than the details of styles. Nothing too big/excessive should be pretty much timeless. Pattern-wise, solid is simple, but a subtle pin are supposedly to make oneself slimmer/taller (no idea if that is true). Pleats (esp double) are best avoided, especially if one is still young. Flat front pants generally go without cuffs. Do yourself a favor and a get a good fitting shirt. It is awful to fiddle around with suit/shirt during an interview because the shirt is too bulky or too tight. I have heard that you can get custom tailored ones for around 80 bucks, or buy a cheaper one and get it fitted. Check if you like the collar. Narrow collars require narrow tie knots, and vice versa. So make sure it fits your face and neck. Also upper body length comes into play. If your tie is too long for your upper body, you have to make a broader knot (or buy a thinner/shorter tie). Colors of the tie (silk) obviously has to match with shirt. Simple or no patterns. Especially avoid confusing and bright patterns. If you are slim, avoid very broad ties. Also broad ties do not go well with suits with a narrow front. Black shoes, round toe. Best not too shiny. If you are slim and tall a cheaper alternative to Boss are also Calvin Klein suits. Probably not the best quality but affordable. Being in academia, I am pretty sure that they would not even let me into Nordstrom. Most important for interviews, feel comfortable in them.

Why should aliens be even remotely humanoid? In fact, the chances are extremely high that we will have much more in common with fruit bats rather than any speculative aliens.

In a way physics can be easy, as it is well structured (compared to other sciences), but one needs to build up a good foundation. In many ways it can be more abstract than other sciences, but then it may be also an advantage, as it is easier to let go of erroneous preconceptions. In biology, for instance, many things are also counter-intuitive or even culturally colored and it can be hard work to get rid of these wrong concepts. In physics you can demonstrate it with mathematics that it is wrong. I agree with the first part, but disagree with the "natural" part. No work is easy, everything requires time investment. However, if you are interested you are willingly putting in the time needed without feeling it to be hard work. It simply becomes fun and is perceived as easy. It is not innate. Edit: cross-posted with Royston, but agree with his points.