CharonY

Well, for any gene to be expressed you require the cis-regulatory elements. If you leave them out, they won't be transcribed. Viruses could insert inactive sequences (or become inactive later due to mutations), which happned quite frequently in the human genome. However, just not being expressed does not mean that during evolution it may not gain some kind of function. It can, for in stance, modulate the DNA structure and thereby influence expression of other functional genes.

From what I understand Jefferson specified one practical aplication of the first amendment in his letter (and BTW is there any reason to believe that it was NOT from Jefferson?). It is true that the precise wording are not in the constitution, though. My link In fact, there is further evidence that it is not merely intended to prohibit the creation of a state religion: My link

For AlPO4 it was around 9.8*10^-21.

Decades would be extremely optimistic. That is roughly the timeline for (hopefully) getting a working model of a simple cell.

Again, it is a matter of concentration. Sugar can be an effective energy source, however overindulgence coupled with insufficient exercise can lead to a number of adverse effects. E.g. links have been established with obesity and type II diabetes. The reason is simply that our metabolism is not adapted to the consumptions level that are now possible.

Yes, but also our metabolism is not evolved to be surrounded by so much of it.

Also, with regards to "but XXX is good for your health": it all boils down to concentration. Soft drinks are generally extremely rich in simple sugars and/or high fructose corn syrup, which is not very healthy.

Just want to emphasize Klayno's point. N2 is all but harmless, especially in badly ventilated rooms. There have been a few reported deaths due to asphyxiation. At least two were graduated students prepping samples or filling containers with liquid nitrogen for transport.

I assume it should be noted in a paper somewhere describing those plasmids. However, it is known that sometimes the backbone gets transfected. Judging from the pictures I assume that it was conducted to assess the rate of backbone transfer. Also, the additional T-DNA could be exploited for the delivery of additional sequences.

Well, both animals very social as such it does not appear extremely unusual to me. For instance, you often see kids closing in on a dog to pet them etc. And depending on the dog, some actually enjoy it. Whether the videos are authentic (i.e. really showing their first encounter or not) is a different matter. Also, if the organg likes to share food (for instance) it is even easier.

Interesting enough, either in the report itself or in a comment from one of the authors (I forgot the details), it was mentioned that the desire for instant gratification in students (as well as parents for that matter) is one of the many reasons for the decline of science education. Carl Sagan wrote something similar in the 90s already. Also, most universities have a PR department. The outreach programs are at least partially aimed to increase visibility of the university, justify expenses as well as to attract donors. It has to be said, though that according to polls unis are generally held in high regard within the population.

In 2005 the national academies followed a bipartisan call provide recommendations to ensure economic growth. One of the key findings was that low quality if science education was endangering the US' innovation potential and thus, economic growth. Link Now, five years later a follow-up report has been published. While some suggestions are at least partially implemented, the once held advantage of the US seems to have continued eroding. Follow up I have not finished the whole report yet, however many of the key points appear to be very important to me (although I may be biased).Despite the importance AFAIK I can see little coverage of this in the media (as opposed to, say some random remarks of some guy on TV or radio about someone else). Why is that so? Is it because the complexity of the problem cannot be worded into nice sound bites which blame one party or another?

It is pretty well established that there is a material basis for memory. The other terms are less well defined and thus would depend on the context whether data is available. That being said, it is not clear how in detail specific memories are recreated (they are not simply stored and recalled, but exhibit large plasticity). Thus, the available knowledge is limited to which brain areas are involved, to a more limited amount which cellular processes occur, but the detail on how this has to interact with the rest of the brain to recreate a specific memory is still unknown.

I suppose you could have bloody riots if you take away their food and wine. Even surrender monkeys have their limits.

There also a number of patterns that emerge due to recombination with viral sequences, and also the detection of genes with virus specific functions would be revealing.

On the other hand, even endogenous metabolites have more than one effect. Our metabolism is highly interconnected and adding something on one end can lead to weird effects elsewhere. Even just supplementing deficiency can be tricky, e.g. in terms to getting the dose and timing right.

Right your are. My bad.

False premises lead to false conclusions.

Depend on what you mean by "work".

I keep it more concise. Mostly I just write "so?" extensively in manuscript or thesis drafts....

Just to nitpick, that would be an approximation, not a lie. Other than that, Ophiolite's post applies.

The most robust and universal lysis method is mechanical disruption. But there are literally thousands of protocols for further steps. My main question would be what you are interested in looking at and how. E.g. 2D-PAGE requires something else compared to other chromatographic techniques. Also targeted protein analysis is different from proteome analyses and so on.

Bl21(DE3) is deficient in the Lon protease, thus reducing the chance of the degradation of the product to be overexpressed. Moreover, it carries an IPTG inducible T7 RNA polymerase. I.e. you can control the overexpression by cloning your gene downstream of a T7 promoter.

You have several values. Those that have cancer, those that don't, those that were tested positive, and those that were not. Draw a table with the FP, TP, FN an TN and try to assign the values. Tip 1: you can calculate percentages out of those numbers. Tip 2: If a population consists of two groups and the percentage belonging to one is 84%, what is the percentage of the other (remaining group)?

No, science is rarely about the data, but the hypotheses that explains them. A talk is always about a story, e.g. a problem and how it was solved or a question and the answer. The data is just to support the claim (and refute alternative hypotheses). Pure data collection results in data dumps generally of little value (with few exceptions).