CharonY

It is the enzyme that polymerises a sDNA strand onto RNA, yes.

We do not have a reverse transcriptase at all.

Essentially their RT (reverse transcriptase) do not have proof-reading capabilities. During the reverse transcription step errors are incorporated. If you try to give it a higher fidelity you'll have to add a function (proof reading) rather than inhibiting one. This is generally not feasible. Moreover, recombination can also occur at high frequency, for instance if a cell is co-infected with different strains.

I have not read that book so I cannot really comment on it. But regarding psychiatrists: it depends on what topics are covered in the book. If he just gives examples regarding plasticity, then yes of course. It is common knowledge and an MD would surely know a significant amount about this, especially a psychiatrist actually. Depending on their specialization they tend to have quite a bit of neurobiology in their curriculum. More detailed up do date research regarding neuronal plasticity on the cellular level however often requires a psychiatrist with a deep specialization of the more biological field. That is a generalization, of course and just my two cents on the way to the coffee machine.

In addition a number of enzymes have pH optima near the neutral range. Given the relatively short time that food stays in the stomach it is rather unlikely that they will help much with digestion. And seriously, cellulases? That is kind of absurd.

It uses opines as C sources and electron donors. This is generally not referred to as respiration.

Hmm... Biohazard?

This do not look like Latin words to me. However they just could be mangled up. The Roman "V" is the same as "U" and if I just look at the word it could be something like Diva Faustina, the wive of Antonius Pius.

Well, faculty gets to see the GRE nonetheless. While there is no official limit, a very low score tends to be less desirable and chances of invitations tend to be lower. Of course, if a school is desperate to fill up spots and do not get enough, the GRE is likely not to play a significant factor at all.

That's him. Oh dear. I meant to write "regions" and "lesions" and wrote "reasons" instead. Guess my brain is in bad shape, too.

Actually I recall that someone removed quite a sizable amount of the prefrontal cortex of mice or rats without seemingly harming them in a very obvious way. However subsequent test revealed that they were deficient in quite a number of way with regards to memory function, reflexes and generally higher cognitive functions. Also there was a famous report about a guy who had a metal bar through his head due to an accident. While it did quite some damage it did not kill him. However his personality changed markedly. In other words, while large regions in the brain are not crucial to viability, they do fulfill functions.

Heh, sounds familiar. In my case basically one thing was worth it. I met my wife there. We were often the only ones still around after midnight. Health-wise we both still suffer from it. And regarding publications, it depends a lot on your field. In biophysics for instance one generally can perform experiments faster than in most branches of molecular biology, for instance (these are the fields I am most familiar with).

I dunno. I sold my soul to academia. Was on the first page of the contract, actually. It was either that or trying to get a real job with a possible future and suchalike. But it sounded cooler.

Bacteria can be nicely visualized on glass alone. The only problem can be dehydration if it is not in liquid. In liquid the resolution is usually worse (due to the dampening effect of the water). But it is great to visualize certain structures, if they are crystalline enough (so no EPS I am afraid). Or while you are at it you can also visualize DNA strands or proteins (if big enough like e.g. flagella). And considering the resolution AFMs are not that expensive anymore. Yeah, it is one of my favourite toys. Too bad that I do not have a project with it right now.

Bah, I call it bloody expensive useless system that makes student complain half the lecture that their device did not register properly . Though to be honest last time I heard that the system is supposed to work properly now. Thinking about hurling stuff. I was wondering how well it would work to throw chocolate bars at students. The signals might be ambiguous, but they pack a better punch than chalk.

Actually you should consider that the magnification alone won't give info on what you can see, as the resolution power is also dependent on the aperture. And in the end it is the resolution that limits what you can distinguish.

We have got the clicker system here, where you actually can poll the answers anonymously. I always wanted to try that out but apparently there are sometimes technical issues with that.

Haven't checked the link, but when I am making wafers in the cleanroom there is only yellowish light (for avoid photoexposure of the resist). If it is really harmful I am probably screwed (that and everything appears to be blue....).

Hm. Interesting concept. I usually keep a DB in which I keep track who I have asked how often, but randomize it openly may be a nice trick. It may appear a bit like a quiz show then, but that might not be a bad thing.

But in a free market system, which company would willingly insure high-risk people? They effectively cost the insurer money. Where is the incentive to take them in (without government interference that is)?

Only between painting the white house red and putting up posters of Marx all over the place.

About everything. Trained personnel, equipment, medication, etc. They all have to be of a certain standard and that does not come cheap. Let us make a simple calculation. According to publications mean monthly health care cost range from 2187 to 7616 USD, depending on the type of cancer. This does not take indirect cost (as lost work time) into account. Now by how much do you think this has to be slashed to make it payable (considering that the treatments generally take longer than a few months) and do you think that even with reduced overhead this can be achieved? The reason why insurances exist in the first place is that the cost cannot be easily shouldered by individuals. In an insurance system those that in this case stay healthy essentially pay for those that get ill. It is essentially a bet. Only that in case of health it is one with a big risk of losing (and hence the cost). Edit: cross posted with Sceptic. Another thought: Germany has a mixed system with both several public insurers as well as a number of private ones. It is mandatory to have insurance and while the private ones have better options (but are generally not more expensive) they are selective. The public ones have to take everyone in. While the system is in my experience better and cheaper than the US system, it is still a bit more expensive that the UK one, for instance. I heard of longer waiting time (except for emergencies), in the UK, though. On the other hand this does also apply to the US. Primary care waiting time for first time patients are apparently around 1-2 weeks and for specialists 2 weeks and up.

Sorry, but that is an hyperbole. The only thing observed was an increase on growth, not a growth on radiation as sole energy source. This is not the same.

Just? First, many insurers won't take you in. I have seen that. The same goes for auto insurance, btw. Second, the increase is not negligible. In case of suspicion of cancer it boiled down to around 1k per month. Had it been diagnosed it may have been more. Also one has a waiting time before In a truly free market however, the high risk pool will not be taken in at all as even with such an increase in premiums it will not cover the cost of the insurer. Generally health care is too expensive to be ever be affordable out-of-pocket if you fall seriously ill. Even if we cut down the money the MDs get as well as on prescription, the price simply cannot go down to the level of, say, car repair.

OK. You are 20 and have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Now go ahead and plan for the future.