CharonY

That is why I asked for the material. Also if stuff is floating around it does not necessary mean that this are the result of something growing in it.

What was in the bottles before and from what material is it? If it wasn't something really nasty (in which case I would not use it as drinking bottle anyway), I would go with really hot water. A few times maybe. I am not a big fan of disinfecting with bleach.

In most cases data is obtained by model organisms (e.g. certain bacteria, fruit flies, mice etc.) from which mutants are created. The results of altering or, more commonly, inactivation of certain genes is monitored. Obviously this is not done with humans. Generally the animal model is applied to humans and in some cases genetic diseases provide additional clues.

Wait.. it is next month already?

And wouldn't this more be physiology rather than anatomy?

No they don't. We had this discussion earlier somewhere already. There are different tracks to submit and as a member you only need to secure the comments of two referees. In other words, you as author ask others around and need to get two positive comments. Now let's see. You are prominent enough to become member of the academy. It must be awfully hard to find two people to say something nice about your manuscript, no? Also, cell manipulation and lysis in microfluidic channels have zero applications regarding treatments. They are purely analytical devices. Some other references named in this thread do not deal with infectious diseases at all(according to the OP this is supposedly be about viral or bacterial infections).

I think depending on region one or two weeks are not uncommon (in the US). For me it was the same so far. While I was sitting in the waiting room a guy was rejected because he had no insurance. While he had some cash, it probably was not enough. Apparently he had some pain in the legs and was told to go to an emergency room. That being said, I suppose there is also a higher pressure for MDs to make money, given the fact that they leave med school with an average of 200k of debts. I am only wondering why they are not swarming to Germany to become MDs instead (those with good scores that is).

Also, species concepts tend to break down if you look at, e.g. prokaryotes (not that it prevents us from assigning names, that is).

Let's start with the beginning. What precisely do you start with? A knockout yeast and a vector with the complete gene that was knocked out? And there is URA3 in the vector as well as the yeast chromosome? How was the knock out constructed. Was it a plasmid insertion (i.e. plasmid with URA3)?

Ow darn. And I secretly hoped Bradford would have noticed Desmond's scheme after the the DNA-test that revealed that he was the one who peed on his porch. Of course Desmond's identical twin Brad got the blame but I thought that was a bit obvious. I mean with him being a born-again Hindu and such.

Wait a tick, when did Desmond become Charlene's boss?

Depending on the amount of co-pay, however it may lead to the point that people only go to the doctor if something severe is going on. But it may be cheaper and easier to treat when it is still in the annoying but not incapacitating stage...

I think the prestige differs from country to country. Also, in different areas people seem to associate different things if you tell them you are a scientist. For instance, in Germany people (not from the academia, of course) tend to think of you like either like a lab scientist or a kind of medical doctor who does not treat people. Although I have been asked why this or that muscle hurts, I should know, as I am a biological doctor.... In the US on the other hand, most people I have met and told that I am a scientist ask:" oh, so you teach?". And as everyone knows, here being a teacher is not a prestigious job (although it would be in Japan, Korea or China at least).

You are probably thinking of Spaceship one which actually is only able to reach space. A conventional trip to the space station is in the order of 20 millions. And the costs for FTL gateways is even higher.

With regards to the coding sequences: according current ORF (open reading frames) estimations roughly 1-2% of human DNA encode proteins. A sizeable but yet not closely mapped amount will also code for non-coding RNAs (especially the realm of small RNAs is under investigation). And of course a lot of non-coding DNA will be involved in regulatory functions, as Mokele hinted at.

Indeed. It is often confused with saltationism. But as Azure pointed out, it just states that the evolutionary rates are not constant. Depending on perspective (e.g. from the molecular viewpoint) this is for the most part a non-issue.

The Krugman article makes sense to me (sadly), Glenn Beck... less so.

Generally it refers to a chromosomal region in which an unusually high number of genes (as opposed to non-coding sequences) are found.

Hush puppies? Not the brand with bassets, I hope. insane_alien, can I deep fry a macbook air there?

Hmm, I see. However, I assume that the antibody is used to detect proteins that bind cAMP, rather than to detect isolated cAMPs in a gel. While this is might in theory be possible (e.g. by running a sequencing gel, but only shortly) I cannot quite see an application for that. Now to your initial first question in the OP. A gel does not truly separate according to MW but rather according to electrophoretic mobility. The result is that in order to assess MW from a gel you need standards that are chemically similar (at least with respect to electrophoretic mobility) or you have to make them similar. An example are proteins that due to different amino acid compositions have very different charges and structures. In order to compare their sizes one has to eliminate (or reduce) these effects by adding SDS. As such I am wondering, based on what as reference do you assume that cAMPwould run at an equivalent of 17kDa? Generally, such values are used for proteins gels (which cAMP is not, of course). Are you sure that you did not simply confuse cAMP with something else (e.g. CAMP, Cathelicidin antimicrobial protein)?

Ha, and that too. On a single run (around two days) I generate around a gig worth of numbers. Making all of them accessible (even those that gave no results) would be quite challenging. Especially if, say, a hundred groups would be doing that.

Yes, they are either supplementary material or some kind of depository. However they are usually not totally raw. For instance in a microarray experiment you essentially measure fluorescence in one or more channels for a few thousands spots. Now the raw data is essentially just the fluorescence value for each channel. This list would yield much information to anyone but the investigator. What is published is e.g. normalized values or in case of comparative analyzes, the relative differences. As a rule of thumb most journals want the author to provide, at least upon request, the raw data that lead to the immediate conclusions in one of their manuscripts. The authors may opt not to release data that is not relevant to this (but was generated in the same experiments, for instance) in order to publish it later. This is quite common in epidemiological studies, for instance. A big epidemiological study yields a vast amount of data and the researchers can harvest it for several years. They are, of course, hesitant to release data before they squeezed all the possible publications out of it. Of course, the data relevant for each manuscript will be included in each respective paper. Simply put, each paper should include all the information necessary to enable a peer on the given field to come to the same conclusions.

Grammar is simple, learning the tones (both listening as well as reproducing) is often hard for those not trained to hear them. And you mean even more? Here where I am we got whole labs in which the primary language is Chinese (well, or Korean).

I will begin with a minor note. While it may be nitpicking, the techniques you mentioned in many cases not considered biophysical methods per se as they have a strong application based background in the area of biology and chemistry. A biophysicist is generally more interested in the means of analyzing something (i.e. the mode of physical interaction) or certain physical properties of the substrate. However, in research and especially in industry these machines have a different use. E.g. to identify a compound or have structural information that may give hints at chemical properties etc. In other words, I would emphasize the application aspects of these techniques rather than the physical aspects. The distinction is not clear cut, of course, but in industry MS or NMRs are more often than not in the hands of (bio-)chemists and biologists. Biophysicists tend to be still rather rare (though not unknown). To give an example, I know biophysics graduate students who know a lot about AFM and have spent several years measuring forces on viral particles. However they still do not know what the host range of a virus is. Quite obviously this would not be very helpful if you intend to lead a project group that is supposed to develop vaccines. Now about getting an industry position. For entry a MBA is often not that helpful, especially given the positions that you describe. If you start, typical research related entry positions (ie not sales or similiar) are application specialists or a project manager. You will not start with a group in all positions (depending on company). And if you do you usually have one or several technicians (or equivalents) but rarely a team of scientists. As a fresh PhD you obviously will not start with managing scientists right off the bat. The most important bit, however, is as you already surmised, is to start getting contacts as soon as possible. You can e.g. arrange an internship with one of the companies you are interested in (depending on how and who pays you during your PhD it may not be possible). Whatever the case might be, you should apply for an industrial position shortly before you expect to get your PhD and if you do not score anything you can still go for a an industrial postdoc. Avoid an academic postdoc, though! Regarding techniques, it really depends. From the list you have given the MS is probably most likely used to identify, quantify and characterize (bio-) molecules. In many more or less straightforward production processes simple HPLC is used as quality control instead, though. In the end you should be asking yourself what kind of industrial position you seek. Then you can ask what skills you require. I am pretty sure that GDG and a few others can give you much more insight, though. Sorry for errors and inconsistencies, but I am typing in a hurry.

Depending on the field, such mechanisms are already in place. Of course the raw data is usually connected to a given publication, otherwise it would be just a huge data dump with little information. For instance, in most proteomics journals you have to submit the MS/MS spectra of protein analyses. They are then freely available as supplementary material. Likewise, published sequence data has to be deposited in a database (e.g. Genbank) and so on. The problem is that data is often not normalized. They differ from machine to machine, sometimes from run to run. Without a lot of metainformation (as provided in a manuscript) much of the data cannot be analyzed even by an expert (much less by a layman). Of course there are exception as e.g. genome databases. The better ones are manually curated, though, which takes quite a bit of time and effort. The goal of a manuscript is to put the raw data into a narrative that can be understood by a peer on this field. Interpretation of raw data itself can be terribly complex. To summarize it: in many cases, and if it is of importance, raw data is available either as supplementary information or it is found in one of the specialized databases. An uncurated data dump, however will be in most cases of limited value for both, experts as well as laymen.