CharonY

CAFFEINE SHOCK DAY! (and yes, it should be all caps.)

If it was for only for physical disabilities I would totally agree. For dyslexia I am not that sure already, because I consider reading ability an absolute requirement for anything in academia. But it wasn't that bad if it was only that. Essentially they need to provide a diagnostic report from a psychologist or certified counselor that they have some kind of learning impairment. Among those only ADHD is explicitly mentioned, but otherwise a psychoeducational assessment will be done according to three main criteria: Aptitude, Achievement and Information processing. Also there is a vague comment regarding psychiatric disorders. So basically if the provide a report that says that they have severe deficiencies in these areas they are eligible to extra time in their exams. It is funny, though that in classes with a little bit more math an disproportionate amount of students with learning disabilities pop up. In one of the first classes in which I was involved in (I was only giving a small part of the lecture) around 5 students out of 60 had learning disabilities. All of them wanted eventually to go to medical school and after the extra time all had an A. They also had high average scores. So go figure. That is a toughie. I know two people like that. It may be true One never managed to finish uni due to that. The question. I am not sure whether extra time helps, though. At least in the long run. My wife also had that during her undergrad time, but overcame it eventually and got a PhD with summa. She, at least, does not think that it would have helped her to be treated differently. But I guess there are no clear solutions for that problem. Wahahahahahhahahaaaa *snort* Sorry, I could not help myself. OK but serious now. When I was a student that was what I thought, too, for while. And almost a decade ago at least in Germany it was partially true (though then it was changing already). It may also be true where you live, but in the US at least it is clear that it is basically a service provided for higher education. I think the major reason not to get at least a Bachelor are mostly financial ones. Which, on the hindsight, might be one of the reason why the German system, in which education was essentially free, worked a bit differently. This goes quite off-topic once more, but I am actually still wondering how much of the uni-structure actually is based on traditional element (including exams) how much it does clash with what it wants to accomplish. Maybe I should start a new thread regarding differences in uni-systems and at what they are aimed at. But I should finish my grant application first.

Given the system here I am almost sure that there will be legal issues, though. Given the fact that we had to arrange a student some prolonged time for her exam as she provided a proof of learning disability. Seriously, the US university system is bloody weird. Small wonder that so many guys are imported here.

I kind of lost track of this thread, so maybe I am a bit late. It basically only states: Ice (solid)+Energy <--> Water (liq) The text also mentions that reachable temps vary widely in literature. yupp.

Actually from the little information I got from a talk the main aspects of biofouling on boats is not caused by bacteria. Though they may be the first to settle. However, their presence (that is what I meant with biofilm in my first post) is not really necessary for all the others (algae, barnacles, etc.) to settle (I am not too sure about the subject myself, and the talker was a material scientist). However, if the erithromycine prevents settlement of algae and barnacles I would assume that it is due to the toxic properties of the AB. You have to remember that while the primary targets of ABs are, obviously, bacteria, basically all of them are also relatively toxic to other organism, albeit due to unspecific effects. I think I recall a LD50 values for some fishes for Erithromycin of around 500 mg/kg.

Mostly around neutral.

Usually it refers to high-molecular structures consisting of more or less repetitive subunits. Disaccharides, for instance are not considered a polymer, either. But as I said, there is no clear rule when one ends and the other one starts. Similar like when oligopeptides are starting to called polypeptides.

Hmm interesting if that works. But essentially you could use any pesticide or other toxic substance then. It does not have to be an antibiotic as, well, barnacles and algae are obviously no bacteria. Just a different notion. Has anyone tried painting just with epoxy but no ABs?

Usually not. While there are no definite rules at which molecular weight something is determined to be a polymer, peptides are generally considered to be too small. Edit: Cross posted with Paralith once more. Well you see, there are no definite opinions or rules on that.

Sounds odd. While I do not know precisely the half-life of erithromycine I would have expected it to be something in the area of weeks at most, especially under these conditions. Also, if it prevents something from growing than it is likely that is due to the inheritent toxic properties of erithromycine rather than antibacterial action as afaik bacterial biofilm are not necessarily the main component of biofouling in boats. However there are a number of repellants in development, at least one of them relying on small geometric structures that prevent settlement by algae, barnacles etc. rather by using a toxin.

Only if a significant amount actually gets secreted to the skin. But for instance using antibacterial deodorants could do it.

Actually both is true. The dominant elements are a class of volatile carboxylic acids that are the result of bacterial action on secreted precursors. However, the product is also dependent on what is being secreted. Here it is known that there are large day-to-day variations, quite possible the result of e.g. food intake, but there appears to be a genetic basis. However, bacterial skin flora generally does not get easily transmitted or changed, unless something really disruptive happens. This could be, e.g. the use of antibacterial substances or complete change of diet over time. The rationale behind this is that whatever is fit to colonize your skin will have an edge and prevent others from settling. Oops. cross posted with paralith.

I can agree with that. That is why I am trying my hands on an academic career. I only have personal experience with the system in the US and Germany, though. But in both the chances of getting a tenure or an otherwise not time-limited position in academia are relatively slim. The reason is simply that there are far, far more graduates than position openings. As such putting all your life on that is fairly risky. I think everyone who was a while in the academia will come to know to quite a fair amount of end thirties to mid-forties associate/assistant/junior professors, whose time is running out to get a tenure and are struggling to find a new job. It is especially hard if you have got a family by then (which is something you often do not think about when you enter grad-school, but which can be an enormous problem afterward). And yes, I know of at least one who makes a living as a taxi driver (his wife has a stable position as high school-teacher, though). Mind you, I do not really want to discourage anyone from making a PhD (heck, I am dependent on cheap labor as anyone else), but one should be aware of the risks, not only the immediate financial ones, but also the reality that the majority will not be able to secure a science position in academia (which is mostly dependent on factors that one cannot easily control). Ideally one should plan the career so that there is also the possibility to score a different job, if one should not succeed.

My point is: make a reality check. An academic career is very risky even under optimum conditions. And one of the main incentives for going into industry is probably making money. I am not aware that my PhD gives me any kind of status. Well, except when I am dealing with MDs. Again, if it is only for fun or learning, there are clearly no objection. But the OP clearly asked about the prospects of a career in biology. This is quite different to merely getting a degree.

That is strange. Most PhD students I heard of get around 20k (and postdocs 30-40). The entry pay in pharmaceutical with a bachelor started around 30 ish (at least those that I heard of) and with a PhD double the amount (or sometimes more). Thing is, if you start now in the industry you will likely to earn more in five years than you would get as a postdoc. Let me put it that way. If you already got an at least decent paying job, losing it in order to get a PhD is a big risk. So even if you get paid for five years, what then? A PhD will not guarantee you any job, and despite what some others say, you will be competing with PhDs ten yours your junior. It depends of course a bit what you did in the meantime, whether you can compensate for that or not. Most PhD students simply only see the degree as ultimate goal, as their lives up to this point tends to be very predetermined and led. I do make a point talking about prospecting PhD students about their goals and why they want to make a PhD. Very few actually think about the important things. That is, what happens afterward. Most are shocked for instance, to realize that as a high school teacher your life-time earnings are likely to be higher than someone trying for an academic career (given the fact that actually few get a well-paid fully tenured position). Again, it is your choice but in your place I would make it dependent on your current situation and your eventual goal after the PhD. Again, the PhD itself cannot be the goal (although it may be hard to see it that way, for some).

I see what you are alluding at. If we are talking about actions of triclosan (or other antimicrobials) directly on the body microbiome, I can easily agree with you. An additional factor is of course also that the host builds up an immune defense against long-term settlers (regardless whether they are harmless or not) by virtue of being exposed to them. To be honest, though I do not believe that in the majority of products this will be an issue as the used concentrations tend to be too low to seriously disrupt the bacterial communities (with few exceptions). A shift may be occurring during long time exposure but I would not necessarily expect anything too dramatic. At the moment I would still bet any detrimental effect of triclosan on human health due to accumulation for the moment. But I need to get more data to be sure.

I would be more careful. What are your plans? If you just want a degree, heck why not. But if you really want to pursue a career you should be absolutely clear what your aims are. The degree itself is not worth that much. Also age is of (almost) no issue for getting a PhD. But again, it can limit your possibilities after the PhD, especially if you do not plan carefully. Careers in biology are limited, to a degree, so I can only stress (once more) that you should be clear of your aims and plan accordingly. Do not concentrate too much on the PhD itself because grad school is (despite all the effort you will have to put into it) still the easy bit compared to the rest of your career. If you just make a PhD and then start looking what career is available, you may maneuver yourself into a very unfavorable situation (this is true for younger PhDs, too, though they have more time to switch). Points to consider: - your current financial situation - time constraints - what is the desired career path after the PhD (and how likely are the chances, regardless of age, to score such a position) - what are alternative career paths? ... and so on.

This is only partially right. E. coli grows within a certain pH range. Which (hint: take a peek on the paper ennui posted)? I assume that the answer is supposed to be very simple because the reaction of cells to pH is quite complex (and up to a certain point, poorly understood).

What is the difference between the cell hull of a Gram-negative and a Gram-positive bacterium? Also this goes into the homework section.

As GDG mentioned, one could design assays depending on their functions. In cases of enyzmatic reactions that are colorimetrically traceable you can make quick parallel assays, and if you got really a lot of different isoforms (say, over a hundred) it may make sense to make pooled assays and trace back the isoform with the highest activity. But it appears that you are primarily interested in a computational approach. Here you are usually dependent on enzymes whose precise interaction with its substrate is known (or the precise mode of protein-protein interaction, or whatever). Often derived from crystallization studies. Then you can start making docking experiments, though they are often not that quick either. And of course you always need to validate it as the computational approaches normally only give suggestions, not answers.

Actually by chance I have gotten involved from a different direction into this area a bit. And at the moment I am actually more worried about the persistence and occurrence of triclosan in human bodies and accumulation in the environment rather than creation of resistant strains. I would be careful with that notion. While it is true that the treated areas will be settled by more resistant strains, there is no reason to believe that they will be virulent at all. Also it is probably questionable whether it will have a medical impact as triclosan is not used as a treatment. In fact there is a paper which reports that triclosan resistant strains were more susceptible to antibiotics than sensitive ones. However triclosan is often used not only in detergents but also in personal care products. While it is generally assumed that triclosan doe not have negative effects on health there is always the risk that once interacting with microorganisms for instance their metabolites could turn out to be more toxic. In addition endocrine disrupting functions are being discussed, though to date no hard evidence have been found (yet). On the other hand studies in countries were triclosan is excessively used (including the US) it not only been found in urine, but also in blood and human breast milk. Again, there is no conclusive evidence that it will really do harm for the moment, but given the fact that it is persistent (and thus accumulating e.g. in biosolids), that already infants get contaminated with it and that the dosage in which it is used is generally meaningless anyway, I do not see any good reason for continuous use. There are quite a few papers addressing pros and cons. You may want to take a look.

If you are using Firefox, there are a number of plugins that enable you to download them, I think.

The problem is that schizophrenia is ill-defined and it is likely that a lot of different unrelated disorders are lumped together so that diagnostics is very difficult. This makes it very different to discern in studies whether (and how much) it is hereditary, of course. That being said, there are strong claims that it has hereditary components, but only multigenic models appear to fit. Which often means that the players have not been identified and that the precise mechanisms are still unclear. Other claim that epigenetic factors are of more importance. In other words, no one can tell with precision at this point. It appears to me (with the caveat that this is not really my field, I only had touched this topic peripherally) that there appears to be a consensus forming that stresses genetic over environmental factors. That being said, assuming that there are genetic factors and even assuming that they are the predominant cause for schizophrenia, without knowing the players (i.e. the alleles) it is basically impossible to predict whether and how likely your offspring will inherit these traits.

Actually I am pretty sure that is a quote from Taoism. In Zen the journey itself is the destination. (Don't hit me, I am just still in referee mode )

I would rather think that hereditary character refers to hereditary phenotypes and with material the underlying genetic material is meant. I assume that you should write an assay regarding the connection of phenotype and genotype. Maybe include the experiments from Griffith, Hershey and Chase as intro.