CharonY

I think it is part of the issue but not the cause. I vaguely recall also that both sides are not quite the same, on the state level some papers have argued that the GOP is doing significantly more, and in congress a swing to the Democrats was apparently due to court decisions striking down GOP Gerrymandering. But I do not really recall much detail.

It really only depends on how the swing states decide. Popular vote still remains close for the most part. But honestly, I suspect your first mistake is to assume that folks are making informed decisions. Hasn't the pandemic taught you anything?

! Moderator Note There is no invitation to discuss anything here. Locked.

I mean, they will still vote for him and say that he is the only to fix it. You can draw your own conclusions from there.

In part, certainly. But especially when it comes to sexuality and associated identity, things are bit more different than other identity traits. Both appear to be formed early on and generally do not change through life, in contrast to other forms of identity. What might change is how you express a given identity (e.g. what society considers to be masculine or feminine at any given point). And you might be correct that folks have become less prescriptive (or at least specific) in that regard. But on the other hand things have been changing forever, (e.g. whether heels are for men or women switched entirely more than once).

I mostly did not know what the point of that argument was. It seemed to try to suggest that the ability (or inability) to address a condition would have some sort of inherent meaning. But obviously there are a lot of procedures developed that are done because folks are willing to pay for it (e.g. plastic surgery). I don't think anyone is looking for a cure in autism, despite in some cases the conditions can make life very difficult. Rather, folks want to understand the condition itself (as it is not very well defined), potential causes and behavioral management options. There are some folks using animal models to look into molecular mechanisms of autism and some think that this could lead to a cure, but I think that is mostly sales (like having a cancer treatment every week). This research has also shifted the perception on autism, especially in what was previously considered "Asperger's syndrome" which is now more considered to be within a more normative range (if at the extremes) for example. If your question is whether there are genetics based treatment, AFAIK there is only few, in part also because many genetic challenges are not caused by a single locus. Besides certain uses in cancer I am only aware of a gene therapy to treat a retinal disease. Larger chromosomal changes are not feasible targets.

Exactly, we are all mutants.

In this context I would like to add that aberrations is also a social construct. In nature, these variations simply exist and, if harmful generally do not spread. But based on what originally constituted life on Earth, everything but the simplest bacteria are aberrations. Whether we want to change certain conditions or not, does not make them normal or abnormal. For example, originally humans become lactose intolerant as they mature. Addressing this issue does not make it an aberration. But since the ample availability of dairy can make it problematic, it can be considered a syndrome to be treated or at least managed.

Well, not only that, it also takes time and genetic isolation between populations. Even extreme inbreeding would not result in genetic isolation within a generation (or at least I cannot think of a scenario at the top of my head).

And also a function of nutrient availability. This is another example why focusing on a seemingly fixed (genetic or other biological interpretation) of a presumed normalcy is inherently flawed. Nature just is creates all kinds of variations. Otherwise we would still be superoptimized unicellular organisms.

In this context I think it is important to highlight that definitions like disease/syndromes etc. are context-driven and are not something that is ultimately biological per se, despite having biological origins. A crude example includes forms of sickle cell anemia, which in isolation is harmful, but in the context of high malaria risk, becomes beneficial. Ultimately, any variation that exists in nature simply exists, regardless of frequency and any "norm" we associate with it, is almost entirely context-driven. For practical purposes, we consider mutations a deviation from something (i.e. the wild-type), but given the fact that everything we see is the result of one mutation or another, it is obviously not something that is really not normal in nature. So obviously the association with genotype and sex is specific to a number of species (including humans), but is clearly not universal. And even within these, a number of variations exist. As SJ mentioned before, whether we call them a syndrome is related to whether they cause issue in their daily lives, which obviously is very specific to the human condition and society and should not be mixed with biological interpretation.

As I alluded to earlier, it is related to how funding (for teaching and research) is allocated, and in the US (but also Canada, and I believe UK) there is marked disparity in what universities get. Also in many publicly funded universities in Europe you lack many amenities (and sports teams), but in return you can study without getting into debt.

No, that is perfectly fine. I just want to make it clear as some folks assume that this is an universal biological thing, whereas in reality biology is more complicated (and weirder) than we see in humans.

I want to add that this is a human-centered view, and not really applicable in the broader field of biology. In terms of sexual reproduction a distinction in male and female is made based on anisogamy (i.e. if they create different forms of gametes). In some species one organism can do both, in others, the role can change during their life cycle. But there is also sexual reproduction where we find isogamy (i.e. gametes with same morphology), which is a form of sexual reproduction that cannot be classified into different sexes. And some do really weird switches, especially when they can change between uni- to multicellular life styles. In short, biology of sex is weird and everyone is a pervert.

There dsRNA viruses (e.g. rotavirus), and are obviously also formed during replication. One important regulator of mutation rates are proof-reading mechanisms that recognize and remove mismatches during replication. Many RNA viruses don't have them (but SARS-Cov-2 does, which is why its mutation rate is a bit lower). Other factors are replication speed. Some polymerases work very fast which allows for imperfect matches to go through.

I knew I should have weaponized my research!

! Moderator Note Thread locked pending review.

It is not so much the inherent stability of the molecule that causes mutations, but rather the difference in copying the genetic material (which is more prone to errors in RNA viruses for a variety of reasons).

Absolutely. I don't really do fieldwork, though once was peripherally involved in budgeting related to a space mission. The numbers did not seem real when you are used to typical (even instrument-intensive) lab experiments. Or, you know, tax wealth or reduce subsidies for companies.

This is especially true for trials, though at the same time, there is the argument that in the USA the balance might be a bit off. After all, innovation happens at similar or lower rates in countries where pharmaceutical prices are regulated. That is not to say that they have no role- quite the contrary. While many pharmaceutical discovery is probably more prevalent in academia, bringing them to market often requires the formation of a spin-off to finance the necessary steps. But one could make the argument that this is less innovation, but more routine development.

Well, for starters we cannot afford lobbyists. One should perhaps also note that price gouging is a bigger issue in the US where prices are mostly unregulated. There are studies out there showing that while the US spends more on prescription drugs, but relative to spending does not provide more development than other countries. Some countries with strong pharmaceutical companies (UK, Switzerland) are more productive in that regard. And I do think that lawmakers and companies are well aware of that.

I am surprised as it sound fairly low. Travel and accommodations alone would eat a fair chunk of it. Heck, I pay as much if I need get a tech in to do repairs that I cannot do myself. Not really, the do applied research and especially development. But most fundamental developments are either academic or spun of from there. It is not that they no innovative role, but it is fairly rare that they fundamental research and it has become rarer over time. In the 50s there was quite a bit of overlap, but that has mostly vanished.

If it does not generate profit, they won't do it. If it generates profit, then it will take precedence over insights. As such, companies are really not suited for explorative research, but they do well in the applied field. The insights will take a back seat every time (also addressing potential harms, because they want to the public to pay for that).

And not only that, it is known that public funded research stimulates private research. Estimates have shown that for each 1$ invested in public research, it stimulates around 0.5-2.5$ in private R&D. But perhaps more importantly, I would rather have a public fight regarding what to fund or not, rather than having a few ultra-rich folks determine it.