Slashdot Mirror

Besides, it is a great buzz word!!!

Has anyone else noticed that a disproportionate number of "cool-techonology" things rely on the letter "X" ?

Begin Rant :
XML, XGA, x86, X.25, Xmodem, XP & OSX (each borrowing from XEROX), XT, XOR, XXX (in every computer ?), 3DFX, and because this is Slashdot I should flame Microsoft for DirectX and ActiveX.

But the unix community deserves most of the blame. After all we have Linux, Unix, and other variants which we want to be POSIX, not to mention the grand-daddy of them all: an entire window system which we simply call "X", which perpetuates this sort of thing, because whereas we previously had terminals and clocks we now have x-terminals and xclocks. Indeed, thanks to the "X Window System" we can rename all of our programs, SOME OF WHICH DID NOT PREVIOUSLY INCLUDE THE LETTER X.

But it goes much deeper. Just look at what we call supersonic jets, radiation, and chemical elements. As if that were not enough, we have set the millions of people in math courses around the world to the mysterious task of trying to find "x". The worst part is, as soon as you've figured out what x is, in the very next problem IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE !

So I am asking slashdot when will this maddness end ? When can we turn our attention to the other "unpopular" letters, like "q", "w", and "p" ? Despite their consistent sponsorship of Sesame Street, these letters yearn for the attention currently squandered on "x". Is it too much to ask that we all run wclock ?

I'm not sure who this is more of a statement on, but when I see PCP, doctors aren't the first thing I think of.

-Ted

Sugar does not cause hyperactivity.

Follow me here. In Africa, they have a disease called malaria, which has lead to the sickle cell trait being passed down and becoming common among populations in Africa. Sickle-cell blood is unhealthy blood which causes all kinds of health problems, and can lead to death, but which is unpalatable to the malaria disease. So while a person with sickle cells is more likely to survive to produce children, a person with sickle cells is not really healthy.

At some point, people discoved that the bark of a Cinchona tree could cure malaria. If the population that eventually developed the sickle cell trait as a common trait had had access to quinine, most of those people would now have healthy blood, instead of suffering the ravages of sickle cell anemia.

So, the idea that letting people die natually of disease is somehow "culling the herd" is a false one. If you believe that a trait leads to fitness, nature might not decide to back you up. The people who had access to medicine were less likely in the above example to transmit unpleasant traits to their offspring.

Evolution is a kludge.

Nope, I'm afraid. Any foodstuff containing aspartame has to be labelled "Contains a source of phenylalanine", which it does. This is because sufferers of phenylketonuria are likely to die if they continually ingest it. More info here

Co-incidentally, my wife gets severe migraine if she takes anything containing aspartame. This works regardless of whether she's aware of the contents or not ....

(Controversially, the then commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Arthur Hayes, approved the general use of aspartame for the Searle corporation. Three months later, he was working for Burson-Marsteller, Searle's advertising agency. Co-incidence??)

The research described in the New Scientist article is just the tip of the iceberg.
Check out the conference notes from this 1999 (!!) NIMH Conference : Toward Replacement Parts for the Brain. The research reported on in the New Scientist article is in there, along with a boatload of other stuff.

It won't be all that much longer before "Intel Inside" has meaning in a more expanded context.

Now, will people with Palladium implants have their minds controlled by corporations?

There have been several studies on neurological and cognitive effects of marijuana usage. There have been few credible studies that demonstrate harmful neurological effects of marijuana. In fact, several studies show that marijuana may be neuroprotective and anti-oxidative, and useful for treatment of several neurological disorders. Credible studies that do indicate that marijuana may have neurotoxic properties focus on administering marijuana to rats for extended periods of time (according to one review, 10% of their life) and the results of these studies are not reproduced when conducted on animals more related to us, such as monkeys.

As for cognitive effects (on IQ, memory, etc. rather than neurological effects such as changes in brain metabolism and neuronal changes), studies usually indicate that, in the long-term (10 years of abstinence for instance), marijuana has no negative effect on cognition when consumed lightly, moderately, or heavily. In the shorter term (a month of abstinence for instance), light or moderate consumption of marijuana has not proven to have negative cognitive effects. However, there has been shown to be decreases in cognitive performance after a month for heavy users of marijuana. However, in most of these studies, heavy is defined as the equivalent of more than 20 or 30 joints in one week, which far exceeds the amount usually consumed by most users and is very rare in extended periods of time.

My above comments are from memory of studies I have read in the past, but I went over to pubmed to have some URLs to post of such studies. I grew tired of this, however, but here are a few abstracts of studies and reviews.

Review of literature on neurotoxicity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1666926&dopt=Abstract

Neuroprotective and anti-oxidative qualities:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12054093&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11157423&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9653176&dopt=Abstract

Long-term cognitive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11949984&dopt=Abstrac t

There have been several studies on neurological and cognitive effects of marijuana usage. There have been few credible studies that demonstrate harmful neurological effects of marijuana. In fact, several studies show that marijuana may be neuroprotective and anti-oxidative, and useful for treatment of several neurological disorders. Credible studies that do indicate that marijuana may have neurotoxic properties focus on administering marijuana to rats for extended periods of time (according to one review, 10% of their life) and the results of these studies are not reproduced when conducted on animals more related to us, such as monkeys.

As for cognitive effects (on IQ, memory, etc. rather than neurological effects such as changes in brain metabolism and neuronal changes), studies usually indicate that, in the long-term (10 years of abstinence for instance), marijuana has no negative effect on cognition when consumed lightly, moderately, or heavily. In the shorter term (a month of abstinence for instance), light or moderate consumption of marijuana has not proven to have negative cognitive effects. However, there has been shown to be decreases in cognitive performance after a month for heavy users of marijuana. However, in most of these studies, heavy is defined as the equivalent of more than 20 or 30 joints in one week, which far exceeds the amount usually consumed by most users and is very rare in extended periods of time.

My above comments are from memory of studies I have read in the past, but I went over to pubmed to have some URLs to post of such studies. I grew tired of this, however, but here are a few abstracts of studies and reviews.

Review of literature on neurotoxicity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1666926&dopt=Abstract

Neuroprotective and anti-oxidative qualities:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12054093&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11157423&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9653176&dopt=Abstract

Long-term cognitive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11949984&dopt=Abstrac t

There have been several studies on neurological and cognitive effects of marijuana usage. There have been few credible studies that demonstrate harmful neurological effects of marijuana. In fact, several studies show that marijuana may be neuroprotective and anti-oxidative, and useful for treatment of several neurological disorders. Credible studies that do indicate that marijuana may have neurotoxic properties focus on administering marijuana to rats for extended periods of time (according to one review, 10% of their life) and the results of these studies are not reproduced when conducted on animals more related to us, such as monkeys.

As for cognitive effects (on IQ, memory, etc. rather than neurological effects such as changes in brain metabolism and neuronal changes), studies usually indicate that, in the long-term (10 years of abstinence for instance), marijuana has no negative effect on cognition when consumed lightly, moderately, or heavily. In the shorter term (a month of abstinence for instance), light or moderate consumption of marijuana has not proven to have negative cognitive effects. However, there has been shown to be decreases in cognitive performance after a month for heavy users of marijuana. However, in most of these studies, heavy is defined as the equivalent of more than 20 or 30 joints in one week, which far exceeds the amount usually consumed by most users and is very rare in extended periods of time.

My above comments are from memory of studies I have read in the past, but I went over to pubmed to have some URLs to post of such studies. I grew tired of this, however, but here are a few abstracts of studies and reviews.

Review of literature on neurotoxicity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1666926&dopt=Abstract

Neuroprotective and anti-oxidative qualities:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12054093&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11157423&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9653176&dopt=Abstract

Long-term cognitive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11949984&dopt=Abstrac t

There have been several studies on neurological and cognitive effects of marijuana usage. There have been few credible studies that demonstrate harmful neurological effects of marijuana. In fact, several studies show that marijuana may be neuroprotective and anti-oxidative, and useful for treatment of several neurological disorders. Credible studies that do indicate that marijuana may have neurotoxic properties focus on administering marijuana to rats for extended periods of time (according to one review, 10% of their life) and the results of these studies are not reproduced when conducted on animals more related to us, such as monkeys.

As for cognitive effects (on IQ, memory, etc. rather than neurological effects such as changes in brain metabolism and neuronal changes), studies usually indicate that, in the long-term (10 years of abstinence for instance), marijuana has no negative effect on cognition when consumed lightly, moderately, or heavily. In the shorter term (a month of abstinence for instance), light or moderate consumption of marijuana has not proven to have negative cognitive effects. However, there has been shown to be decreases in cognitive performance after a month for heavy users of marijuana. However, in most of these studies, heavy is defined as the equivalent of more than 20 or 30 joints in one week, which far exceeds the amount usually consumed by most users and is very rare in extended periods of time.

My above comments are from memory of studies I have read in the past, but I went over to pubmed to have some URLs to post of such studies. I grew tired of this, however, but here are a few abstracts of studies and reviews.

Review of literature on neurotoxicity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1666926&dopt=Abstract

Neuroprotective and anti-oxidative qualities:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12054093&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11157423&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9653176&dopt=Abstract

Long-term cognitive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11949984&dopt=Abstrac t

There have been several studies on neurological and cognitive effects of marijuana usage. There have been few credible studies that demonstrate harmful neurological effects of marijuana. In fact, several studies show that marijuana may be neuroprotective and anti-oxidative, and useful for treatment of several neurological disorders. Credible studies that do indicate that marijuana may have neurotoxic properties focus on administering marijuana to rats for extended periods of time (according to one review, 10% of their life) and the results of these studies are not reproduced when conducted on animals more related to us, such as monkeys.

As for cognitive effects (on IQ, memory, etc. rather than neurological effects such as changes in brain metabolism and neuronal changes), studies usually indicate that, in the long-term (10 years of abstinence for instance), marijuana has no negative effect on cognition when consumed lightly, moderately, or heavily. In the shorter term (a month of abstinence for instance), light or moderate consumption of marijuana has not proven to have negative cognitive effects. However, there has been shown to be decreases in cognitive performance after a month for heavy users of marijuana. However, in most of these studies, heavy is defined as the equivalent of more than 20 or 30 joints in one week, which far exceeds the amount usually consumed by most users and is very rare in extended periods of time.

My above comments are from memory of studies I have read in the past, but I went over to pubmed to have some URLs to post of such studies. I grew tired of this, however, but here are a few abstracts of studies and reviews.

Review of literature on neurotoxicity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1666926&dopt=Abstract

Neuroprotective and anti-oxidative qualities:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12054093&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11157423&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9653176&dopt=Abstract

Long-term cognitive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11949984&dopt=Abstrac t

Even better, some people who have had gene therapy come down with a bad case of leukemia (there or google it yerself). So what happens when only a fraction of the cells in a muscle start cranking out IGF, I wonder? Does the muscle loose some cohesion?

A simple windows r00tkit can be found here. :)

Actually one thing that concerns me about this is the ACADEMIC use of the network. It's quite common these days for researchers who publish articles in the biggest general purpose scientific journals (Science and Nature) as well as lots of other more specialized journals to put additional information about their work such as additional, very large figures (most Science and Nature articles are 2-3 pages leaving very little room for complicated figures), specialized protocols, raw data sets, etc. on local servers.

If these researchers are penalized for having the results of their scientific research accessed online how does that advance the academic mission of universities? With "publish or perish" being the mantra at most US universities, those who actually do publish useful information will be punished.

What about folks that run mirrors for large databases like GenBank or BLAST? Baylor College of Medicine runs a hugely popular bioinformatics database/query server called Search Launcher. If they were at Cornell, they'd have to shut it down or put up a fucking "Donate With PayPal" button on the site in order to keep running. How exactly does this advance the academic/research mission of a university?

Sure, folks using the academic networks for amassing enormous pr0n databases and leeching warez should have caps on their usage but what about legitimate academic use?

BFL

Actually one thing that concerns me about this is the ACADEMIC use of the network. It's quite common these days for researchers who publish articles in the biggest general purpose scientific journals (Science and Nature) as well as lots of other more specialized journals to put additional information about their work such as additional, very large figures (most Science and Nature articles are 2-3 pages leaving very little room for complicated figures), specialized protocols, raw data sets, etc. on local servers.

If these researchers are penalized for having the results of their scientific research accessed online how does that advance the academic mission of universities? With "publish or perish" being the mantra at most US universities, those who actually do publish useful information will be punished.

What about folks that run mirrors for large databases like GenBank or BLAST? Baylor College of Medicine runs a hugely popular bioinformatics database/query server called Search Launcher. If they were at Cornell, they'd have to shut it down or put up a fucking "Donate With PayPal" button on the site in order to keep running. How exactly does this advance the academic/research mission of a university?

Sure, folks using the academic networks for amassing enormous pr0n databases and leeching warez should have caps on their usage but what about legitimate academic use?

BFL

I can only assume that you're trolling, but just so that no one else puts any stock in the bullshit spewing forth from the parent post...

There is NO relationship between sugar and hyperactivity.

ADD is genetic, not a result of bad parenting (although bad parenting can exacerbate the symptoms).

And as someone who is on medication to treat ADD, I can tell you that my life before and after starting the medication (both as a child and as an adult) is like night and day. Ritalin, the most common medication for ADD, is one of the most well-researched and longest-used (since the 1940s) drugs currently available. Like ANY medication, these is some risk involved in using it. The majority of the risk comes from not using the medication properly, overdosing, or allergic reaction.

There is not one, single, documented case of Prozac (the most common anti-depressant) creating a "psychotic". Not one.

Start there The NCBI site also has a FTP repository, where you can download the raw files. And here you can get a nice open software suite to work on it.

Actually, we have an agreement. I don't bring my work home with me, and she won't bring her work home with her. I was very happy to agree to that.

Actually, she hasn't actually worked with the virus yet. She's sequenced the RNA of Ebola Reston, but she wasn't cleared to enter the Level 4 lab until last week. Now is when I can start worrying ;)

Check out Online Mendelian Links in Man This is a database of 14000 human traits known to be genetic. Many have been mapped to specfic genes, or at least to within limited regions of a chromosome. Look up PTC tasting, cystic fibrosis, or sickle cell anemia for example.

Pick any 3 of these 14000 entries. Critique the experimental evidence, explaining why you think it is bullshit (links to the literature are provided for each entry). We await your response with baited breath.

You might enjoy reading this article in Genome Biology. I'm including a link to the abstract in pubmed. In this article Mann and Bartolomei review a whole bunch of neat stuff, which would be fun to read if I had a subscription to the journal in question. Science journals are annoying that way. (Darn publishers. Go biomed central!)

Another review, this time from Science, comes from Jaenisch's lab out at MIT. It provides a nice explanation of epigenetics and why it is still pretty hard to get live birth clones.

And, on a lighter note, one of my coworkers was out in Scotland a few years ago, and got to go see Dolly. He has a nice picture of him standing next to her which he keeps tacked up on the bulletin board by his lab bench. He also has another picture that is not posted. In this one he is pretending to hump Dolly.

I guess he'll be mourning her in a special way this Valentine's Day.

You might enjoy reading this article in Genome Biology. I'm including a link to the abstract in pubmed. In this article Mann and Bartolomei review a whole bunch of neat stuff, which would be fun to read if I had a subscription to the journal in question. Science journals are annoying that way. (Darn publishers. Go biomed central!)

Another review, this time from Science, comes from Jaenisch's lab out at MIT. It provides a nice explanation of epigenetics and why it is still pretty hard to get live birth clones.

And, on a lighter note, one of my coworkers was out in Scotland a few years ago, and got to go see Dolly. He has a nice picture of him standing next to her which he keeps tacked up on the bulletin board by his lab bench. He also has another picture that is not posted. In this one he is pretending to hump Dolly.

I guess he'll be mourning her in a special way this Valentine's Day.

A search for Kvenvolden turns up a lot of hits on PubMed, but no evidence as far as sequence or structure submissions. It would be interesting to see the evidence that backs up the claims. If the rocks truly did contain bits of ET, I wonder what a BLAST homology search would turn up.

It's the very high end scientific and medical stuff that really benefits from high-end computing, though at that point you also have issues relating to shipping the data involved about. And security too. (What fun!)

I just checked, and marijuana (from the hemp plant) apparently was cultivated thousands of years ago in central asia (yes, China), then made its way west to Europe. It was imported (alien species!) to the New World very around 1600, as the hemp provided valuable fiber. I saw the stuff growing wild many feet tall in Asia, which was kind of startling. The varieties grown for drug use has been refined to have many times the THC of the wild variety. The US prohibits growing low-THC hemp for the idiotic reason that it makes law enforcement look bad. Soem argue it does have economic value.

Don't ask me to connect pot and natural selection....

Sickle cell is oh-so-nasty, and even the heterozygotes show some mild symptoms. Yes, I learned the same thing sickle cell and malaria. Only a fraction (8-45% by region) of Africans have the trait, so probably people with it simply survive somewhat more often. I guess it was a glitch at some point that helped, but was not do-or-die essential to survival.

Since they have somatic cells (ie normal cells not eggs or sperm) if they clone it into an elephant egg they will get an baby mammoth of the same gender and the original.

I really doubt that mammoth and elephant are more cross fertile that horse/donkey and the offspring will be sterile which means that the only way to perpetuate the species is by continued cloning.... However if the mammoth is male it could be possible to deactivate the 'male gene' (SRY in humans) and create a female mammoth.

I know a Song about that

(to Home on the Range)
Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With the Y chromosome changed to X.
And when she is grown,
My very own clone,
We'll be of the opposite sex.

Chorus:
Clone, clone of my own,
With the Y chromosome changed to X.
And when we're alone,
Since her mind is my own,
She'll be thinking of nothing but sex.

I don't have much time to discuss it and I'm not a virologist, but I can suggest some reading.

The Barcelona report, the result of a conference last year. The link "The Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic" is particularly informative in showing it isn't just a "handful of sufferers". I suggest browsing around theUNAIDS home page too.

About the HIV/AIDS link, if you have some time and an open mind, I suggest this site's links, this one being particularly useful.

About your questions, I don't know what you mean by epidemic patterns (I'm not an expert) but I don't think that question is important, if it's just a matter of calling it epidemics or not - there are many people infected and dying, and I've seen it referred as epidemics in many places; AZT is covered thoroughly in the links I gave you; I read somewhere that, although not clinically proven, statistics say amyl nitrate increases the chances of HIV infected people developping Kaposi's syndrome, but I don't know what is your point; diseases that are associated with AIDS are opportunistic diseases that take advantage of the damage to the immune system, I don't see a problem with that list changing.

Of course, if you don't want to believe, it's pointless. You can come up with a huge conspiracy theory involving thousands of scientists all over the world, and think whatever you want. Those who are affected by the disease deserve treatment though, and everyone deserves information, because denial theories could prompt people to stop being careful about prevention and to be hopeless about treatment.

That said, science lives off people like you, who are skeptic and don't accept things blindly. Contrary to what you may think, or not, scientists are encouraged to question and go against the establishment, that's very important and science isn't static, but at the end of the day the theory that survives is the one that's supported by the facts. New evidence could come up, and there might be a report tomorrow, saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but based on current evidence, most people strongly believe HIV causes AIDS.

Indeed. Try google for some more information, e.g http://www.nida.nih.gov/MOM/TG/momtg-nicotine.html . The release of dopamine may also be perceived as 'increased focus'.

"Cigarette smoking kills at least 400,000 people in the United States each year and makes countless others ill, including those who are exposed to secondhand smoke". Try tell me with a straight face that that is productivity enhancing in any company/economy..

Benzoyl Peroxide is an acne medication. They are definitely looking for H2O2...

Justin

I have enough trouble walking into a bar and when someone chooses to talk to me, explaning that I'm a molecular biologist. I get two responses: a blank look of confusion and the rapid departure of the person and the always trite, "Oh that's so noble." Followed by a story about someone in their family who has a disease or condition that is not relevant to what I study.

Imagine being the poor person who has to explain that they work on a gene responsible for nice arses in sheep.

See that reference at the bottom of the New Scientist article: "Journal reference: Science (vol 299, p 677)"?
Science Magazine is where to go for the actual results as explained by the people who did the research (as opposed to results as filtered through the mind of a journalist on a deadline, without the time to really understand the research, and with a desire to make the research more "interesting" and more "accessible" to his readers, regardless of the impact that may have on accuracy).

For those who have access to Science (your school may have a site subscription?) go here. For everyone else, the abstract is here courtesy of the National Institutes of Health.

I'll come back and post the full text of the article later.

-A.C.

It's quite simple. There are several labs/companies out there that are attempting to make biosensors out of members of the green fluorescent protein family (of the green fluorescent bunny fame). This is done by introducing random and/or specific mutations to the gene encoding the fluorescent protein in the hopes of making it able to translate some biologically important phenomenon such as pH, redox levels, various metal ion levels (there's an especially slick one out there for detecting calcium levels, for example) into a detectable fluorescence signal. Naturally this takes a hell of a lot of work and the people who do this want to be compensated for their efforts, hence patents.

Now what about an unmodified, naturally occuring gene? Well, around about 1994 or 95 people started using green fluorescent protein (GFP) as a tool in cell biology and now if you do a search on PubMed you get 8661 articles. That's one incredibly useful little protein tool. Now in 1999 a new fluorescent protein DsRed was discovered, and it was cool. Being red, it was easier to see in cells which fluoresce in the blue and green ranges by themselves which made it valuable as a tool. Now these guys who found the organism, had the moment of genius to look for a fluorescent protein, found it, and made it all work naturally wanted to be compensated for it. Is this wrong?

The article recommened aspirin. Note that Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) is extremely rare. Given the approximate rate of DVT in airplane passengers, you would need to treat 17,000 people with aspirin to prevent one event of DVT according to this source. Just my 2 cents

Does it require different treatment? Would doses of cyber-warfarin cure it? If not, would the implant of a Bayesian vena cava filter be an alternative?

And how would you locate the clots in the first place? By ultrasound, of course. Gotta ping 'em!

You might want to check the NCBI taxonomy browser.

There you have at least a searchable database with the species names, their scientific names and links to sequences or other information.

It lacks the photos, the diet, their location and other 'higher level' stuff though.

A consensus panel convened by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) today concluded there is clear evidence that needle acupuncture treatment is effective for postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting, nausea of pregnancy, and postoperative dental pain.

I suppose now you're going to try and say the NIH isn't a reputable source? I'm aware of plenty more trusted clinical trials if you're still not convinced.

NIH Panel Issues Consensus Statement on Acupuncture

Interesting, my company is involved in a grant with the National Science Foundation to produce a multimedia database primarily for medical information which is all professionally cataloged so as to accept/reject submitted multimedia based on the quality and accuracy of the information the contributor provides. Anyway the goal is to give educators and students a place to share and find information with 100% signal, and no noise. It uses an established, focused, and standard vocabulary (Medical Subject Headings) as well as the usual keyword-based searching.

Reinventing the wheel, it seems (sigh).

-Sou|cuttr

The Science article makes the case that observed orangutan behavior is more closely correlated with geographic location and opportunities for direct transfer of skills than to habitat (independent innovation). The authors then speculate that the common ancestor of all the great apes could have had this ability, and therefore, the beginnings of hominid culture could extend back 14 million years.

I find it interesting to speculate that something in our neural circuitry enabled early primates to learn from each other. I wonder if anyone within the human brain project is considering this area of research.

Space requirements for "gene info" are either modest or laughable (depending on your definition of "gene info"), by todays "enterprise" standards

As an example: GenBank contains basically all published sequences, and the whole thing is only about 80GB (if memory serves), but the pure sequence in it would only take up slightly more than 5GB (assuming a binary format, ie two bits per base).

Here's their stats page.

I think the source of your confusion on this is the way Science chose to title the story. By "Small RNAs" they didn't actually mean snoRNA-sized things (for instance, go here and click on "Overview of snoRNAs"). They're talking about what have been referred to as "tiny RNAs" or most commonly "small interfering RNAs" (siRNAs) in the literature (for instance see here about siRNAs, and there's also a very good discussion of them here as well as a couple of other classes of really small RNA molecules. The sizes of all these things tend to intergrade a bit, so there's a little terminological confusion sometimes. The primary differences tend to be by definition of function.

Here's a quote from the Science article which illustrates their point:

Another crucial step came last year, when Gregory Hannon of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York and his colleagues identified an enzyme, appropriately dubbed Dicer, that generates the small RNA molecules by chopping double-stranded RNA into little pieces. These bits belong to one of two small RNA classes produced by different types of genes: microRNAs (miRNAs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). SiRNAs are considered to be the main players in RNAi, although miRNAs, which inhibit translation of RNA into protein, were recently implicated in this machinery as well.

The exciting part in all of this is that function is now being assigned to what people previously tended to refer to as "all that gunk at the bottom of the gel".

Not really, depending on how you mean "stem cell". If you just mean cells with the potential to differentiate into a variety of different tissue types, then you can find stem cells in adult tissues ranging from marrow to muscle to brain. Just query PubMed for "adult stem cells". If you insist on the most rigorous possible definition-omnipotent, immortal cells--then the question is more in doubt.

Why not? That's like saying if I use DNA sequencing to find the identity of a criminal, it's just a chemically-assisted guess. Or, using a microphone to detect and record a distant conversation is just an electronically-assisted guess. The data is still there in the photo, it's just not visible to the human eye. What IS unfortunate is that they use Photoshop for this analysis. If they used a respected scientific image processing program like NIH Image, which doesn't have any pixel editing or distorting capabilities, I bet no one would bat an eye.

Image transforms do not add information to an image, they just make it easier to see the information which is there (try using Photoshop Auto-level to make an image of bill clinton shaking hands with an alien). Using dodge and burn over an entire image or a large area of it will not let you change fingerprints, just make existing ones easier to see. However, if you go into photoshop and use a one pixel burn brush you could draw lines with it. This is why it's important that the person doing the image processing isn't also doing the fingerprint analysis. It's like medical imaging- the imaging tech generates a good image, the doctor decides what it means.

As for the 'As if by magic' and 'psuedo-science' bits in the article, those are irresponsible hype. It's like saying you expose film in a camera, develop it, and an image appears as if by magic. If you didn't know how a TV worked, you'd think that was magic too. As for the unrepeatability of results, no two people using fingerprint dust will get exactly the same results. Same with a photoshop brush. If you brushed the same areas in the same ways, you'd get the same results, otherwise not. Duh.
This does bring up a point of repeatable, localized image processing. My guess is it wouldn't be too hard to get the GIMP to record all brush strokes. It surely stores their results for the undo option. How hard would it be to output an XML encoded series of operations along with the output image? Then if there's any question as to the usability of the results, someone can start with the original image and apply the same set of operations one at a time. Maybe add image cryptosigning, and sell linux+gimp boxen as forensics tools.
Finally, i'm surprised there isn't a standard government issue image transform system. NIH Image might be a good place to start, or just a front end to matlab's image processing toolbox which is luser-friendly and keeps usable, crypto-signable records of each transform it does. As long as there aren't any brushes, no expert witness in image processing is going to say you could doctor prints.

Sorry. :)

If you're taking St. John's WART, yuck. If Wort, well, the concern with St. John's Wort is that while it probably has mild antidepressant effects (some of which may be placebo), it also steps on other toes in the nervous system to cause complications in some individuals. Although I am indifferent as to the source of a drug, some people like that St. John's Wort is "natural." So are strychnine and a thousand other nature's poisons -- natural doesn't mean safe. :)

In terms of effect, commercial antidepressants are much more powerful and have fewer side effects. Prozac has just come off patent, so it's finally cheap. Taking St. John's Wort in conjunction with prescription drugs can cause problems, esp. if you don't tell your doctor.

There is also good reason to question self-medication. If the depression is more than minor, or even if it merely won't go away, do consult with a doctor. You can always say no to further treatment. If you say yes, be cautious to get a good doctor, they are not all created equal (I used to work at a psych hospital, I know).

Anyway -- do some research on the web, I have seen many postings concerning St. John's Wort, and it's best if you read until you're satisfied for yourself. Here is the NIH view.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

and

http://genome.ucsc.edu/

The field is just starting to really contribute to society as a whole, with the first drugs developed using rational drug design being used in medical practice.

Who wants just steady progress? Most people want exponential progress in medicine, and that will only happen if the field grows.

Most of the people who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS haven't bothered to do much reading either. Read these online articles, which actually give a complete list of citations which you can then explore:

The Relationship between HIV and AIDS

The vidence that HIV causes AIDS

As for the "prominent scientists", some of them are operating waaaay outside their area of expertise. Kary Mullis had one brilliant discovery and doesn't seem to have done much else, aside from taking acid and surfing. One particularly loud denier that I know of is actually a math professor known for his aggressive crusades against anyone holding opinions contrary to him. He was once caught making a bold claim about media coverage of AIDS that was quickly proved wrong by a reporter with LEXIS/NEXIS access.

Most of the people who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS haven't bothered to do much reading either. Read these online articles, which actually give a complete list of citations which you can then explore:

The Relationship between HIV and AIDS

The vidence that HIV causes AIDS

As for the "prominent scientists", some of them are operating waaaay outside their area of expertise. Kary Mullis had one brilliant discovery and doesn't seem to have done much else, aside from taking acid and surfing. One particularly loud denier that I know of is actually a math professor known for his aggressive crusades against anyone holding opinions contrary to him. He was once caught making a bold claim about media coverage of AIDS that was quickly proved wrong by a reporter with LEXIS/NEXIS access.

Perhaps it's a learning disability (LD), not ADHD (which is often over-diagnosed and trated with un-necessary drugs).

My sister has a LD and had quite a lot of trouble with school. She was very smart and still did poorly. Luckly, my mom found out some information about learning disabilities before she bought into the "ADHD craze".

Basically, with a learning disability, there's a sort of short-wiring with the way the brain interprets some hearing, so in effect, it's very difficult to hear things and understand them correctly. Often things need to be repeated two or three times in order to be comprehended or learned.

There are ways that this can be dealt with, suttle little changes that can change her life. For example, the doctor my sister saw suggested tape recording lectures in order to play them later to understand. That worked wonders. There are other things, and symptoms that you should check out, before you decide ADHD is the only possible conclusion:

• LD Online
• LD Resources
• National Institute of Mental Health - LD page

Hope this helps and that you seek out alternatives before giving into the fad of ADHD and drugs as a treatment.

For interest this sequence has 98% identity to:

"Homo sapiens v-erb-b2 erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 2, neuro/glioblastoma derived oncogene homolog (avian)(ERBB2), mRNA"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/