For basic maths or physics, I agree with you that open source textbooks would be a great idea. The problem is when you talk about textbooks for more rapidly evolving fields, such as the life sciences. I can see how open source textbooks would be a very difficult proposition for biology texts. If the government wanted to fund such an endeavor it would not be "write once then forget about it", you would have to constantly update and revise it every few years. This means that there would need to be a permanent editorial board with support staff. The editorial board would have to have sufficient expertise in the field(s) to recognize what constitutes a significant advance in biology, as well as be able to decide what is an appropriate level of knowledge to present in textbook format. What with my teaching schedule and research demands, I just don't see me or anyone else in my field doing this, because it would be a full time endeavor that would take me out of the loop of my other professional duties. Unless there is a permanent position created for this (e.g., an NSF directorate with program officers and associated staff), I just don't see anyone risking their career for this.
A completely open and crowd-sourced book in the vein of Wikibooks is also doomed from the get-go, because any dolt can come along and edit things that have been carefully considered and written by an expert in the field (this is why I no longer contribute to Wikipedia). I suppose a hybrid model is possible, wherein edits may be submitted to a transparent editorial board for consideration, but again there is the issue of who would be willing to act as editor?
I suppose a third possibility to hold down costs is the formation of a non-profit publishing corporation that would publish works just as traditional publishing houses would, except that with a non-profit charter it would be able to keep prices low.
Most students who take an anatomy class at the level that requires animal dissection fall into two categories: those who are interested in an allied health profession (e.g., nursing, physical therapy) and those who are either interested in becoming professional biologists or medical doctors. I think you could make a pretty good case that in both cases, real dissections are an essential part of the students' training. Your average college student is not masochistic enough to take what is typically a course much tougher than a garden variety general education class. I don't know how the education system works in India, but I think the vast majority of biology departments in the US would not be willing to use models exclusive of real dissection. That being said, we do use models to supplement instruction, but these are physical models, not computer-based. Unless 3D displays become radically better and give tactile feedback, I don't see computer dissecting simulations displacing physical models either.
my new iPhone 4S out of the box had a fast draining battery. After messing with it in a completely non-scientific and non-systematic way and switching off some services (e.g., Ping) battery life is "normal" now. So it probably is a software issue.
my 10 year old LOVES Portal, and Portal 2 Co-op mode is loads of fun. It's not quite an adventure game in the pure sense, but the last level of Portal really captured her imagination, especially with the escape into the hidden areas of Aperture Labs. Portal 2 Co-op mode on an XBox is really good, because it's split screen, which makes it very easy to help out when the other player gets stuck.
You, sir, are an idiot. Let's say someone exploits this and blows up a flight somewhere. Or, they manage to hijack the plane and fly it into some building (the how is irrelevant). I don't see any of the people killed by the collateral damage opting out of getting killed.
Phosphorus (or more precisely, phosphate) is used to form the covalent linkages between nucleotide bases in DNA and RNA. You could, in theory, retain the Watson-Crick basepairing of G, A, T, and C while replacing phosphate with something else such as arsenic. That is to say, the nucleotide bases are the bits of information, whereas the phosphate just holds it all together. To use a computer analogy, data is data, whether you store it on a hard drive or a flash drive.
What intrigues me more, is what about ATP? Adenosine triphosphate is not only used for making RNA, but it's also the universal common energy currency for almost all enzymes in all known organisms that catalyze endothermic reactions. If phosphate is not used in this arsenic-based organism, do they still use ATP as an energy source, and if not, what does it use and what kinds of adaptations does it enzymes have to accomodate this?
That mRNAs are edited post-transcriptionally has been known for some time now. In mammals, RNA modifying enzymes will act on specific mRNAs to alter their base structures, thereby changing their amino acid encoding. (too tired right now to provide a link, but this happens for mRNAs coding for AMPA-class glutamate-gated ion channels). It's not so much that it happens per se that is amazing; its that it happens at this large scale.
Much of this stuff is based on nex-gen high throughput sequencing technology, which has emerged just in the past 3-4 years or so. Very cool stuff.
why would I want to buy books and music that is tied to either a particular hardware platform and/or DRM scheme, at or above (or even near) cost of the physical media? Whenever possible I buy CDs or dead tree edition books. Occasionally I have bought DRM-free tracks from Amazon (I don't want to buy iTunes tracks because even though you can get DRM-free stuff from there it's inconvenient to move things between different devices), but overall I prefer physical media, which I can chose to sell later in the second-hand market if I so choose.
Its the same deal with e-textbooks. I teach university-level biology, and when the publisher is asking $100 for the e-book and $120 for the hardcopy, how can I recommend the ebook in good faith, especially when the publisher even outsources their DRM technology?
I have been using SMS more and more ever since Google Voice offered free SMS (at least for US numbers) and a smartphone has made an SMS to email transition a feasible mobile solution.
I don't know about other states, but in CA once money is earmarked for construction (many times it's so-called "one-time" money, or money that came from a one time windfall), one is prohibited from using it for any other purpose. For instance, at my daughter's school district, the new annex just completed this year at the district office has leather couches, mahoghany accent tables, and marble floors in their reception area. All the money for the construction of this annex was earmarked years ago, when the economy was still "strong". Despite the fact that the actual monetary needs of the district are elsewhere (teachers anyone?), they cannot use the money for anything else, even though it would have made much more sense to go with cheaper materials and use the surplus from construction to fund instruction.
On a research grade light microscope, the maximum magnification one can get without loss of resolution is roughly 1500x - 1600x, not 400x as the summary suggests. Also, resolution of the image has nothing to do with magnification; the numerical aperture (N.A.) of the objective lens determines the resolution.
no, engineered viruses are nowhere near that advanced. Most viruses are limited by payload; there is a limit to how much DNA (or RNA) you can engineer into a viral particle. (not unlike a BIOS virus I suppose). Also, the viruses that are able to modify the host genome do so at random locations, so it is hard to precisely control where you want a particular modification to occur. And, the virus only modifies a very small portion of the host genome. Finally, most viruses are highly picky as to what kinds of cells they will infect. For instance, HIV will only target helper T cells in the immune system. Engineering HIV to, for instance, infect cytotoxic T cells (another type of white blood cell that is similar but distinct) will never work, because as far as HIV is concerned a cytotoxic T cell is no different than a kidney cell (that is, it's not a helper T cell).
I agree that the article makes it sound recent and I got misled too before reading TFA. But can you explain why you differentiate between cell aging and human aging? Isn't human aging a consequence of cell aging?
cell aging is different than organism aging. Cells, by and large, are cheap to produce and are expendable. You produce cells via binary cell division; one cell becomes two new cells. However, most cell lineages can divide only a finite number of times. When cells from a lineage have undergone a certain number of divisions, they lose the ability to divide further. This is what is generally meant by "aged cells". Of course, each cell has a limited useful lifespan as well. Some cells (red blood cells) only last a few months, whereas others (neurons) last a lifetime. But whereas it is easy to replace a RBC (because of stem cells that do not have a limited number of cell divisions), it is somewhat harder to replace a neuron.
The number of times a cell can divide is limited by how long telomeres are. Each time a cell divides, its telomeres get shorter. The cell has mechanisms in place that measures telomere length. Once they are below a certain threshold, cell division stops. This is because (for reasons too detailed to get into here) sufficiently long telomeres are essential for replication of chromosome ends. Without such long telomeres, chromosome ends would fail to replicate. Normal cells do not express active telomerase, the enzyme needed to maintain telomere length during DNA replication. Stem cells and cancer cells have active telomerase.
IMHO O-chem as it is taught by most chemistry departments is completely useless for pre-med students. There ought to be a lower level biochemistry course in its stead as a pre-req for pre-meds. Most MDs will NEVER have to worry about organic synthesis and crap like that; they WILL need to worry about metabolic pathways and enzymatic reactions.
I guess YMMV. My brand new Dell desktop running OEM installed Vista blue screens ALL THE TIME. In fact, this is what convinced me to switch to Macs at work, and when the Dell finally dies beyond repair to switch to Macs at home as well.
There is also a new NIH mandate that any research results that are published as a result of NIH funding must be open access after 6 months of the publication date. There is definitely a shift to the open access paradigm. How this will affect the business model of traditional publishing houses is not known, nor do I particularly care. Support open access journals!
You may have missed the part about requiring sunlight. Also, a common misconception about photosynthesis is that plants need "nutrients" to synthesize glucose from CO2. In terms of the biochemical pathways, the only "nutrient" that are required are water and CO2; the free energy required for photosynthesis and de novo glucogenesis is provided by photons from sunlight. ATP and NADPH, energy intermediates that are consumed during the dark reactions of photosynthesis (the Calvin cycle), are generated during the light reactions of photosynthesis.
I don't know much about the innards of Peoplesoft, but speaking as a faculty end user, it is a steaming pile of crap. The current implementation of Peoplesoft running across all 23 campuses of the California State University system is estimated to have cost over $700 million at this point.
Just as one example, this fall students were being booted out of classes they legitimately enrolled in, because the financial aid module could not talk to the enrollment module properly, leading the system to think that these students did not pay tuition. Our department office spent the better part of the last 3 weeks manually re-enrolling everyone.
There is a state auditor's report on the CSU selection and implementation of Peoplesoft, which began back in 1997 (too lazy to link to it but Google will find you the.pdf). After skimming through it, I couldn't believe that no CSU executives were not indicted on insider trading and corruption charges.
most users are not computer geeks who have time to install/learn/ test drive/reinstall operating systems for fun. For instance, my wife is a biology professor who uses a Mac. There is something seriously wrong with her Mac Book. There is a perceptible 0.5 sec. lag between when a key is hit before it appears on the screen. However, it STILL works good enough for her that she doesn't want to reinstall OS X, because that will lead to down time. (it would drive me insane, but she is a slow typer so it doesn't affect her). She is a smart person obviously and given enough time she probably could learn to run a Linux laptop (e.g. Ubuntu), but why would she want to do that? It would be counterproductive. She already has a laptop that does everything she wants.
I use Windows XP because I hate Macs, but I hate Windows slightly less:) granted I haven't looked at Linux in a few years but back when I tried it, the learning curve was way too steep. I gave up and went back to XP so I could get work done instead of trying to configure the X server to work right with a scrolling touchpad.
For most people, there is nothing wrong with Windows and Mac OS. They may be crappy/non-free operating systems, but they're usually good enough to get some job done.
actually, the human heart has very poor healing capacity. This is why ischemic heart disease eventually kills you; your damaged heart heals by scarring, which leads to decreased cardiac output and eventually apoptotic or necrotic cell death of cardiomyocytes.
IANAHRBMWI (I am not a heart researcher but my wife is)
Slashdot Mirror
IAABP (I am a biology professor).
For basic maths or physics, I agree with you that open source textbooks would be a great idea. The problem is when you talk about textbooks for more rapidly evolving fields, such as the life sciences. I can see how open source textbooks would be a very difficult proposition for biology texts. If the government wanted to fund such an endeavor it would not be "write once then forget about it", you would have to constantly update and revise it every few years. This means that there would need to be a permanent editorial board with support staff. The editorial board would have to have sufficient expertise in the field(s) to recognize what constitutes a significant advance in biology, as well as be able to decide what is an appropriate level of knowledge to present in textbook format. What with my teaching schedule and research demands, I just don't see me or anyone else in my field doing this, because it would be a full time endeavor that would take me out of the loop of my other professional duties. Unless there is a permanent position created for this (e.g., an NSF directorate with program officers and associated staff), I just don't see anyone risking their career for this.
A completely open and crowd-sourced book in the vein of Wikibooks is also doomed from the get-go, because any dolt can come along and edit things that have been carefully considered and written by an expert in the field (this is why I no longer contribute to Wikipedia). I suppose a hybrid model is possible, wherein edits may be submitted to a transparent editorial board for consideration, but again there is the issue of who would be willing to act as editor?
I suppose a third possibility to hold down costs is the formation of a non-profit publishing corporation that would publish works just as traditional publishing houses would, except that with a non-profit charter it would be able to keep prices low.
Most students who take an anatomy class at the level that requires animal dissection fall into two categories: those who are interested in an allied health profession (e.g., nursing, physical therapy) and those who are either interested in becoming professional biologists or medical doctors. I think you could make a pretty good case that in both cases, real dissections are an essential part of the students' training. Your average college student is not masochistic enough to take what is typically a course much tougher than a garden variety general education class. I don't know how the education system works in India, but I think the vast majority of biology departments in the US would not be willing to use models exclusive of real dissection. That being said, we do use models to supplement instruction, but these are physical models, not computer-based. Unless 3D displays become radically better and give tactile feedback, I don't see computer dissecting simulations displacing physical models either.
my new iPhone 4S out of the box had a fast draining battery. After messing with it in a completely non-scientific and non-systematic way and switching off some services (e.g., Ping) battery life is "normal" now. So it probably is a software issue.
my 10 year old LOVES Portal, and Portal 2 Co-op mode is loads of fun. It's not quite an adventure game in the pure sense, but the last level of Portal really captured her imagination, especially with the escape into the hidden areas of Aperture Labs. Portal 2 Co-op mode on an XBox is really good, because it's split screen, which makes it very easy to help out when the other player gets stuck.
I find it interesting that NASA showed no love for 2001: A Space Odyssey.
You, sir, are an idiot. Let's say someone exploits this and blows up a flight somewhere. Or, they manage to hijack the plane and fly it into some building (the how is irrelevant). I don't see any of the people killed by the collateral damage opting out of getting killed.
Phosphorus (or more precisely, phosphate) is used to form the covalent linkages between nucleotide bases in DNA and RNA. You could, in theory, retain the Watson-Crick basepairing of G, A, T, and C while replacing phosphate with something else such as arsenic. That is to say, the nucleotide bases are the bits of information, whereas the phosphate just holds it all together. To use a computer analogy, data is data, whether you store it on a hard drive or a flash drive.
What intrigues me more, is what about ATP? Adenosine triphosphate is not only used for making RNA, but it's also the universal common energy currency for almost all enzymes in all known organisms that catalyze endothermic reactions. If phosphate is not used in this arsenic-based organism, do they still use ATP as an energy source, and if not, what does it use and what kinds of adaptations does it enzymes have to accomodate this?
That mRNAs are edited post-transcriptionally has been known for some time now. In mammals, RNA modifying enzymes will act on specific mRNAs to alter their base structures, thereby changing their amino acid encoding. (too tired right now to provide a link, but this happens for mRNAs coding for AMPA-class glutamate-gated ion channels). It's not so much that it happens per se that is amazing; its that it happens at this large scale.
Much of this stuff is based on nex-gen high throughput sequencing technology, which has emerged just in the past 3-4 years or so. Very cool stuff.
why would I want to buy books and music that is tied to either a particular hardware platform and/or DRM scheme, at or above (or even near) cost of the physical media? Whenever possible I buy CDs or dead tree edition books. Occasionally I have bought DRM-free tracks from Amazon (I don't want to buy iTunes tracks because even though you can get DRM-free stuff from there it's inconvenient to move things between different devices), but overall I prefer physical media, which I can chose to sell later in the second-hand market if I so choose.
Its the same deal with e-textbooks. I teach university-level biology, and when the publisher is asking $100 for the e-book and $120 for the hardcopy, how can I recommend the ebook in good faith, especially when the publisher even outsources their DRM technology?
I have been using SMS more and more ever since Google Voice offered free SMS (at least for US numbers) and a smartphone has made an SMS to email transition a feasible mobile solution.
I don't know about other states, but in CA once money is earmarked for construction (many times it's so-called "one-time" money, or money that came from a one time windfall), one is prohibited from using it for any other purpose. For instance, at my daughter's school district, the new annex just completed this year at the district office has leather couches, mahoghany accent tables, and marble floors in their reception area. All the money for the construction of this annex was earmarked years ago, when the economy was still "strong". Despite the fact that the actual monetary needs of the district are elsewhere (teachers anyone?), they cannot use the money for anything else, even though it would have made much more sense to go with cheaper materials and use the surplus from construction to fund instruction.
nonetheless, trying to raise giant squid may not be a good idea:
http://xkcd.com/520/
On a research grade light microscope, the maximum magnification one can get without loss of resolution is roughly 1500x - 1600x, not 400x as the summary suggests. Also, resolution of the image has nothing to do with magnification; the numerical aperture (N.A.) of the objective lens determines the resolution.
no, engineered viruses are nowhere near that advanced. Most viruses are limited by payload; there is a limit to how much DNA (or RNA) you can engineer into a viral particle. (not unlike a BIOS virus I suppose). Also, the viruses that are able to modify the host genome do so at random locations, so it is hard to precisely control where you want a particular modification to occur. And, the virus only modifies a very small portion of the host genome. Finally, most viruses are highly picky as to what kinds of cells they will infect. For instance, HIV will only target helper T cells in the immune system. Engineering HIV to, for instance, infect cytotoxic T cells (another type of white blood cell that is similar but distinct) will never work, because as far as HIV is concerned a cytotoxic T cell is no different than a kidney cell (that is, it's not a helper T cell).
I agree that the article makes it sound recent and I got misled too before reading TFA.
But can you explain why you differentiate between cell aging and human aging? Isn't human aging a consequence of cell aging?
cell aging is different than organism aging. Cells, by and large, are cheap to produce and are expendable. You produce cells via binary cell division; one cell becomes two new cells. However, most cell lineages can divide only a finite number of times. When cells from a lineage have undergone a certain number of divisions, they lose the ability to divide further. This is what is generally meant by "aged cells". Of course, each cell has a limited useful lifespan as well. Some cells (red blood cells) only last a few months, whereas others (neurons) last a lifetime. But whereas it is easy to replace a RBC (because of stem cells that do not have a limited number of cell divisions), it is somewhat harder to replace a neuron.
The number of times a cell can divide is limited by how long telomeres are. Each time a cell divides, its telomeres get shorter. The cell has mechanisms in place that measures telomere length. Once they are below a certain threshold, cell division stops. This is because (for reasons too detailed to get into here) sufficiently long telomeres are essential for replication of chromosome ends. Without such long telomeres, chromosome ends would fail to replicate. Normal cells do not express active telomerase, the enzyme needed to maintain telomere length during DNA replication. Stem cells and cancer cells have active telomerase.
Hawking does not have a Nobel prize.
IAABP (I am a biology professor).
IMHO O-chem as it is taught by most chemistry departments is completely useless for pre-med students. There ought to be a lower level biochemistry course in its stead as a pre-req for pre-meds. Most MDs will NEVER have to worry about organic synthesis and crap like that; they WILL need to worry about metabolic pathways and enzymatic reactions.
I guess YMMV. My brand new Dell desktop running OEM installed Vista blue screens ALL THE TIME. In fact, this is what convinced me to switch to Macs at work, and when the Dell finally dies beyond repair to switch to Macs at home as well.
There is also a new NIH mandate that any research results that are published as a result of NIH funding must be open access after 6 months of the publication date. There is definitely a shift to the open access paradigm. How this will affect the business model of traditional publishing houses is not known, nor do I particularly care. Support open access journals!
it might refer to molecular weight of the protein encoded by the gene, i.e., 30 kilo Daltons. Just guessing, though.
You may have missed the part about requiring sunlight. Also, a common misconception about photosynthesis is that plants need "nutrients" to synthesize glucose from CO2. In terms of the biochemical pathways, the only "nutrient" that are required are water and CO2; the free energy required for photosynthesis and de novo glucogenesis is provided by photons from sunlight. ATP and NADPH, energy intermediates that are consumed during the dark reactions of photosynthesis (the Calvin cycle), are generated during the light reactions of photosynthesis.
not for external USB drives that are already pre-formatted with a FAT32 filesystem. Plug it in and go! your box is pwn3d.
I don't know much about the innards of Peoplesoft, but speaking as a faculty end user, it is a steaming pile of crap. The current implementation of Peoplesoft running across all 23 campuses of the California State University system is estimated to have cost over $700 million at this point.
.pdf). After skimming through it, I couldn't believe that no CSU executives were not indicted on insider trading and corruption charges.
Just as one example, this fall students were being booted out of classes they legitimately enrolled in, because the financial aid module could not talk to the enrollment module properly, leading the system to think that these students did not pay tuition. Our department office spent the better part of the last 3 weeks manually re-enrolling everyone.
There is a state auditor's report on the CSU selection and implementation of Peoplesoft, which began back in 1997 (too lazy to link to it but Google will find you the
most users are not computer geeks who have time to install/learn/ test drive/reinstall operating systems for fun. For instance, my wife is a biology professor who uses a Mac. There is something seriously wrong with her Mac Book. There is a perceptible 0.5 sec. lag between when a key is hit before it appears on the screen. However, it STILL works good enough for her that she doesn't want to reinstall OS X, because that will lead to down time. (it would drive me insane, but she is a slow typer so it doesn't affect her). She is a smart person obviously and given enough time she probably could learn to run a Linux laptop (e.g. Ubuntu), but why would she want to do that? It would be counterproductive. She already has a laptop that does everything she wants.
:) granted I haven't looked at Linux in a few years but back when I tried it, the learning curve was way too steep. I gave up and went back to XP so I could get work done instead of trying to configure the X server to work right with a scrolling touchpad.
I use Windows XP because I hate Macs, but I hate Windows slightly less
For most people, there is nothing wrong with Windows and Mac OS. They may be crappy/non-free operating systems, but they're usually good enough to get some job done.
actually, the human heart has very poor healing capacity. This is why ischemic heart disease eventually kills you; your damaged heart heals by scarring, which leads to decreased cardiac output and eventually apoptotic or necrotic cell death of cardiomyocytes.
IANAHRBMWI (I am not a heart researcher but my wife is)