the short answer is you're right. it's a shadow. but that doesn't mean what you think it means. they ARE shining a light on the pig. UV though, not green.
the long answer, which is mostly covered previously, although not cohesively, is that normally, light visible to you is reflected, not emitted, and you can see both the source and the reflection. fluorescent light is emitted not reflected. and in this case, the light source is not visible, and the emitted light is.
for reflected light, you shine a full spectrum of light at something. some wavelengths are absorbed, some reflected. the reflected ones are the ones you see. so if it looks red, that means that red light is bouncing off, and blue light isn't. but if you only shine blue light it will NOT look red, since there is no red light to bounce off and be seen.
in fluorescence, a certain wavelength of light will be absorbed by the protein, the energy used to emit light at a completely different wavelength. so, sticking with the previous example, you shine blue light at your object, you see red light. the object absorbed the blue and changed it to red.
the fluorescent protien they used happens to absorb UV (which is not really visible to you) and turn it into green light (which is). you can see the difference in the emitted light in the shape of the shadow from the illumination source. make sense? UV is a very common fluorescent light activator because it's just a bit higher energy wavelength than the human visible spectrum and therefore, when you lose a little bit of energy in changing the wavelength, it becomes visible. quite helpful scientifically.
it's easier to grasp visually in person than in a photo, but you can trust me: i'm from the internet.
there are a few issues with that. first off, just making them glow is not terribly useful. usually you have to take tissue samples and do some science-y stuff. usually you can't do that to a living thing. sometimes it's possible, but frequently not. so you can either wait for them to die on their own or kill them. humans live too long, and you get charged with those pesky felonies if you try to kill them. "it's all in the name of science" you will say, as they drag you to the pokey. but they will not care. you'll have wasted your life trying to do medical science without being cruel to the poor little animals. too bad your great grandchildren might still die sitting on the organ transplant wait list. at least you didn't kill any animals.
first off, move to California. in my limited experience, they have a larger proportion of neurosurgery clinical trials. then start reading the newspapers, hospital websites, everything. if you're not finding studies that need you, start calling the places that fund these studies. they will know who is doing what clinical research for which studies you could be a candidate.
next, don't get your hopes too high. most places are still in early stages. they will be mostly observing what's happening, not making monumental changes in a patient's current condition.
i work in the field (although AD and aging, not spinal stuff). and we have clinical studies showing promise. it still doesn't mean much for the patient.
for the most part, i would agree that many project managers do no understand the mutable nature of research. "if i KNEW what the data would show and how long it would take to get it, i would hardly need to DO the research." but then again, as someone who works with a project manager who feels that anything can be accomplished if you throw enough money at the problem and that budgets are not that important, it can be a real problem to operate as though money is no object. your average engineer wants to do their job and solve the problem tasked to them (and drink a lot of coffee), not price shop for the best value on sheets of aluminum. but you're less likely to go overbudget if SOMEONE does it. having someone at the helm who realizes that all financing is finite and works to accomplish the same goals using less resources is a blessing, make no mistake. he sounds like a good balance between the two. financial responsability without sacrificing the science; it can be done.
the way it works is that the vaccine just teaches your body how to inactivate the compound. so you can smoke, and you don't get any of he normal effects of the nicotine. the theory being that without the "high" that can be both physically and psychologically addictive, you can stop smoking without, say, having your hands shake uncontrollably. it wouldn't make it a piece of cake, but it would make it MUCH easier.
now, i suspect that while it's POSSIBLE to see ill effects from constantly giving your immune system something to respond to, i'd guess it would never amount to much. you have to remember the scale of what you're talking about. a molecule of nicotene or cocaine is MUCH tinier than one bacterial cell. and your immune system is engulfing and inactivating billions of bacterial cells daily. the actual amount of extra work is not even a drop in the bucket. it's more like the difference in the amount of water in the bucket when you raise the room temperature a half of a degree.:)
Slashdot Mirror
the short answer is you're right. it's a shadow. but that doesn't mean what you think it means. they ARE shining a light on the pig. UV though, not green.
the long answer, which is mostly covered previously, although not cohesively, is that normally, light visible to you is reflected, not emitted, and you can see both the source and the reflection. fluorescent light is emitted not reflected. and in this case, the light source is not visible, and the emitted light is.
for reflected light, you shine a full spectrum of light at something. some wavelengths are absorbed, some reflected. the reflected ones are the ones you see. so if it looks red, that means that red light is bouncing off, and blue light isn't. but if you only shine blue light it will NOT look red, since there is no red light to bounce off and be seen.
in fluorescence, a certain wavelength of light will be absorbed by the protein, the energy used to emit light at a completely different wavelength. so, sticking with the previous example, you shine blue light at your object, you see red light. the object absorbed the blue and changed it to red.
the fluorescent protien they used happens to absorb UV (which is not really visible to you) and turn it into green light (which is). you can see the difference in the emitted light in the shape of the shadow from the illumination source. make sense? UV is a very common fluorescent light activator because it's just a bit higher energy wavelength than the human visible spectrum and therefore, when you lose a little bit of energy in changing the wavelength, it becomes visible. quite helpful scientifically.
it's easier to grasp visually in person than in a photo, but you can trust me: i'm from the internet.
there are a few issues with that. first off, just making them glow is not terribly useful. usually you have to take tissue samples and do some science-y stuff. usually you can't do that to a living thing. sometimes it's possible, but frequently not. so you can either wait for them to die on their own or kill them. humans live too long, and you get charged with those pesky felonies if you try to kill them. "it's all in the name of science" you will say, as they drag you to the pokey. but they will not care. you'll have wasted your life trying to do medical science without being cruel to the poor little animals. too bad your great grandchildren might still die sitting on the organ transplant wait list. at least you didn't kill any animals.
first off, move to California. in my limited experience, they have a larger proportion of neurosurgery clinical trials. then start reading the newspapers, hospital websites, everything. if you're not finding studies that need you, start calling the places that fund these studies. they will know who is doing what clinical research for which studies you could be a candidate. next, don't get your hopes too high. most places are still in early stages. they will be mostly observing what's happening, not making monumental changes in a patient's current condition. i work in the field (although AD and aging, not spinal stuff). and we have clinical studies showing promise. it still doesn't mean much for the patient.
for the most part, i would agree that many project managers do no understand the mutable nature of research. "if i KNEW what the data would show and how long it would take to get it, i would hardly need to DO the research." but then again, as someone who works with a project manager who feels that anything can be accomplished if you throw enough money at the problem and that budgets are not that important, it can be a real problem to operate as though money is no object. your average engineer wants to do their job and solve the problem tasked to them (and drink a lot of coffee), not price shop for the best value on sheets of aluminum. but you're less likely to go overbudget if SOMEONE does it. having someone at the helm who realizes that all financing is finite and works to accomplish the same goals using less resources is a blessing, make no mistake. he sounds like a good balance between the two. financial responsability without sacrificing the science; it can be done.
the way it works is that the vaccine just teaches your body how to inactivate the compound. so you can smoke, and you don't get any of he normal effects of the nicotine. the theory being that without the "high" that can be both physically and psychologically addictive, you can stop smoking without, say, having your hands shake uncontrollably. it wouldn't make it a piece of cake, but it would make it MUCH easier. now, i suspect that while it's POSSIBLE to see ill effects from constantly giving your immune system something to respond to, i'd guess it would never amount to much. you have to remember the scale of what you're talking about. a molecule of nicotene or cocaine is MUCH tinier than one bacterial cell. and your immune system is engulfing and inactivating billions of bacterial cells daily. the actual amount of extra work is not even a drop in the bucket. it's more like the difference in the amount of water in the bucket when you raise the room temperature a half of a degree. :)