It's important to note that this project was neither independent driven by the student nor was it through the student's high school - he was working as a student in a larger, well established lab. To provide some prospective, in biology it's very common for students (high school or undergraduate) to come in a work in a lab for short periods of time (particularly during the summer). We typically give them introductory projects and they're very heavily mentored (honestly, they typically slow down research more than they help - but we need to get them excited as the next generation of scientists and it's a great recruitment tool for graduate schools); the project described as the in the article is a perfect example. These articles are great because it highlights research and excites students about science. Unfortunately these summaries also hurt us as it makes it appear that discoveries like the one described (which is very premature) are easy and that 'regular scientists' are simply holding back (as evident by a few of the comments already posted here on Slashdot). Kudos to the Mr. Zhang but let's keep in mind that this isn't some student working out of his garage.
As someone with a PhD in Immunology, I couldn't agree with you more. While an undergraduate in the 1990s, quite a few of my classmates who were graduating with a BS in Biochemistry left for non-science professions such as banking and consulting because the pay was much better - those that 'remained in science' were mostly pre-med. Of my friends who left science, all were making over $100,000 per year before I finished my PhD. Of my friends who remained in science, all were making well under $100,000 within five years - though that's a bit unfair since the average pay for a graduate student was ~$20,000. Those who left immediately for industry were making around $50k after five years.
I attended a graduate program at a top university (the Immunology program is consistently ranked in the top 10), and of my class only 2 out of 9 (includes me) continued on for a post-doc. The rest went into scientific writing, consulting, teaching, and most into law. With the exception of Biophysics, my friends in the Biochemistry, Cell Biology, Microbiology, and Genes and Development programs report similar experiences. Some of the reason for leaving science was burn out - low pay, long hours; not to mention everyone knew that a post-doc position was worse (which is very much a sink or swim environment). Pay for a post-doc ranges anywhere from $40k - $50k, with no retirement in most places. A post-doc is about a 5 year position, though many people do two post-docs. In comparison, everyone of my graduate school classmates who went into consulting or law were making well, well over $100k per year, with better work hours, with retirement, and with vacation. FYI, as a post-doc, at a top institution, in our three lab group we had 37 post-docs, 4 staff scientists, and two graduate students - 32 of the post-docs/fellows were foreign (though several had received their green card), all 4 of the staff scientists were initially foreign (two green cards, two citizens), and one of the graduate students were foreign. Some of the post-docs/fellows stayed here in the US, some left. The Ph.D. tend to stay, the MDs tend to leave as they can't practice medicine here without a residency.
So you stick it out, worked your 80 hours per week (seriously - it's not forced, but you're competing with the world), and happen to have a Nature, Science, or Cell paper. Let's say you get hired as an assistant professor (for the record, there's nothing 'assistant' about being an 'assistant' professor - it simply means you haven't gone up for tenure review yet. An associate professor is tenured). Pay can vary wildly at top institutions, but starting pay is $90k - $110k per year. This is at a top institution who are recruiting the top post-docs, teaching colleges and second tier research institutions pay less. Industry pay tends to vary quite a bit, but the quality of the people and the positions vary quite a bit as well (the range I've seen is ~$60k - $125k per year. The work hours get better, but not by much (especially before tenure).
For science you have $20k of 5 years of graduate school (no retirement), ~$50k of 6 years of post-doc (assuming only one post-doc, not a safe assumption... oh, and usually no retirement), and you manage to get a top faculty position... $100k. Average age of first faculty position is ~40 (younger if you're foreign by the way given the differences in the educational systems), while working 60-80 hours per week. Compare with all of my peers that peeled off into consulting, law, banking or business who were making far more, far sooner, with vacation, with benefits, with bonuses, with retirement, with a better work schedule the choice is clear. With that said, I love my job (and in fairness, my peers who left science love their jobs), but I'm certainly not encouraging my children to go into science.
I prefer two space since I believe it looks better. However, over the past few years I've transitioned to using only one space. Many grant applications / abstracts / scientific writing have character limits. Using one space instead of two can make a significant difference when you're fighting for every word.
The ethics problem is represented by an experience I had while at an American research university. A Chinese faculty member met with the Chinese students in order to tell them in America, cheating and other ethical breaches are not considered a good way to get ahead. This suggested certain cultural differences which should not be used to discriminate, but need to be recognized because of the risks involved.
While I certaily wasn't at that talk (and I suspect that neither were you), I'm willing to bet that you don't completely understand what the talk was about. I'm on the faculty of a top tier reserch insitution conducting immunological research - I've had several Chinese graduate students, have sat on the international admissions committee, and have given the talk that you describe to our new Chinese students. The problem isn't one of ethics, but one of culture. The Chinese don't regard plagiarism the same way we do - in fact, the educational system encourages it in a way as it is an honor, of sorts, to 'plagiarize' your mentor. Additionally, a lot of these students don't have confidence in their english, so whey they write they occassionally take an idea from another article and copy it verbatim thinking "that's exactly what I was thinking, and I don't have to worry about incorrect english" - in most cases, there is not an intention of deceit. The Chinese certainly have their issues (admitting mistakes and nationalism), but I wouldn't call them unethical.
In brief, Grace Wang was an international student at Duke and dared to try an initiate a discussion between the pro-Tibet and pro-Chinese sides of a protest. After being attacked on forums such as mitbbs.com "Online Vigilantes" decided to bring these attacks to the real world by posting her personal information (her student visa application) and providing maps to her parents' house (which was defaced, causing her parents to go into hiding).
Defending kittens are one thing, but as with "think of the children", it rarely stops there.
Thank you. I think that many of the individuals who call for a third party would be unhappy no matter who that third party was, as many of the calls that I see for a third party seem to be "I want a politician who totally agrees with me on every issue". That simply isn't going to happen. Recognize the good, try to change the bad - and realize that some people believe that you're wrong, just as you believe they're wrong. That won't change with a third party.
Thank you. When I saw DLC, I kept reading it as "Dynamin Light Chain", which I know is wrong for this site (and makes no sense for Sony). As Google is my friend, I googled DLC and saw "Democratic Leadership Council", "Digital Learning Commons", "Digital Library of the Commons", among others - but no "Downloadable Content". Google "Sony DLC", and you get a bunch of hardware. So I read the article - it took me a few seconds to realize that what DLC meant, as I wasn't thinking to look in the middle of a word for the meaning of "L".
I don't mind acronyms in the title, as long as they're spelled out in the summary.
Training foreign students served two purposes. First, so we have an opportunity to hire the best and brightest. Secondly, so we can expose them to our culture. What better way is there to bring about change in a country than to train some of their top academic leaders? This is how you bring human rights to China and reduce corruption in Mexico.
I can't say I'm terribly concerned about your proposed scenario. Unlike computer programming, bioengineering takes quite a bit more capital. Let's say you want to insert a protein into a bacteria - first you need to create the cDNA (you'll need a PCR machine or water baths (heh), expensive enzymes, the ability to pipette uL amounts, random primers, and a source of mRNA), then you'll need to isolate the protein's cDNA, next you'll have to clone out the gene (do you have access to a sequencer?), and put the gene in a plasmid that will express the protein (you'll have to buy one as you won't be able to reasonably make one). Let's see, you'll also need amp/kan, LB plates, a warm room, some media, and a shaker (unless you want to use sub-sub-optimum conditons). After this, you'll have to express your plasmid in the bacteria - did I mention that, typically, bacteria that express the protein will be at a selective disadvantage? Wait, you want to stably integrate your protein into the bacterial genome? That's a whole, more difficult, can of worms. So you want to modify a virus... where are you planning on getting the viral vector? What type of virus are you attempting to modify? Some are very difficult to work with. Making one can be a PhD thesis in and of itself. Infecting eukaryotic cells is not easy either - a lot of money is being spent on trying to increase the efficiency for anti-cancer therapy.
Unlike computer programming, these aren't projects that people are (realistically) able to do in their basement. Often we give the simplest experiments (just the cloning part), where all the reagents are present and the knowledge base is easily available, to summer students - and often times they fail. I don't worry about the rogue 'biohacker' next door (all the more power to them - maybe they'll learn something about science). I worry about rogue governments - particulary ones that believe God will protect them.
The Web of Trust proposal sounds a lot like the website Faculty of 1000.
I also would suggest looking at the website for the Web of Science. If I cite another's work, I've reviewed it and, at least on some level, agree with the findings. I'm certainly not going to cite that I think are bogus.
I'm not convinced that this is true. The only people (besides the library) that receive print publications receive them as a part of their professional membership fees (or as part of a training grant). Most scientists, myself included, simply rely on the email TOC (which we receive much sooner than the hard copy) or go to the websites directly. I suspect that most journals 'make their cash' from institutional subscriptions, professional fees (in the case of Blood), and/or publishing fees.
I looked at scientific journals, and I honestly can't see much of an incentive to appear there.
Having a high publication helps a graduate student land a good post-doctoral opportunity. As a post-doc, you'll need a good publication record (Nature, Science, Cell) if you want to land a good faculty position at a top university (tenure track). A scientist that can semi-regularly publish in the top journals will have an easier time earning grants (without such, they wouldn't be able to run a lab). Without a good publication record, a junior faculty won't get tenure (the review is typically 5-7 years for the biological sciences post hire). Publications - no, make that publications in good journals - is everything.
From the scientist's perspective, if they have pure research, then, they can put it on a web site, such as the university web site or even their own, and just skip the b.s.
Any yahoo can post on a website. The reasoning behind scientific journals is that the science is peer reviewed before being accepted. While not everything published on Nature, Science or Cell is top quality work (politics does play a role), the signal to noise ratio is much higher than say, International Immunology. The science presented in the top journals usually has a much higher impact factor than the 'lower' journals; i.e A paper published in Nature Immunology or Nature Medicine typically has a much broader impact on the field than, say, a paper published in Journal of Immunology. That's not to say that the JI paper is worse than the Nat. Imm. or Nat. Med. paper - it's not. Just that the JI paper will likely be much more narrow in scope.
Tamsin Osborne, who wrote the NewScientistTech article, certainly didn't understand the original article and focused on sensationalism rather than scientific accuracy.
The original paper did not increase the metabolism of the macrophage. What the original paper did was encage an enzyme, trypsin, in a "nanometer-sized polymer vesicle". This vesicle was coated with a protein that induce macrophages to engulf the vesicle (which is what macrophages do - they phagocytose). The authors then incubated macrophages which contained the vesicles with a dye (BZiPAR) that fluoresces (emits a wavelength of light - in this case green) when treated with trypsin (trypsin cuts of parts of the BZiPAR that suppress fluorescence).
We already know how to non-genetically introduce proteins to cells, for example using liposomes or the tat-peptide approach. What makes this work interesting is that the polymer vesicle is more stable than liposomes and, unlike the other methods, the vesicles don't release their content into the cell. Instead, the cell's components have to enter into the polymer vesicle.
This is an interesting technical development. It is not, however, everything that Mr. Osborne makes it out to be.
I seem to remember Mr. Molyneux promising the world four years ago as well.
A message from Peter Molyneux.
There is something I have to say. And I have to say it because I love making games. When a game is in development, myself and the development teams I work with constantly encourage each other to think of the best features and the most ground-breaking design possible.
However, what happens is that we strive to include absolutely everything we've ever dreamt of and, in my enthusiasm, I talk about it to anyone who'll listen, mainly in press interviews. When I tell people about what we're planning, I'm telling the truth, and people, of course, expect to see all the features I've mentioned. And when some of the most ambitious ideas get altered, redesigned or even dropped, people rightly want to know what happened to them.
If I have mentioned any feature in the past which, for whatever reason, didn't make it as I described into Fable, I apologise. Every feature I have ever talked about WAS in development, but not all made it. Often the reason is that the feature did not make sense. For example, three years ago I talked about trees growing as time past. The team did code this but it took so much processor time (15%) that the feature was not worth leaving in. That 15 % was much better spent on effects and combat. So nothing I said was groundless hype, but people expecting specific features which couldn't be included were of course disappointed. If that's you, I apologise. All I can say is that Fable is the best game we could possibly make, and that people really seem to love it.
I have come to realise that I should not talk about features too early so I am considering not talking about games as early as I do. This will mean that the Lionhead games will not be known about as early as they are, but I think this is the more industry standard.
Our job as the Lionhead family of studios is to be as ambitious as we possibly can. But although we jump up and down in glee about the fabulous concepts and features we're working on, I will not mention them to the outside world until we've implemented and tested them, and they are a reality.
The proteins identified in the paper protect against apoptosis. If you were to inhibit them, your cells would be more susceptible to apoptosis, not more resistant (which they show using a knockout mouse). More importantly though, apoptosis is an essential process in both development and regulation (particularly the immune response). Indiscriminately inhibiting the apoptotic process would be detrimental to the organism as a whole (resulting in death, not the protection from).
Let's say your body produced neutralizing antibodies to the three proteins (or better yet, you inject humanized antibodies that targeted the proteins), the antibodies would still have to penetrate the cell in order to see their target. You would be much better off making a tat-fusion protein of a dominant-negative form of the protein.
Lastly, we've already identified several molecules that are important for apoptosis. One catagory of such proteins is call the Caspases.
Now the real question is, how many of these folks will get 5 or more hours of overtime per week?
In my experience, the biggest drawback to being an hourly employee is that the company tells you when you can't work. If you're really enjoying a project or on a roll, it's extremely frustrating to be told that you have to stop for the day/week. You can't just not record any extra hours worked either as it's a liability for the company.
Science positions in the UK are particularly poorly paid. If the country needed more scientists, surely the high wages would indicate the problem.
Amen. While I can't speak for the UK, as I have a PhD in Immunology I can certainly speak for the United States. People who are already interested in science are leaving the profession in droves. While an undergraduate in the 1990s, quite a few of my classmates who were graduating with a BS in Biochemistry left for non-science professions such as banking or consulting because the pay was much better. I attended a graduate program at a top university (the Immunology program is consistently ranked in the top ten), and of my 'class', ony two of nine (includes myself) continued on for a post-doc (some went into medical writing, others consulting, and some chose non-college level teaching). The problem isn't the love of science, the problem is pay. To put numbers behind what I'm saying, after 5.5 - 6 years of graduate school (the average length of a PhD program in the biological sciences), you have the option of leaving science, going onto industry as a glorified technician, or continuing on to a post-doc position (the good industry jobs require several years of post-doc experience as do academic positions). The salary at my institution are as follows:
Years of Experience - Salary
0 - $35000
1 - $36050
2 - $37131
3 - $38245
4 - $39392
5 - $40574
6 - "end" of post-doctoral training
(you either find a job, or continue on as an "instructor", doing the same job)
To put this in perspective, the median income in in the United States is $48000 . My university is on the upper end of the post-doc salary range. Our youngest graduate student are ~27 or so when they graduate. Several have 2 - 3 years of working experience before they join graduate school. So the people making the salaries listed above are ~28 - 34 (minimum), with a PhD. I might add, that the post-docs at my institution just started receiving retirement benefits three years ago.
Oh, but wait, it gets better. According to two recent Nature editorials (Nature is one of the top scientific magazines - More Biologists but Tenure Stays Static. Nature, 448:848-9; Indentured Labour. Nature 448:839-40) the percentage of post-docs receiving tenure track positions is now 30%. This certainly jives with what we're seeing here as most post-docs (the high quality post-docs, ignoring those who shouldn't move on) aren't able to find a job. Industry is saturated as well. If a post-doc is able to find a tenure track position, the pay (our University is at the high end) is ~$70,000 per year. After seven years, the individual undergoes review, and if they are granted tenure, the salary jumps to $120,000 per year (most people are >40 at this point - excpt for some of our foreign born faculty).
In contrast, my colleagues (at least the six I still keep in touch with) who left science after receiving their BS were all making over $100,000 per year before I finished with my PhD. Most of those who were in my graduate program and left science after their PhD are making over $100,000 per year. Those of us who stayed with science, most of us make well under 100k per year, and those that make more are all in industry.
Smart people don't join science. The hours are long, the pay is low, and our job prospects are highly uncertain. Those in government can change the scientific curriculum all they want in an effort to 'encourage future scientists', but they're all missing the point and addressing the wrong problem.
In addition to reporting any misbehavior by the police, I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation. A little positive reinforcement can go a long ways.
To some extent age will be a factor. I've served on the admissions committee for a number of years at a major university for the biological sciences (not computer sciences), and to some extent, indirectly at least, age is taken into account. While experience trumps all (except letters of recommendation), when someone in their late 30s / early 40s applies (and they do) we have to wonder why. What is the applicant trying to gain by applying now? Do they know what they're getting themselves into? Will graduate school really benefit this candidate?
In the case of the biological sciences, if you want to run a lab, you need to put five years into your graduate career and have a ~five year successful post-doc. If the applicant is 40, that means they won't be able to even apply for a faculty position until they're 50. If the applicant is looking at industry, then five years of experience is equivalent to a PhD (in order to get top industry job you still need that successful post-doc position) and graduate school won't help them. If the applicant "simply wants to learn", they they appear to have no focus. We have picked up older applicants, though they all had very good reasons for seeking an advanced degree (for example, in two cases they wanted to teach at the community college level). If you apply to graduate school, you must address these issues in your essay. Also, when you write your essay, focus on your work/research experience (this goes for all applicants) as we don't care about 'how you've dreamed of being a scientist since you were two'.
One other piece of advice, if you want a job in research, don't look at the job boards. Find a lab that interests you, and contact the PI directly. People come and go all the time and if I don't have a position open, I typically know of someone who does. I've never hired someone through HR, but only hire people who are interested in my research as I don't have enough time to focus on someone who 'simply wants a job'. Best of luck to you.
This reminds me of a technician I had who used to fall asleep at his bench. He was convinced that he had sleep disorder and would bounce from doctor to doctor looking for a cure. It turns out he was right - his sleep disorder was called Online Gaming. While the solution to his problem was cheap and easy, it didn't involve a pill so he kept looking for an alternate explanation.
Unfortunately, not many scientists publish in journals everyone can read. Most journals require hefty fees. Not that the scientists get rich, of course. Some journals even ask for a submission fee.
Actually most scientists publish in journals that everyone can read. Most of the top scientific journals (in the biological sciences anyway) allow for anyone to read the articles one year after they've been published. If you want to read the latest research, you have to pay. If you want to read anything that's been published between (typically) ~1998 and one year ago, you're usually able to do so. Secondly, most university libraries have subscriptions to the top journals. I've never heard of a university library that turned away the public.
FYI, all journals (that I've published in) require us to pay to publish our articles. The last article we published (in the Journal of Immunology) cost us ~$2000.
While I agree our main motivation is not money (if it was, we wouldn't have chosen science), why shouldn't we get paid money. We got paid nothing during our five years of graduate school. We got paid nothing during our five year-year post-doc. We certainly don't get rich running a lab. Why shouldn't we make money off of something we spent years of our lives working on?
What I don't understand is why it's okay for people to go into just about every other career for the money, but if someone in science decides to make a buck they're evil. I made ~16k per year while a graduate student. My friends who went into business made ~60k out of college. Five years later I made ~40k as a post-doc (on the high-end of the salary scale). My friends were up to 100k. As an Assistant Professor I make ~70k (on the high end). All of my friends from college make over 100k, and most make over 150k. My work isn't easier either. I put in a minimum of 60 hours per week, and when writing grants I often put in 80+ hours. My friends who are making over 100k per year - a 'tough week' is one where they work over 50 hours. If a scientist put in the blood, sweat, and tears to produce a patent that actually produces money (most don't), then all the more power to them. And people wonder why the younger (American) generation aren't interested in a career in science.
No kidding. I've met people recently from China and they don't know where we all get off on these things. They claim there are any number of small newspapers and such all over the place. They also think we tend to make a bigger deal of things than we ought and their country is just fine thank you very much.
This is my experience as well. I'm a scientist who has worked with Chinese nations for over 15 years as a trainee, as a peer, and as a mentor while I obtained my PhD, conducted my post-doc, and now as I run a lab. I have often brought up issues of censorship and democracy with my Chinese friends and they have all said that there isn't a problem in China and that they don't understand what we are talking about. The experience of these people range from first year graduate students who are experiencing America for the first time to post-docs who have lived in the United States for 10+ year all the while visiting China every other year or so. I certainly can't wave off their opinion as they have far more experience in the matter than I do.
When I ask about the internet, they all say that they've not experience any difference between the internet here and back home in China. If there is censorship, it certainly isn't getting in the way. I've shown some the Tiananmen Square search by Google.cn (not all results are displayed). They've all shrugged. Furthermore, one individual pointed out the Xenu.net scandal a while back, another showed me that there are alternative viewpoints regarding Tiananmen Square listed (though deeper in the search), and another asked if I believed if all the history we are taught as children is neutral and balanced.
Regarding journalists, I have also heard that there are a large number of smaller newspapers that are a bit more 'liberal'. When I show articles regarding journalists that have disappeared, I typically get two responses - they were causing trouble so the action was justified, or the Western media is biased and is not only showing the bad, but makes it sound much worse. When I point out that our press can criticize the government, the strong, strong believe (especially among those who have spent less time here in the U.S.) is that those politicians (Clinton, Nixon, Mark Foley) is that they simply pissed off someone or didn't pay off the right people. When I acted shocked (I've heard it so often it's no longer shocking), the typical response I get is "You naive American. This is life".
Interestingly enough, when I bring up democracy and ask what do you do if you don't like what the government is doing, almost all have said "We would have a revolution". No big deal. When I point out that perhaps a revolution is exactly what the missing journalists were starting - they shrug. One individual candidly said "He lost". I should point out that there are elections in China, however they're simply on the local and national level. If asked whether there should be national elections, the response I get is "Why? We're already getting the brightest to work in the Government".
Politics is not a big issue for the many Chinese I've worked with. None are politically active and almost all have wondered why we care so much about politics here.
Personally, I don't think we should fight China on these issues - we won't win and the Chinese government has the full, willing support of the people. Instead we should continue to bring over Chinese nationals to the United States as students so that when (if) they go back to China and there is a revolution, these issues will be addressed. Similarly, there's a lot that we can learn from the Chinese.
Slashdot Mirror
It's important to note that this project was neither independent driven by the student nor was it through the student's high school - he was working as a student in a larger, well established lab. To provide some prospective, in biology it's very common for students (high school or undergraduate) to come in a work in a lab for short periods of time (particularly during the summer). We typically give them introductory projects and they're very heavily mentored (honestly, they typically slow down research more than they help - but we need to get them excited as the next generation of scientists and it's a great recruitment tool for graduate schools); the project described as the in the article is a perfect example. These articles are great because it highlights research and excites students about science. Unfortunately these summaries also hurt us as it makes it appear that discoveries like the one described (which is very premature) are easy and that 'regular scientists' are simply holding back (as evident by a few of the comments already posted here on Slashdot). Kudos to the Mr. Zhang but let's keep in mind that this isn't some student working out of his garage.
As someone with a PhD in Immunology, I couldn't agree with you more. While an undergraduate in the 1990s, quite a few of my classmates who were graduating with a BS in Biochemistry left for non-science professions such as banking and consulting because the pay was much better - those that 'remained in science' were mostly pre-med. Of my friends who left science, all were making over $100,000 per year before I finished my PhD. Of my friends who remained in science, all were making well under $100,000 within five years - though that's a bit unfair since the average pay for a graduate student was ~$20,000. Those who left immediately for industry were making around $50k after five years.
I attended a graduate program at a top university (the Immunology program is consistently ranked in the top 10), and of my class only 2 out of 9 (includes me) continued on for a post-doc. The rest went into scientific writing, consulting, teaching, and most into law. With the exception of Biophysics, my friends in the Biochemistry, Cell Biology, Microbiology, and Genes and Development programs report similar experiences. Some of the reason for leaving science was burn out - low pay, long hours; not to mention everyone knew that a post-doc position was worse (which is very much a sink or swim environment). Pay for a post-doc ranges anywhere from $40k - $50k, with no retirement in most places. A post-doc is about a 5 year position, though many people do two post-docs. In comparison, everyone of my graduate school classmates who went into consulting or law were making well, well over $100k per year, with better work hours, with retirement, and with vacation. FYI, as a post-doc, at a top institution, in our three lab group we had 37 post-docs, 4 staff scientists, and two graduate students - 32 of the post-docs/fellows were foreign (though several had received their green card), all 4 of the staff scientists were initially foreign (two green cards, two citizens), and one of the graduate students were foreign. Some of the post-docs/fellows stayed here in the US, some left. The Ph.D. tend to stay, the MDs tend to leave as they can't practice medicine here without a residency.
So you stick it out, worked your 80 hours per week (seriously - it's not forced, but you're competing with the world), and happen to have a Nature, Science, or Cell paper. Let's say you get hired as an assistant professor (for the record, there's nothing 'assistant' about being an 'assistant' professor - it simply means you haven't gone up for tenure review yet. An associate professor is tenured). Pay can vary wildly at top institutions, but starting pay is $90k - $110k per year. This is at a top institution who are recruiting the top post-docs, teaching colleges and second tier research institutions pay less. Industry pay tends to vary quite a bit, but the quality of the people and the positions vary quite a bit as well (the range I've seen is ~$60k - $125k per year. The work hours get better, but not by much (especially before tenure).
For science you have $20k of 5 years of graduate school (no retirement), ~$50k of 6 years of post-doc (assuming only one post-doc, not a safe assumption... oh, and usually no retirement), and you manage to get a top faculty position... $100k. Average age of first faculty position is ~40 (younger if you're foreign by the way given the differences in the educational systems), while working 60-80 hours per week. Compare with all of my peers that peeled off into consulting, law, banking or business who were making far more, far sooner, with vacation, with benefits, with bonuses, with retirement, with a better work schedule the choice is clear. With that said, I love my job (and in fairness, my peers who left science love their jobs), but I'm certainly not encouraging my children to go into science.
I prefer two space since I believe it looks better. However, over the past few years I've transitioned to using only one space. Many grant applications / abstracts / scientific writing have character limits. Using one space instead of two can make a significant difference when you're fighting for every word.
The ethics problem is represented by an experience I had while at an American research university. A Chinese faculty member met with the Chinese students in order to tell them in America, cheating and other ethical breaches are not considered a good way to get ahead. This suggested certain cultural differences which should not be used to discriminate, but need to be recognized because of the risks involved.
While I certaily wasn't at that talk (and I suspect that neither were you), I'm willing to bet that you don't completely understand what the talk was about. I'm on the faculty of a top tier reserch insitution conducting immunological research - I've had several Chinese graduate students, have sat on the international admissions committee, and have given the talk that you describe to our new Chinese students. The problem isn't one of ethics, but one of culture. The Chinese don't regard plagiarism the same way we do - in fact, the educational system encourages it in a way as it is an honor, of sorts, to 'plagiarize' your mentor. Additionally, a lot of these students don't have confidence in their english, so whey they write they occassionally take an idea from another article and copy it verbatim thinking "that's exactly what I was thinking, and I don't have to worry about incorrect english" - in most cases, there is not an intention of deceit. The Chinese certainly have their issues (admitting mistakes and nationalism), but I wouldn't call them unethical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMmhNbj4K68
The protection has less to do with absorption reduction than a distribution of force.
I'm sure Grace Wang would agree with you.
In brief, Grace Wang was an international student at Duke and dared to try an initiate a discussion between the pro-Tibet and pro-Chinese sides of a protest. After being attacked on forums such as mitbbs.com "Online Vigilantes" decided to bring these attacks to the real world by posting her personal information (her student visa application) and providing maps to her parents' house (which was defaced, causing her parents to go into hiding).
Defending kittens are one thing, but as with "think of the children", it rarely stops there.
Thank you. I think that many of the individuals who call for a third party would be unhappy no matter who that third party was, as many of the calls that I see for a third party seem to be "I want a politician who totally agrees with me on every issue". That simply isn't going to happen. Recognize the good, try to change the bad - and realize that some people believe that you're wrong, just as you believe they're wrong. That won't change with a third party.
Thank you. When I saw DLC, I kept reading it as "Dynamin Light Chain", which I know is wrong for this site (and makes no sense for Sony). As Google is my friend, I googled DLC and saw "Democratic Leadership Council", "Digital Learning Commons", "Digital Library of the Commons", among others - but no "Downloadable Content". Google "Sony DLC", and you get a bunch of hardware. So I read the article - it took me a few seconds to realize that what DLC meant, as I wasn't thinking to look in the middle of a word for the meaning of "L". I don't mind acronyms in the title, as long as they're spelled out in the summary.
Training foreign students served two purposes. First, so we have an opportunity to hire the best and brightest. Secondly, so we can expose them to our culture. What better way is there to bring about change in a country than to train some of their top academic leaders? This is how you bring human rights to China and reduce corruption in Mexico.
I can't say I'm terribly concerned about your proposed scenario. Unlike computer programming, bioengineering takes quite a bit more capital. Let's say you want to insert a protein into a bacteria - first you need to create the cDNA (you'll need a PCR machine or water baths (heh), expensive enzymes, the ability to pipette uL amounts, random primers, and a source of mRNA), then you'll need to isolate the protein's cDNA, next you'll have to clone out the gene (do you have access to a sequencer?), and put the gene in a plasmid that will express the protein (you'll have to buy one as you won't be able to reasonably make one). Let's see, you'll also need amp/kan, LB plates, a warm room, some media, and a shaker (unless you want to use sub-sub-optimum conditons). After this, you'll have to express your plasmid in the bacteria - did I mention that, typically, bacteria that express the protein will be at a selective disadvantage? Wait, you want to stably integrate your protein into the bacterial genome? That's a whole, more difficult, can of worms. So you want to modify a virus... where are you planning on getting the viral vector? What type of virus are you attempting to modify? Some are very difficult to work with. Making one can be a PhD thesis in and of itself. Infecting eukaryotic cells is not easy either - a lot of money is being spent on trying to increase the efficiency for anti-cancer therapy.
Unlike computer programming, these aren't projects that people are (realistically) able to do in their basement. Often we give the simplest experiments (just the cloning part), where all the reagents are present and the knowledge base is easily available, to summer students - and often times they fail. I don't worry about the rogue 'biohacker' next door (all the more power to them - maybe they'll learn something about science). I worry about rogue governments - particulary ones that believe God will protect them.
The Web of Trust proposal sounds a lot like the website Faculty of 1000. I also would suggest looking at the website for the Web of Science. If I cite another's work, I've reviewed it and, at least on some level, agree with the findings. I'm certainly not going to cite that I think are bogus.
I'm not convinced that this is true. The only people (besides the library) that receive print publications receive them as a part of their professional membership fees (or as part of a training grant). Most scientists, myself included, simply rely on the email TOC (which we receive much sooner than the hard copy) or go to the websites directly. I suspect that most journals 'make their cash' from institutional subscriptions, professional fees (in the case of Blood), and/or publishing fees.
Having a high publication helps a graduate student land a good post-doctoral opportunity. As a post-doc, you'll need a good publication record (Nature, Science, Cell) if you want to land a good faculty position at a top university (tenure track). A scientist that can semi-regularly publish in the top journals will have an easier time earning grants (without such, they wouldn't be able to run a lab). Without a good publication record, a junior faculty won't get tenure (the review is typically 5-7 years for the biological sciences post hire). Publications - no, make that publications in good journals - is everything.
From the scientist's perspective, if they have pure research, then, they can put it on a web site, such as the university web site or even their own, and just skip the b.s.
Any yahoo can post on a website. The reasoning behind scientific journals is that the science is peer reviewed before being accepted. While not everything published on Nature, Science or Cell is top quality work (politics does play a role), the signal to noise ratio is much higher than say, International Immunology. The science presented in the top journals usually has a much higher impact factor than the 'lower' journals; i.e A paper published in Nature Immunology or Nature Medicine typically has a much broader impact on the field than, say, a paper published in Journal of Immunology. That's not to say that the JI paper is worse than the Nat. Imm. or Nat. Med. paper - it's not. Just that the JI paper will likely be much more narrow in scope.
The original paper did not increase the metabolism of the macrophage. What the original paper did was encage an enzyme, trypsin, in a "nanometer-sized polymer vesicle". This vesicle was coated with a protein that induce macrophages to engulf the vesicle (which is what macrophages do - they phagocytose). The authors then incubated macrophages which contained the vesicles with a dye (BZiPAR) that fluoresces (emits a wavelength of light - in this case green) when treated with trypsin (trypsin cuts of parts of the BZiPAR that suppress fluorescence).
We already know how to non-genetically introduce proteins to cells, for example using liposomes or the tat-peptide approach. What makes this work interesting is that the polymer vesicle is more stable than liposomes and, unlike the other methods, the vesicles don't release their content into the cell. Instead, the cell's components have to enter into the polymer vesicle.
This is an interesting technical development. It is not, however, everything that Mr. Osborne makes it out to be.
A message from Peter Molyneux.
There is something I have to say. And I have to say it because I love making games. When a game is in development, myself and the development teams I work with constantly encourage each other to think of the best features and the most ground-breaking design possible.
However, what happens is that we strive to include absolutely everything we've ever dreamt of and, in my enthusiasm, I talk about it to anyone who'll listen, mainly in press interviews. When I tell people about what we're planning, I'm telling the truth, and people, of course, expect to see all the features I've mentioned. And when some of the most ambitious ideas get altered, redesigned or even dropped, people rightly want to know what happened to them.
If I have mentioned any feature in the past which, for whatever reason, didn't make it as I described into Fable, I apologise. Every feature I have ever talked about WAS in development, but not all made it. Often the reason is that the feature did not make sense. For example, three years ago I talked about trees growing as time past. The team did code this but it took so much processor time (15%) that the feature was not worth leaving in. That 15 % was much better spent on effects and combat. So nothing I said was groundless hype, but people expecting specific features which couldn't be included were of course disappointed. If that's you, I apologise. All I can say is that Fable is the best game we could possibly make, and that people really seem to love it.
I have come to realise that I should not talk about features too early so I am considering not talking about games as early as I do. This will mean that the Lionhead games will not be known about as early as they are, but I think this is the more industry standard.
Our job as the Lionhead family of studios is to be as ambitious as we possibly can. But although we jump up and down in glee about the fabulous concepts and features we're working on, I will not mention them to the outside world until we've implemented and tested them, and they are a reality.
Thank you for reading.
Peter.
Source: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/1651219
I'll believe it when I see it. I wish you the best of luck Mr. Molyneux.
The proteins identified in the paper protect against apoptosis. If you were to inhibit them, your cells would be more susceptible to apoptosis, not more resistant (which they show using a knockout mouse). More importantly though, apoptosis is an essential process in both development and regulation (particularly the immune response). Indiscriminately inhibiting the apoptotic process would be detrimental to the organism as a whole (resulting in death, not the protection from).
Let's say your body produced neutralizing antibodies to the three proteins (or better yet, you inject humanized antibodies that targeted the proteins), the antibodies would still have to penetrate the cell in order to see their target. You would be much better off making a tat-fusion protein of a dominant-negative form of the protein.
Lastly, we've already identified several molecules that are important for apoptosis. One catagory of such proteins is call the Caspases.
In my experience, the biggest drawback to being an hourly employee is that the company tells you when you can't work. If you're really enjoying a project or on a roll, it's extremely frustrating to be told that you have to stop for the day/week. You can't just not record any extra hours worked either as it's a liability for the company.
Amen. While I can't speak for the UK, as I have a PhD in Immunology I can certainly speak for the United States. People who are already interested in science are leaving the profession in droves. While an undergraduate in the 1990s, quite a few of my classmates who were graduating with a BS in Biochemistry left for non-science professions such as banking or consulting because the pay was much better. I attended a graduate program at a top university (the Immunology program is consistently ranked in the top ten), and of my 'class', ony two of nine (includes myself) continued on for a post-doc (some went into medical writing, others consulting, and some chose non-college level teaching). The problem isn't the love of science, the problem is pay. To put numbers behind what I'm saying, after 5.5 - 6 years of graduate school (the average length of a PhD program in the biological sciences), you have the option of leaving science, going onto industry as a glorified technician, or continuing on to a post-doc position (the good industry jobs require several years of post-doc experience as do academic positions). The salary at my institution are as follows:
Years of Experience - Salary
0 - $35000
1 - $36050
2 - $37131
3 - $38245
4 - $39392
5 - $40574
6 - "end" of post-doctoral training
(you either find a job, or continue on as an "instructor", doing the same job)
To put this in perspective, the median income in in the United States is $48000 . My university is on the upper end of the post-doc salary range. Our youngest graduate student are ~27 or so when they graduate. Several have 2 - 3 years of working experience before they join graduate school. So the people making the salaries listed above are ~28 - 34 (minimum), with a PhD. I might add, that the post-docs at my institution just started receiving retirement benefits three years ago.
Oh, but wait, it gets better. According to two recent Nature editorials (Nature is one of the top scientific magazines - More Biologists but Tenure Stays Static. Nature, 448:848-9; Indentured Labour. Nature 448:839-40) the percentage of post-docs receiving tenure track positions is now 30%. This certainly jives with what we're seeing here as most post-docs (the high quality post-docs, ignoring those who shouldn't move on) aren't able to find a job. Industry is saturated as well. If a post-doc is able to find a tenure track position, the pay (our University is at the high end) is ~$70,000 per year. After seven years, the individual undergoes review, and if they are granted tenure, the salary jumps to $120,000 per year (most people are >40 at this point - excpt for some of our foreign born faculty).
In contrast, my colleagues (at least the six I still keep in touch with) who left science after receiving their BS were all making over $100,000 per year before I finished with my PhD. Most of those who were in my graduate program and left science after their PhD are making over $100,000 per year. Those of us who stayed with science, most of us make well under 100k per year, and those that make more are all in industry.
Smart people don't join science. The hours are long, the pay is low, and our job prospects are highly uncertain. Those in government can change the scientific curriculum all they want in an effort to 'encourage future scientists', but they're all missing the point and addressing the wrong problem.
In addition to reporting any misbehavior by the police, I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation. A little positive reinforcement can go a long ways.
In the case of the biological sciences, if you want to run a lab, you need to put five years into your graduate career and have a ~five year successful post-doc. If the applicant is 40, that means they won't be able to even apply for a faculty position until they're 50. If the applicant is looking at industry, then five years of experience is equivalent to a PhD (in order to get top industry job you still need that successful post-doc position) and graduate school won't help them. If the applicant "simply wants to learn", they they appear to have no focus. We have picked up older applicants, though they all had very good reasons for seeking an advanced degree (for example, in two cases they wanted to teach at the community college level). If you apply to graduate school, you must address these issues in your essay. Also, when you write your essay, focus on your work/research experience (this goes for all applicants) as we don't care about 'how you've dreamed of being a scientist since you were two'.
One other piece of advice, if you want a job in research, don't look at the job boards. Find a lab that interests you, and contact the PI directly. People come and go all the time and if I don't have a position open, I typically know of someone who does. I've never hired someone through HR, but only hire people who are interested in my research as I don't have enough time to focus on someone who 'simply wants a job'. Best of luck to you.
While I wasn't too keen in having to choose between Sirus and XM, the decision was really no different than choosing between an Xbox360, PS3, and Wii.
This reminds me of a technician I had who used to fall asleep at his bench. He was convinced that he had sleep disorder and would bounce from doctor to doctor looking for a cure. It turns out he was right - his sleep disorder was called Online Gaming. While the solution to his problem was cheap and easy, it didn't involve a pill so he kept looking for an alternate explanation.
Actually most scientists publish in journals that everyone can read. Most of the top scientific journals (in the biological sciences anyway) allow for anyone to read the articles one year after they've been published. If you want to read the latest research, you have to pay. If you want to read anything that's been published between (typically) ~1998 and one year ago, you're usually able to do so. Secondly, most university libraries have subscriptions to the top journals. I've never heard of a university library that turned away the public.
FYI, all journals (that I've published in) require us to pay to publish our articles. The last article we published (in the Journal of Immunology) cost us ~$2000.
What I don't understand is why it's okay for people to go into just about every other career for the money, but if someone in science decides to make a buck they're evil. I made ~16k per year while a graduate student. My friends who went into business made ~60k out of college. Five years later I made ~40k as a post-doc (on the high-end of the salary scale). My friends were up to 100k. As an Assistant Professor I make ~70k (on the high end). All of my friends from college make over 100k, and most make over 150k. My work isn't easier either. I put in a minimum of 60 hours per week, and when writing grants I often put in 80+ hours. My friends who are making over 100k per year - a 'tough week' is one where they work over 50 hours. If a scientist put in the blood, sweat, and tears to produce a patent that actually produces money (most don't), then all the more power to them. And people wonder why the younger (American) generation aren't interested in a career in science.
This is my experience as well. I'm a scientist who has worked with Chinese nations for over 15 years as a trainee, as a peer, and as a mentor while I obtained my PhD, conducted my post-doc, and now as I run a lab. I have often brought up issues of censorship and democracy with my Chinese friends and they have all said that there isn't a problem in China and that they don't understand what we are talking about. The experience of these people range from first year graduate students who are experiencing America for the first time to post-docs who have lived in the United States for 10+ year all the while visiting China every other year or so. I certainly can't wave off their opinion as they have far more experience in the matter than I do.
When I ask about the internet, they all say that they've not experience any difference between the internet here and back home in China. If there is censorship, it certainly isn't getting in the way. I've shown some the Tiananmen Square search by Google.cn (not all results are displayed). They've all shrugged. Furthermore, one individual pointed out the Xenu.net scandal a while back, another showed me that there are alternative viewpoints regarding Tiananmen Square listed (though deeper in the search), and another asked if I believed if all the history we are taught as children is neutral and balanced.
Regarding journalists, I have also heard that there are a large number of smaller newspapers that are a bit more 'liberal'. When I show articles regarding journalists that have disappeared, I typically get two responses - they were causing trouble so the action was justified, or the Western media is biased and is not only showing the bad, but makes it sound much worse. When I point out that our press can criticize the government, the strong, strong believe (especially among those who have spent less time here in the U.S.) is that those politicians (Clinton, Nixon, Mark Foley) is that they simply pissed off someone or didn't pay off the right people. When I acted shocked (I've heard it so often it's no longer shocking), the typical response I get is "You naive American. This is life".
Interestingly enough, when I bring up democracy and ask what do you do if you don't like what the government is doing, almost all have said "We would have a revolution". No big deal. When I point out that perhaps a revolution is exactly what the missing journalists were starting - they shrug. One individual candidly said "He lost". I should point out that there are elections in China, however they're simply on the local and national level. If asked whether there should be national elections, the response I get is "Why? We're already getting the brightest to work in the Government".
Politics is not a big issue for the many Chinese I've worked with. None are politically active and almost all have wondered why we care so much about politics here.
Personally, I don't think we should fight China on these issues - we won't win and the Chinese government has the full, willing support of the people. Instead we should continue to bring over Chinese nationals to the United States as students so that when (if) they go back to China and there is a revolution, these issues will be addressed. Similarly, there's a lot that we can learn from the Chinese.