Resident Experts
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CharonY

  1. U.S. Immigration

    This, however, is common issue with certain opponents of all immigration (as seen above, either accidentally or by choice the distinction is now US citizens vs foreigners, regardless of legal status). They see economics as a zero-sum game where money is either directed to citizens or to immigrants. What is neglected is the overall net change on the economy which could, in fact increase income that then could be directed to help the impoverished. It is also telling if the same persons also happen to oppose social programs to help the impoverished or redistribution of income when the discussion is not about immigrants.
  2. U.S. Immigration

    Since we talk about DACA, 91% of DACA recipients are in job. Rescinding DACA according to some calculations would cost ~6 billion in employee turnover costs, and up to 60 billion in federal government costs. Over the next ten years removing the ~700k members of society will cost ~280-460 billion in GDP over the next ten years. So especially with regard to DACA, which is essentially a vetting system, the economics of rescinding it makes no sense.
  3. The director of the NIEHS wrote an editorial for PloS Biology highlighting the lack of regulation on potential harmful pollutants and called for more research and policies to address these gaps. One would think that this is not controversial as it clearly within the mission of the NIEHS. In response, the House Science Oversight Committee wants to investigate her for, wait for it.... "lobbying".
  4. U.S. Immigration

    There is a nice article about racism underlying the history of American immigration policies (Op-Ed). An important thing to point out is that illegal immigration is for some conflated with legal immigration (not so much on this site, luckily). However, there is a sizable part of the population (especially among Trump voters) that oppose immigration of any sorts from an ethnocentric viewpoint. Study groups have looked at vote shares in 2012 vs 2016 they found e.g. increased negative attitudes for likely GOP voters against immigration, black people and Muslims, but virtually no change on economic or social issues. A big issue is that the administration seems to push that particular button (with the Muslim ban and the rhetoric surrounding legal immigration).
  5. US Government Shuts Down... Again

    It is still unclear to me what you mean. Republicans around you voted for Trump because Democracts were racists in the 60s and that is why Republicans today are not driven by racism despite evidence to the contrary...? I mean of course, there is a sizeable proportion who voted along party lines out of loyalty, but those would not need to make any excuses. I have colleagues like this, though they are really struggling with the current administration.
  6. US Government Shuts Down... Again

    What is the relevance of what ridiculous things folks around you believe? Unless you want to discuss how these perceptions arise.
  7. US Government Shuts Down... Again

    In the 60s the default conception regarding race would be considered fairly (or very) racist today.
  8. US Government Shuts Down... Again

    Here is the thing, though. Race and racism was a major driver for Trump supporters. Essentially, folks have wondered what topics are have driven voters to support Trump. Abortion is fairly low on all voter's mind with less than half (45%) considering them relevant for their votes. For comparison LGBT is about the same 40%, Economy 84%, Health Care 74%, Gun Policy 72%. People then tried to figure out what topics or attitudes are associated with or predictive for trump voters. Several studies looked specifically into the white voter section (as relatively few minorities voted for Trump. A paper before the election (Major et al., 2016 Group Proc & Intergroup Rel) found that: Thus among whites there is a sense of vulnerability due to presence of other ethnic groups leading to stronger support for Trump. Using the election data a conference paper Schaffner et al. showed that strong relationship between sexism and racism (and much weaker for economic dissatisfaction). Various polls have shown that Trump voters disproportionately view blacks as less intelligent, lazier and more violent than whites. Another study by Luttig et al. 2017, Res & Politics) found that: There are numerous article in newspapers discussing these links (e.g. here, here and here) . While I agree callings someone racist does not help changing their attitude, ignoring just to save someones feelings is not right either. We are at a point where the evidence becomes overwhelming that racism is an important factor for the current presidency. And the president himself seems quite aware of that and plays to that tune. Why else would he be tip-toeing around white supremacists (other than being one himself, that is).
  9. Epigenetics and future generations

    All genetics impact future generations (by definition). Epigenetics refers to that part of inheritable features that are not based on alterations of the DNA sequence itself.
  10. U.S. Immigration

    In that regard I found a recent paper quite interesting Huo et al. (2017, PNAS):
  11. U.S. Immigration

    Connected to that it is clear that the president equates ethnicity to the quality of certain people (e.g. with regard to rapists, drug dealers, thugs etc.). And as a hint, it also scales with melanin.
  12. 3 events that happened only once in history

    If you look at the totality of metabolic diversity in all eurkaryotes and then look at what is in prokaryotes you will find that there is far less around. No need for analogies. Part of the evolution of eukaryotes involved loss of metabolic capabilities.
  13. U.S. Immigration

    What do you think is the net cost of undocumented immigration?
  14. U.S. Immigration

    There are other studies and it pretty much holds true in almost all cohorts (almost because I have not exhaustively reviewed the literature, so there may be some that I missed as this is not my area of study). Still, for the ongoing discussion it is highly irrelevant (except as a distraction to create fear of immigrants as a whole).
  15. U.S. Immigration

    P. 329 and following it references relevant studies.
  16. How does lab permission generally work?

    a) Just having an idea without evidence of feasibility is pretty much worthless in the biomedical arena. b) anything that has potential to harm individuals, even when it may have benefits is an ethical dilemma. Stating that one wants to have a limited human trial without realizing that is troublesome.
  17. U.S. Immigration

    It is rather clear that you are just assuming things based on some rough extrapolations. Stating them as fact does the discussion no good. In fact most studies indicate that undocumented migrants are less likely to commit crimes than the average population. E.g. take a look here. Reasons do include the added fear of deportation.
  18. U.S. Immigration

    If one follows the falsehoods by Trump and his administration, it is difficult to overlook that the discussion is strongly framed in terms of racism, equating good immigration with white immigration.
  19. 3 events that happened only once in history

    Yet prokaryotes are far more metabolically diverse. It is probably more that multicelluarity allowed the opening of different niches.
  20. 3 events that happened only once in history

    Not necessarily, much is also getting into different niches and exploiting them. Otherwise, prokaryotes would be outcompeting eukaryotes as they former are far more genomically streamlined while being metabolically more diverse. At the same time strategies that are optimized for one condition can fail catastrophically once conditions change. Often, super-optimized populations are vulnerable to perturbations.
  21. How does lab permission generally work?

    If your project can be conducted using animal or in vitro models, the question boils down to a) how complex the proposed experiments are and b) whether you are going to pay for it. If it involves fairly standard analyses there may beUniversity groups (typically core facilities) and a number of commercial labs who can do that, though it may cost quite a bit. If it requires the development of experimental approaches (something that my lab has quite some experience in) the cost skyrockets (mostly personnel costs). If you actually have that level of money, it makes most sense to do as Arete has mentioned: solicit applications. What you basically put up is a rough description of the work you want to do, including e.g. whether you need cell lines or animal models, which level of analysis you need (e.g. what type of analytes are to be measured, targeted or global measure, etc.) as well as budget, while omitting proprietary information. Most universities have a research office where you can send out this level of information and they distribute it to researchers. Folks like me then can look at it and figure out whether we got the capacity to do it. Note that if it involves an NDA the money has to offset the fact that we cannot publish to some degree. If you cannot pay for all that, the interest will be very low at best. The best case scenario here is that you have an idea that is good and detailed enough so that a lab will invest some money for preliminary results. These can could then be used to submit a full application based on these to some granting agency. However, it is extremely unlikely to find someone to go through that trouble without a significant level of evidence that it may actually be successful. Moreover, if the work is not actually funded by you, the IP will usually have to be shared.
  22. How does lab permission generally work?

    Note that the ethics committee does not guarantee any legal rights. It is there only for procedural purposes and it is an entity of the institution. I.e. an ethics committee of an university will not review projects from externals, unless there is an internal collaborator. Its presence is only there that if there is an investigation the institute can claim that they followed procedure and that a given project was reviewed. If something goes wrong people involved can still be punished if they did not follow all reasonable precautions, for example. But also even red flags were missed. But again, the requirement to infect humans pretty much renders all discussion moot.
  23. How does lab permission generally work?

    If your experiments includes infecting humans I can tell you that you can pretty much forget that. Even someone with actual expertise in the area would have a very, very hard time to have anything on that level approved. Also note that on the cellular level mammalian cells (including humans) are very much alike. So if your basic idea does not work with any animals, it is very unlikely to work in humans. Also, if your proposed interaction happens on the cell level, one would expect to be able to measure some effects in specific cell lines. I sense a huge knowledge gap when it comes to working with infection models, and I would spend some serious time addressing that before even thinking about infecting anything.
  24. Ignoring the necromancy: There are a number of competing hypotheses but a coherent view has not emerged as of yet (to my knowledge). But rather obviously our chemical makeup (which similar in all known life forms) tells us a lot about potential venues. That being said, AFAIK (and it is not my field) most of the work is focused on specific aspects (biological activity of simple organic and inorganic molecules, for example) that could help delimiting what may be the progenitor molecule(s) responsible for early life. It will take a while until the obtained data coalesces into a more unified view of things.
  25. Male suicide

    In a number of posts male suicide have been cited as a counterargument of sexism and it has even been suggested (ridiculously) that women's right are a potential cause. While there is still a lot of unknowns regarding the recent increase especially in the US, I'd like to lay out some of the things that we know so far. - male suicide rate is higher than female, though attempted suicide rates are higher in women - men tend to act faster on suicidal thoughts and are less likely than women to seek help - men are more likely to be socially isolated, which is a risk factor for suicide - men are more distressed when encountering financial troubles and suicide rate is more prevalent in men in lower-income groups - male suicides are more likely to occur in relation to drug substance abuse than female suicide There are a few more factors that I could list upon request. However, this is a decent basis to start asking of why men react differently to women. One of the largest studies to look into these effects was conducted by Wong et al (2017 , Journal of Counseling Psychology) and it traces it down to essentially toxic masculinity. After a short break I will elaborate on what it means.