CharonY

I mostly did not know what the point of that argument was. It seemed to try to suggest that the ability (or inability) to address a condition would have some sort of inherent meaning. But obviously there are a lot of procedures developed that are done because folks are willing to pay for it (e.g. plastic surgery). I don't think anyone is looking for a cure in autism, despite in some cases the conditions can make life very difficult. Rather, folks want to understand the condition itself (as it is not very well defined), potential causes and behavioral management options. There are some folks using animal models to look into molecular mechanisms of autism and some think that this could lead to a cure, but I think that is mostly sales (like having a cancer treatment every week). This research has also shifted the perception on autism, especially in what was previously considered "Asperger's syndrome" which is now more considered to be within a more normative range (if at the extremes) for example. If your question is whether there are genetics based treatment, AFAIK there is only few, in part also because many genetic challenges are not caused by a single locus. Besides certain uses in cancer I am only aware of a gene therapy to treat a retinal disease. Larger chromosomal changes are not feasible targets.

Exactly, we are all mutants.

In this context I would like to add that aberrations is also a social construct. In nature, these variations simply exist and, if harmful generally do not spread. But based on what originally constituted life on Earth, everything but the simplest bacteria are aberrations. Whether we want to change certain conditions or not, does not make them normal or abnormal. For example, originally humans become lactose intolerant as they mature. Addressing this issue does not make it an aberration. But since the ample availability of dairy can make it problematic, it can be considered a syndrome to be treated or at least managed.

Well, not only that, it also takes time and genetic isolation between populations. Even extreme inbreeding would not result in genetic isolation within a generation (or at least I cannot think of a scenario at the top of my head).

And also a function of nutrient availability. This is another example why focusing on a seemingly fixed (genetic or other biological interpretation) of a presumed normalcy is inherently flawed. Nature just is creates all kinds of variations. Otherwise we would still be superoptimized unicellular organisms.

In this context I think it is important to highlight that definitions like disease/syndromes etc. are context-driven and are not something that is ultimately biological per se, despite having biological origins. A crude example includes forms of sickle cell anemia, which in isolation is harmful, but in the context of high malaria risk, becomes beneficial. Ultimately, any variation that exists in nature simply exists, regardless of frequency and any "norm" we associate with it, is almost entirely context-driven. For practical purposes, we consider mutations a deviation from something (i.e. the wild-type), but given the fact that everything we see is the result of one mutation or another, it is obviously not something that is really not normal in nature. So obviously the association with genotype and sex is specific to a number of species (including humans), but is clearly not universal. And even within these, a number of variations exist. As SJ mentioned before, whether we call them a syndrome is related to whether they cause issue in their daily lives, which obviously is very specific to the human condition and society and should not be mixed with biological interpretation.

As I alluded to earlier, it is related to how funding (for teaching and research) is allocated, and in the US (but also Canada, and I believe UK) there is marked disparity in what universities get. Also in many publicly funded universities in Europe you lack many amenities (and sports teams), but in return you can study without getting into debt.

No, that is perfectly fine. I just want to make it clear as some folks assume that this is an universal biological thing, whereas in reality biology is more complicated (and weirder) than we see in humans.

I want to add that this is a human-centered view, and not really applicable in the broader field of biology. In terms of sexual reproduction a distinction in male and female is made based on anisogamy (i.e. if they create different forms of gametes). In some species one organism can do both, in others, the role can change during their life cycle. But there is also sexual reproduction where we find isogamy (i.e. gametes with same morphology), which is a form of sexual reproduction that cannot be classified into different sexes. And some do really weird switches, especially when they can change between uni- to multicellular life styles. In short, biology of sex is weird and everyone is a pervert.

There dsRNA viruses (e.g. rotavirus), and are obviously also formed during replication. One important regulator of mutation rates are proof-reading mechanisms that recognize and remove mismatches during replication. Many RNA viruses don't have them (but SARS-Cov-2 does, which is why its mutation rate is a bit lower). Other factors are replication speed. Some polymerases work very fast which allows for imperfect matches to go through.

I knew I should have weaponized my research!

! Moderator Note Thread locked pending review.

It is not so much the inherent stability of the molecule that causes mutations, but rather the difference in copying the genetic material (which is more prone to errors in RNA viruses for a variety of reasons).

Absolutely. I don't really do fieldwork, though once was peripherally involved in budgeting related to a space mission. The numbers did not seem real when you are used to typical (even instrument-intensive) lab experiments. Or, you know, tax wealth or reduce subsidies for companies.

This is especially true for trials, though at the same time, there is the argument that in the USA the balance might be a bit off. After all, innovation happens at similar or lower rates in countries where pharmaceutical prices are regulated. That is not to say that they have no role- quite the contrary. While many pharmaceutical discovery is probably more prevalent in academia, bringing them to market often requires the formation of a spin-off to finance the necessary steps. But one could make the argument that this is less innovation, but more routine development.

Well, for starters we cannot afford lobbyists. One should perhaps also note that price gouging is a bigger issue in the US where prices are mostly unregulated. There are studies out there showing that while the US spends more on prescription drugs, but relative to spending does not provide more development than other countries. Some countries with strong pharmaceutical companies (UK, Switzerland) are more productive in that regard. And I do think that lawmakers and companies are well aware of that.

I am surprised as it sound fairly low. Travel and accommodations alone would eat a fair chunk of it. Heck, I pay as much if I need get a tech in to do repairs that I cannot do myself. Not really, the do applied research and especially development. But most fundamental developments are either academic or spun of from there. It is not that they no innovative role, but it is fairly rare that they fundamental research and it has become rarer over time. In the 50s there was quite a bit of overlap, but that has mostly vanished.

If it does not generate profit, they won't do it. If it generates profit, then it will take precedence over insights. As such, companies are really not suited for explorative research, but they do well in the applied field. The insights will take a back seat every time (also addressing potential harms, because they want to the public to pay for that).

And not only that, it is known that public funded research stimulates private research. Estimates have shown that for each 1$ invested in public research, it stimulates around 0.5-2.5$ in private R&D. But perhaps more importantly, I would rather have a public fight regarding what to fund or not, rather than having a few ultra-rich folks determine it.

It is really unlikely that spacecrafts are becoming commodities like cars. But assuming there is going to be commercialized space travel, it likely would require at least a higher level of regulation than current air flights. Research in the hands of companies is usually narrowly focused, and a really bad vehicle to gain insights (rather than profits). Companies rarely do any kind of explorative research as the cost/benefit ratio is not in their favour. Also, academic researchers have to demonstrate feasibility of their projects and whereas companies only need to sell the idea to investors. NASA would have not been able to burn through so many failed rockets as SpaceX which has implications on how to do things (for better or for worse). This becomes really problematic when it can impact things like environmental or human health, for example.

The mechanisms are actually known and is largely related to their replication mechanism. RNA viruses, including poliovirus have fairly high mutation rates and SARS-CoV-2 is actually on the lower end for RNA viruses. Conversely, poliovirus is on the higher end of the scale. Conversely, poliovirus has a much smaller genome (7.5 k vs 30k). The reason why we have so many SARS-CoV-2 variants is likely related to yet another factor, namely the fact that so many people have been infected. For example, at the peak of polio outbreaks in the USA ca. 50k individuals were found to be infected in a year. At the peak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the USA had over 900k cases per day. The high circulation ultimately means more mutations and higher chance of positively selectable traits.

It really depends on which level you are looking at it. Undergrad? Not so much. There can be differences in how the technical labs are equipped, though in the US (and elsewhere) labs are getting cut because of cost. This trend is less so in countries in which Universities are not funded by tuition. I will also add that having tuition as a significant part of the university budget often creates perverse incentives and often also leads to administrative bloat. Examples include having offices who are actively trying to recruit and attract students, which is largely absent in entirely publicly funded institutions. Likewise, there is more incentive for student retention, which is associated with higher grade inflation. From a student perspective the experience can be better as there is more support (incl. recruitment, accommodation, living space, guidance and career counseling, as well as easier to grieve grades). But it does not mean that the education is better (often the reverse, actually). On the graduate level, that depends more on individual researchers than the university per se. I.e. individual profs can run successful groups regardless on which university they are working in. However, there are disparities between countries. The US provides quite a bit of funding for research, but there are quite differences between European countries. Highly ranked universities are often also flush with money and often support profs more with resources to establish successful research programs. That being said, there are many moderately or low ranked universities with good researchers and successful (research) graduate programs. Things are a bit iffier when the University primarily sees itself as a teaching university. There, Profs struggle to maintain a program as they get virtually no support (e.g. no lab space). They therefore rarely have successful programs in natural sciences (though they might have social science programs).

I am fairly sure that if one includes suicide, handguns would play a huge role, though in many ways that is likely a convenience thing. I suspect accidents are also somewhat less likely.

As mentioned, the data is lacking, but there were a few studies looking into related issues. There is some lack of granularity and I don't think there is a study focusing on a relatively rare event such as home invasion. One study looking at a cohort cohabitating with folks with and without gun ownership and they found that although the all-cause mortality was similar, the homicide rate among gun owners was double to those of non-gun owners. Specifically looking at homicides at home, gun owners were about 4x higher at risk. However, the risk of getting killed at home by strangers was only 1.45x higher among gun owners (but therefore still higher) and 7x higher for the risk of getting killed by a spouse or intimate partner. So from a high-level view, gun ownership as such does not reduce risk of getting killed, but seemingly in all scenarios (again, from a composite view) increases it.https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-3762 There are more studies looking into whether gun ownership can be deterrent for burglary and the overall consensus seems to be that it is not the case. However, there is a positive correlation between burglary and gun ownership and it could be that in rough areas folks are more likely to have both, guns and burglaries.