Jump to content

arnolp04

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by arnolp04

  1. Hi there,

     

    Have you thought about what aspects of biology or microbiology appeal to you - i.e. evolutionary genetics, therapeutic cloning, forensic microbiology, cells systems etc ? Once you have an idea of the fields you prefer you could then look for the centres of excellence and world leading labs for those subjects.

     

    If you want to work in forensics try Leicester University (where Sir Alec Jeffreys created dna figerprinting).

     

    I studied genetics at London University and highly recommend the place.

     

    Good luck with your search

    Paul

  2. Interesting idea, but not much fun living as a brain in a jar. I haven't got the best body in the world, but I'm quite attached to it. Also, forgive me for being overly negative, but whilst I believe there are ways to extend lifespans, afterall that's what medicines do, and there's some pretty exciting work with telomeres in c.elegans - live forever just sounds too good to be true - like 'get rich quick' - it'll never happen. Every generation has their own potion, lotion, idea for eternal youth, an elixir of life, but unless you are about to celebrate your 250th birthday, all 'live forever' ideas are doomed to failure. I would love to be proved wrong and eagerly await that time.

  3. I don't think animals have a good survival record in space - but, are you asking whether the process of genetically altering an animal would affect its chances of survival? If it's a cloned animal, well, their success rates aren't too good on the ground, so I don't see how they would fare any better in space. And even if you're talking about an animal that's had a few cells genetically altered, perhaps to express some human proteins, this shouldn't affect its survivability. I imagine that it would be all the other affects of space travel, and zero-to low gravity that would dictate whether an animal lives or dies. Or whether the crew was hungry.

  4. Not sure this really helps with the discussion but being something of a reductionist I approach any correlative research such as that featured in New Scientist with extreme caution. They remind me of epidemiological studies that try and link a cause to an effect, and so many of them fail to deliver the goods. And though this next comment might elicit a groan - IQ testing is far too limited in its scope to be a true measure of intelligence.

  5. I have a fondness for Trypanosoma cruzi - but only because when I first heard the name of the disease it causes I was in a lecture and the guy sitting next to me thought it was so funny that he couldn't control his giggles - and when someone next to you is laughing like mad, it's kind of infectious and soon the whole hall was in tears - apart from our lecturer, who was quite an eminent scientist and really wasn't amused. I am now more mature - the disease it causes is really unpleasant but the name is Chagas disease

  6. God and science don't have to be mutually exclusive - some of the world's top astronomers are Jesuit priests and they work for the pope out of an observatory on Mount Graham in Arizona and at the pope's summer palace just outside Rome.

  7. Both are belief systems, or more correctly some elements of science are belief systems - any one seen a Higgs Boson yet? What happened in the first billionth of a second after the Universe was created? Belief plays a a huge role in these areas of research. The big difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that scientists, (to coin a cliche) are prepared to slay their own intellectual children - they challenge their beliefs at every turn, when new information appears on the scene.

  8. Sadly, no matter what the theorists say and predicit about multi dimensions, time being an arrow, circle , pentagon or some such shape, Einsteins clocks and relativity etc - we will never be able to travel back or forward in time in the way that sci fi - star trek - dr who et al envision. The past is the past - the dead are dead, you will not be able to go back to the court of Queen Elizabeth 1 - whch is ashame as I understand the entertainment was quite good.

     

    With best wishes

    Paul

  9. Theoretically yes - practically - no. As already mentiond the DNA would be far too degraded and the hybrid too much croc/reptile - you may not get any viable dino traits. Though of course you never know - may be one day scientists will find a perfectly preserved dino dna sequence - never say never and all that.

     

    In 2007 they were able to extract protein from 68 million year old Trex bones. It's helping with studies on the evolutionary link between dinos and birds. Huge surprise that such organic material survived for so long.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.