Maybe I just didn't pick up on the buzz. (Just so people have context its a large lab divided between several physical rooms across two buildings. I was a relatively new grad student at the time.)
Working in the Church lab (although not on CRISPR) at the time both papers came out, I recall everyone being surprised at Zhang's efforts even at the time of publication!
Actually less idiotic than what Martin O'Malley said right afterwards, that we should never give up liberty for the promise of safety (paraphrased). Except that's exactly what a stop sign does... trade liberty to drive without stopping for the reduced risk of crashing at every intersection. Our democracy is based on compromise, not ideology.
I listen to Howard Stern on SiriusXM (there's a 1 month free trial for the smartphone app). It's my morning indulgence while sitting on the T drinking a coffee.
Only at very high concentrations: Adverse neurological effects have been observed in rats and mice at doses of 100–200 mg Al/kg/day, while the USDA limit is 0.10–0.12 mg Al/kg/day for adult (25–30- and 70+-year-old) males and females. Aluminum is the 3rd most common element in the Earth's crust and humans have evolved given a certain level of environmental exposure. (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22-c2.pdf)
To be fair, they're refusing to turn over scientists' communications, not the data itself. This is absolutely the right move, because scientists are people, not politicians. If any scientist has at any point said something that isn't politically expedient it is guaranteed to be used against them in a political attack which will ignore and supersede any fact-based discussion of the (peer reviewed) data/analysis. Basically, politicians who disagree with the science now want to comb over emails to find ways to politically discredit the science.
It's easy to say that the scientists should be more political in their communications, but that doesn't really make sense. Many many people work on this type of project and it only takes one person to communicate something controversial. Moreover, the ability of the scientists to internally disagree about things like the method and degree of data normalization or homogenization is essential to producing high quality results. In fact if the science is done well someone at some point in the process _should_ communicate doubts or counterpoints to proposed data handling strategies. Those kinds of internal disagreement strengthen the scientific result, but weaken it politically. Congress should not be given additional tools to conflate and confuse science and politics.
Unfortunately I suspect this only reflects a small part of what it's like to be a woman. This doesn't cover any of the experiential disparities between men and women in the workplace, which I imagine are equally great and perhaps even more oppressive.
My understanding is that only the Edison machine uses finger prick amounts. However, it sounds like since these machines don't work they are using standard instruments. For these they take venous blood draws, just using a child-sized vacuum tube instead of an adult-sized vacuum tube. She talked about using the child-sized vacuum tubes in an interview. Not really a big differentiator in my opinion.
Why not just sign into Game Center? It's a serious question. Once you enable Game Center it stops bothering you and as far as I can tell doesn't really do anything other than add you to leaderboards.
It should have been clear from the article that they haven't used this technique in humans yet. What other context is needed? They can easily do these things in cell lines and mice.
In physics, there is a mathematical foundation upon which to build theory. In biology there is no theory. There's no way to design drugs based on an equation or a back-of-the-napkin doodle. There are no examples of therapeutics breakthroughs that arose other than through (very costly) experimentation, which is unlikely to occur at the desk of a patent clerk.
This shows that you don't understand the market well.
"Harvoni, made by Gilead Sciences, has cure rates of between 94 and 99 per cent. It is the successor to Gilead’s Sovaldi, which has accrued more than $7bn in US sales since it became available in the final quarter of 2013.
Early data suggest Harvoni is poised to be even more of a success."
Also, the goal of ALL cancer treatments is to cure the cancer (other than maybe slow growing prostate cancers and cancers where there is no cure available and the best you can do is palliative care).
It seems really doubtful a startup would have two breakthrough drugs in different categories. I wouldn't answer an email with this information either. Plus the light conspiracy talk about pharma companies wanting a treatment not a cure... It reduces your legitimacy. Look at the hepatitis cure, it's one of the biggest blockbusters of recent history.
How have you funded the R&D necessary to discover these compounds?
A hallmark of "real ADD" is that tolerance typically doesn't build. Once you are at an appropriate dose you can stay there. The treatment is supposed to reduce inattentiveness and improve focus. If abused or used recreationally, it has the opposite effect, to stimulate and enhance mood, to create a kind of manic energy. I've been at the same dose for over 7 years with no noticeable tolerance.
Interesting article, I'm very new to the field but I have an exciting application for GIS--I'm a biologist at Harvard and we have a new method to generate biological measurements at atomic scale inside biological specimens, and I believe the best way to store and analyze this data is using a GIS. Consider the example in your paper; "What are the optimal aircraft settings for my aircraft in this weather?” For our data, the questions are more like "What is the molecular spatial architecture of this tumor, and how can that inform treatment?" If this seems interesting to you it would be great to have a conversation about ways SpaceCurve could advance our project.
I am very interested in this area, if anyone is knowledgeable about it I would love to get in contact and learn more. What is the landscape for bio-data companies? Any thoughts on business plans, exit plans? It seems obvious to me that areas like diagnostics and therapeutics development should be driven primarily by big data rather than traditional research efforts.
Unfortunately, not really. You might know it better as Obamacare, though. It created health insurance exchanges that are subsidized for low income people and reformed other aspects of medical reimbursement and regulations governing health insurance. The aspects you think are problematic will depend on whether you're criticizing it from the right (it increased government involvement, and the complexity of the healthcare system, etc.) or the left (that it gave private insurance companies too much power, wasn't universal, and didn't fundamentally address some of the problems driving cost increases, etc.). Either way, the data shows that healthcare costs are growing more slowly after implementation and that more people are insured than were in the past.
The morons part was just me being facetious. Since I edited my comment I went from -3 to 0, so apparently people agree. I don't know why asking for a counter-argument would get me banned, or how you know anything about being banned from HN when you've been a member for 86 days and I've been a member for over 600 days. I've never actually heard of banning here.
I think perspective matters here somewhat. If you're scooped as an established scientist, it is a kind of validation of the importance of your work. If you're scooped as a graduate student or post-doc, it can be a disheartening loss of credit for years of work. The difference is the PI gets credit (rightly so) for the direction of the research, which is validated by being scooped, while the graduate student or post-doc is blamed for the speed of the work.
There was a study a while back that suggested FODMAPs, not gluten, was a prime candidate for this type of symptom.
"Fodmaps is an acronym for fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols, sugars that draw water into the intestinal tract. They may be poorly digested or absorbed, and become fodder for colonic bacteria that produce gas and can cause abdominal distress."
The Affordable Healthcare Act was gigantic and created by morons, but by most metrics is improving the American healthcare system. The argument that the government can not act in a way that improves things, even if it is not the perfect solution, is contrary to fact.
EDIT: I treat down-votes in the absence of a counter-argument as up-votes.
At what point does "prioritization" effectively become blocking? People navigate away from websites that take a long time to load or have advertisements.