I am hardly surprised. Party and political identity is used to make a difference between "us" and "them". However, I am happy we have a scientific, rather than anecdotal evidence.
scientific, rather than anecdotal evidence
Respondents who knew less about politics, those who approved of President Trump, strong Republicans and self-identified conservatives were the groups most likely to be moved by seeing an endorsement of a policy by President Trump. Surprisingly, this was true of both a liberal and conservative endorsement. In other words, despite identifying as conservative Republicans, these individuals were more likely to endorse a liberal policy when told that President Trump supported that policy.
This kind of loyal partisanship should worry political observers, said Pope and Barber. They both maintain that politics are better when they revolve around more than just the party label.
“It should be about ideas and not about winning or beating the other side,” Barber said. “Politics should be about pushing ideas and policies that you think will better the country.”
This is likely a result of the two-party system. If a person on the left or right doesn’t agree with all (or even many) of their party’s policies, their only real alternative today would be to go to the other party, which they’d be even less likely to agree with.
If there were a number of major parties along a political spectrum, it would be more likely that someone might be willing to take a little step further toward the right or left.
First Past the Post voting means there isn't a good incentive to maintain a 3rd party because you will be splitting the vote with whatever established party is closest to you and basically handing the election to the other party.
Aren't most social interactions basically improvisation?
Yes but my guess would be that this feels a bit safer because it's not "real"
Improv is based around the idea of unconditional positive regard, just like therapy. You say something completely wacky and people will applaud for you. There are no wrong answers, and when it's done right everyone is incredibly supportive.
That's what makes it so awesome. It's a safe space to make mistakes, and spin mistakes into intentional choices that actually work out.
Improv is different in a few ways
It is cooperative by nature. Everyone is there to cooperate. You don't have that guarantee in a real conversation
It is understood that your character is informed by your personality but is not YOU. Their weirdness is not really yours. It's just the character
You can change characters, if not at will, then fairly quickly and freely
Social cues are heavily exaggerated to ensure that everyone gets the picture, and for humor's sake. That's like social training wheels
More or less, you control when you hop out of the game. You can take the pressure off and everyone will likely think that your voice needs a break or you are letting someone else jump in. Not so in normal conversation.
Isn't this true for everything? Ethnicities, sexuality, etc.
That fear of the other gets shattered when that "other" ceases to be an unknown
Or if you just continuously see negative media about said group.
It’s bound to have happened once or twice. Not all gay people can be super nice all the time, so maybe someone’s first contact was with a real dickhead and they just decided then and there gays weren’t for them. They mistook the anger of the individual for the stereotypical sass they’d heard of and now they assumed that all homosexuals were like that.
Maybe a stupid question but, where does it come from? Who synthesized it?
One of the problems is that illicit supply is coming from China, then getting flooded into our market and mixed with less potent drugs.
This is THE issue with fentanyl. The issue is when people don't understand what they're taking.
In hospitals, fentanyl is given in micrograms. A mg of fentanyl is just insanely dangerous for anyone!
I think people want to be able to drop their kids off at school and still have time to get to work by 8AM or 9AM.
Right, so why aren't we doing it everywhere?
High School kids have sports and jobs after school. Some districts stagger the start time of schools for school bus purposes. These things are complicated.
The time was changed from 7:55am to 8:50a.
In Seattle, sunrise ranges from 6:30am to 8:00am during the school year. This change didn't just give them more or better sleep, it made them more likely to be exposed to sunlight before school for more of the year.
While broadly true I don't think any science has an entry level textbook that is representative of the entirety of the subject matter even in part. Such a textbook would be a wonderful index but quite a useless teaching aid.
Chemistry is not taught by writing down quantum mechanical equations and working from there. It would cause most of the students to drop out before they hit their first Hamiltonian.
Students are eased into it. The breadth of insect taxonomy is quite incredible but can be overwhelming and while its inclusion should be greater it will never approach close to the 1900 levels from the start of this study. Hell, the structure of DNA wan't even discovered until 1953, could that have pushed out some of the insects perhaps?
In saying that they should include Scarabaeus satyrus just for its cool navigation method.
I'd imagine introductory biology is heavily influenced by the hordes of students going for medicine.
When talking about whether theology has anything to learn from science, the British biologist J. B. S. Haldane used to quip that God must have “an inordinate fondness for beetles.”
Because introductory biology books spend most of their time discussing cells and macromolecules... Which make up 100% of life.
After receiving the treatment, 50 percent of the mice survived for at least 60 days without their tumors regrowing.
Okay... but of the mice that got the same surgery and a placebo spray gel how many survived for at least 60 days without their tumors regrowing?
Based on figure 4b of the paper.
number of mice in which tumour reoccured by 40 days
untreated mice = 6/6
fibrin treated mice = 6/6
IgG @ CaCO3 @ fibrin = 5/6
aCD47 @ fibrin = 5/6
aCD47 @ CaCO3 @ fibrin = 4/8
all but the last one are essentially controls.
(not sure where the 60 days you quoted comes from. figure only reports up to 40 days).
The title of the post is a copy and paste from the first two paragraphs of the linked academic press release here:
Many people who are diagnosed with cancer will undergo some type of surgery to treat their disease — almost 95 percent of people with early-diagnosed breast cancer will require surgery and it’s often the first line of treatment for people with brain tumors, for example. But despite improvements in surgical techniques over the past decade, the cancer often comes back after the procedure.
Now, a UCLA-led research team has developed a spray gel embedded with immune-boosting drugs that could help. In a peer-reviewed study, the substance was successful half of the time in awakening lab animals’ immune systems to stop the cancer from recurring and inhibit it from spreading to other parts of the body.
Qian Chen, Chao Wang, Xudong Zhang, Guojun Chen, Quanyin Hu, Hongjun Li, Jinqiang Wang, Di Wen, Yuqi Zhang, Yifei Lu, Guang Yang, Chen Jiang, Jun Wang, Gianpietro Dotti, Zhen Gu.
In situ sprayed bioresponsive immunotherapeutic gel for post-surgical cancer treatment.
Nature Nanotechnology, 2018;
Cancer recurrence after surgical resection remains a significant cause of treatment failure. Here, we have developed an in situ formed immunotherapeutic bioresponsive gel that controls both local tumour recurrence after surgery and development of distant tumours. Briefly, calcium carbonate nanoparticles pre-loaded with the anti-CD47 antibody are encapsulated in the fibrin gel and scavenge H+ in the surgical wound, allowing polarization of tumour-associated macrophages to the M1-like phenotype. The released anti-CD47 antibody blocks the ‘don’t eat me’ signal in cancer cells, thereby increasing phagocytosis of cancer cells by macrophages. Macrophages can promote effective antigen presentation and initiate T cell mediated immune responses that control tumour growth. Our findings indicate that the immunotherapeutic fibrin gel ‘awakens’ the host innate and adaptive immune systems to inhibit both local tumour recurrence post surgery and potential metastatic spread.
My dad just had a slow-growing stage 1 lung tumour removed last week and this post has crushed my soul...
Alright, looks like the market is saturated, which is what we've been saying for a while now. What sorts of career changes would be best suited to someone with benchtop research experience?
Surely we can't all find positions in private industry!
This is why as a second year PhD student I'm getting the heck out and getting a job ASAP. I've just seen too much to feel like the degree is worth it anymore
As someone who's in the process of choosing between academia and industry, the academic path just has too many drawbacks. As a scientist, I want to do science. Many of the PIs around me don't do science. They write grants, teach, start companies/sit on boards for free cash, and delegate tasks. But the PI who is actually the innovating force behind their lab's work (as opposed to the students and postdocs) is becoming somewhat of a rarity. And that breaches into a separate and obvious moral dilemma when PIs are getting most of the credit for the work that comes out of their labs (in terms of awards, publications, academic leverage, etc).
On top of that, job security from tenure just isn't really an incentive any more once you acquire a valuable set of skills. Industry has its own set of problems, of course, but I just don't really see academia as an attractive track any more in large part because it's diverged from what it used to be, and I think many people think the same way.
I'm an engineer and know quite a few scientists who go into engineering in grad school. It might not be the most favorable path for someone who chose the physical sciences instead of engineering for a specific purpose, but if you're going to be pragmatic it's probably the reasonable path.
Humans back then were way smarter than we give credit.
What people forget is they had insane levels of time without the distractions of modern life.
4,000 years ago was really recent tbh. Civilization was already flourishing in the Fertile crescent at the time, and we were halfway through the agricultural revolution. The really crazy thing is, people have been about as intelligent as they currently are for more than 40,000 years. 10 times older than this game board. There are two main reasons why human society has advanced at such an accelerated rate recently: our population began exploding, meaning more people could come up with more stuff, and our ability to store and transmit information has continued to improve little by little. Notice, neither of these reasons is that individual humans became any smarter... because they really haven't
That's actually a misconception. They didn't have to hunt every day as big game usually provided a lot of food that would last especially for a while . Even with hunting and gathering and tool maintenance you still have a lot of time for observations.
Don't get me wrong it was a lot of work but not a 100% of your time work
When people offer the colloquialism “It will make you feel young again,” they are often describing the short-term spike in energy following a particular activity. Whether it’s the euphoria of riding a rollercoaster or the caffeine boost from a double-shot of espresso, the feeling usually dissipates, making the saying somewhat ironic. One of the distinct marks of youth is constant energy that returns not long after it fades.
Although Father Time remains undefeated, there is more good news for current members of Generation Active. The lifestyle trends of consistent exercise bode well for heart health and the sustained bouts of energy that diminish in old age, according to a recent study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology.
The researchers at Ball State University who conducted the study analyzed the health of the heart, lungs, and muscles among a group of individuals in their 70’s and found that their state was comparable to those of people in their 40’s.
To add, exercise also has potential to stave off dementia and age- related cognitive decline— Aka keeps your nervous systems “young” as well
Simple resistance exercises have enormous benefits, especially for seniors. A substantial portion of admissions (1/3 I think) to nursing homes is due to frailty, as opposed to actual disease, that can be avoided through modest weight lifting.
And then the benefits of aerobic exercise are huge for not just cardiovascular health, but for mental health too.
weight lifting is so underrated even in most commercial gyms and its benefits can not be repeated enough times