Support NeoGAF

[Gorgon]

What a great thread!

I should introduce mahself. I graduated in Cell and Molecular Biology two and a half years ago, and went straight into a PhD in Molecular Medicine. I work in neuropsychiatric genetics, performing a functional follow-up of a gene implicated in autism via a genome wide association study. Everything in our group is exome sequencing this and next-gen sequencing that, so I feel lucky as a functional genomics biologist there is a lot of work up and coming for people will such skills (as it's not enough to just implicate mutations in disease, we need to know the function!). My work is mostly just research as part of a consortia, but there are people in my group who meet with patients and take DNA samples from them, so hopefully one day those people or their relatives will see treatments come about due to their participation in genetic studies.

I think the most interesting thing I have learnt recently was at the most recent European Society for Human Genetics meeting. There was a seminar about intellectual disability where they were discussing how, using next-gen sequencing, many of the mutations that they have found to be risk factors (or even causative) were not in 'neuron specific' genes, but in general 'housekeeping genes', cell adhesion molecules etc. This was interesting for me in terms of my research, but I also think it demonstrates the power that next generation sequencing technology has in enabling us to find genes implicated in a disorder that people had ignored for one reason or another. It goes to show you that the 'hypothesis free' approach of genome wide association studies and whole genome sequencing isn't all bad. ^^


Were they discussing fMRI? Some of the clinical psychologists in my group use that with patients, I've seen some of their raw data at their presentations, they really are fascinating to look at - like a heat map of brain activity in 3D. Mammalian brains are just so cool!

Thanks for sharing, man. Welcome to the thread.

You guys see the tevatron findings weren't able to be duplicated? :|

Yep.

 

[Gorgon]

Why is this thread dead in the water?

What You Learned About Static Electricity Is Wrong

For many of us, static electricity is one of the earliest encounters we have with electromagnetism, and it’s a staple of high school physics. Typically, it’s explained as a product of electrons transferred in one direction between unlike substances, like glass and wool, or a balloon and a cotton T-shirt (depending on whether the demo is in a high school class or a kids’ party). Different substances have a tendency to pick up either positive or negative charges, we’re often told, and the process doesn’t transfer a lot of charge, but it’s enough to cause a balloon to stick to the ceiling, or to give someone a shock on a cold, dry day.


Nearly all of that is wrong, according to a paper published in today’s issue of Science. Charges can be transferred between identical materials, all materials behave roughly the same, the charges are the product of chemical reactions, and each surface becomes a patchwork of positive and negative charges, which reach levels a thousand times higher than the surfaces’ average charge.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/how-static-electricity-works/#more-65419

 

[Cujshi]

Why is this thread dead in the water?

What You Learned About Static Electricity Is Wrong



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/how-static-electricity-works/#more-65419

Scientific community is kinda of sure that they know all there is to know about electricity. but it seems to me that they forget about Tesla and the stuff that he did. he actually still holds the record for biggest artificial lightning.

 

[Gorgon]

Tesla was quite an interesting character.

 

[Scrow]

http://news.discovery.com/tech/tech-reboot-brain-110628.html

BRAIN IN A DISH COMES ALIVE
A computer chip marinated in neurons and stem cells creates super bursts of activity and could someday help stroke victims' brains heal.

THE GIST
* Neurons were grown on top of a computer chip that has an array of electrodes.
* Adult stem cells are added.
* After a month, the "brain in a dish" generated super bursts of activity.
*That activity could one day stimulate quiet areas to reboot after a stroke or other brain damage.

more at the link

 

[Raist]

Sooo... I submitted a paper. Teeheeeee

Spoiler

Going to be rejected big time within 3 days, haha.

 

[Gorgon]

Sooo... I submitted a paper. Teeheeeee

Spoiler

Going to be rejected big time within 3 days, haha.

Good luck man! Keep us informed!


By the way, can anyone recomend me a good book on Genomics? I'm looking for something along the lines of the equivalent to Brock Biology of Microorganisms, but for Genomics instead. Basically something that can be used as a good introduction to the field but which will be useful for reference during research.


And since people are letting this thread die, here is a contribution:

Last dinosaur before mass extinction discovered


A team of scientists has discovered the youngest dinosaur preserved in the fossil record before the catastrophic meteor impact 65 million years ago. The finding indicates that dinosaurs did not go extinct prior to the impact and provides further evidence as to whether the impact was in fact the cause of their extinction.

Researchers from Yale University discovered the fossilized horn of a ceratopsian - likely a Triceratops, which are common to the area - in the Hell Creek formation in Montana last year. They found the fossil buried just five inches below the K-T boundary, the geological layer that marks the transition from the Cretaceous period to the Tertiary period at the time of the mass extinction that took place 65 million years ago.

Since the impact hypothesis for the demise of the dinosaurs was first proposed more than 30 years ago, many scientists have come to believe the meteor caused the mass extinction and wiped out the dinosaurs, but a sticking point has been an apparent lack of fossils buried within the 10 feet of rock below the K-T boundary. The seeming anomaly has come to be known as the "three-meter gap." Until now, this gap has caused some paleontologists to question whether the non-avian dinosaurs of the era - which included Tyrannosaurus rex, Triceratops, Torosaurus and the duckbilled dinosaurs - gradually went extinct sometime before the meteor struck. (Avian dinosaurs survived the impact, and eventually gave rise to modern-day birds.)

http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=34105

 

[Dennis]

Apparently Quasars can hold a lot of water:

100 trillion times the water on earth

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=438486

 

[Dennis]

By the way, can anyone recomend me a good book on Genomics?

Unfortunately no. Books on Molecular Biology cover genomics to some degree but its hard to recommend any specific book because......books are not that useful. Reading Review articles on the specific area of genomics of interest quickly becomes more important.

 

[Gorgon]

Unfortunately no. Books on Molecular Biology cover genomics to some degree but its hard to recommend any specific book because......books are not that useful. Reading Review articles on the specific area of genomics of interest quickly becomes more important.

Looks like someone noticed my plea on that thread you linked to...It's sad to let this thread die.

Anyway, I'd like to ask you for some recomendations.

I was thinking about one of these for general Molecular Biology:

- Lewin's Genes X
- Molecular Biology of the Gene

Any opinions on what is the best option? For Genomics proper I understand your point of view but I'd still like something more directed just for background. There are two books that caught my attention:

- A Primer of Genome Science
- Genomes 3

Genomes 3 looks good but is from 2006, while the first one is from 2009. Do you know any of these? I'd be working mostly with prokaryotes (if this project goes ahead), so I have the latest edition of "Molecular Genetics of Bacteria" already on my list.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Gorgon]

Anyone?!?!

 

[archnemesis]

I have a copy of A Primer of Genome Science, but I haven't really used it that much. To be honest I can't even remember why I got it in the first place. It seems to cover most areas and the illustrations are quite good. Can't comment about the other books, sorry.

 

[Gorgon]

I have a copy of A Primer of Genome Science, but I haven't really used it that much. To be honest I can't even remember why I got it in the first place. It seems to cover most areas and the illustrations are quite good. Can't comment about the other books, sorry.

Thanks anyway, man. At least you tryied to help!

 

[Boozeroony]

Ah yes. I need to get some life in this thread.

Anyway, I've applying to all sorts of jobs now. Hard to get a nice position

 

[Dennis]

Ah yes. I need to get some life in this thread.

Anyway, I've applying to all sorts of jobs now. Hard to get a nice position

Are you looking for a forensics job or a more general research position?

Do you have a PhD? If not, have you considered going for that degree?

 

[Dennis]

Anyone?!?!

I would recommend

A Primer of Genome Science

It offers a very solid introduction and is suitable for giving a broad overview. Reasonably priced as well.

 

[RumblingRosco]

How did I never see this thread the first time?

Anyway, good read so far, I'll start contributing legitmately soon, but I wanted to do a quick autobiography.

In May, I graduated with a B.S. in Family and Consumer Sciences (my "sequence" was in Food, Nutrition, and Dietetics). I conducted research as an undergrad in a biochemistry laboratory studying Leishmania. I've since moved on to grad school, being accepted in the Food Science program at UIUC; I've actually started early this summer and will be doing a rotation between a couple labs that are food microbiology oriented. My research options will vary within them, but I'm most likely going to choose to work with biofuel production, as I've found it the most interesting and rewarding in the (admitedly very short) amount of time I've been here. Working towards my PhD, which is obviously 4+ years away.

In exciting news, my first publication, which I happen to be the first author of, recently had reviewer comments, all of which were very minor. I'm making the changes (with assistance from my old lab) and re-submitting it early next week. We believe it'll be accepted without any further issues at this point, so here's to hoping. I'm quite excited, as you can imagine.

 

[Gorgon]

I would recommend

A Primer of Genome Science

It offers a very solid introduction and is suitable for giving a broad overview. Reasonably priced as well.

Thank you very much!

What about a general Molecular Biology textbook? Should I go for Genes X or Molecular Biology of the Gene?

Thank you!

 

[Gorgon]

How did I never see this thread the first time?

Anyway, good read so far, I'll start contributing legitmately soon, but I wanted to do a quick autobiography.

In May, I graduated with a B.S. in Family and Consumer Sciences (my "sequence" was in Food, Nutrition, and Dietetics). I conducted research as an undergrad in a biochemistry laboratory studying Leishmania. I've since moved on to grad school, being accepted in the Food Science program at UIUC; I've actually started early this summer and will be doing a rotation between a couple labs that are food microbiology oriented. My research options will vary within them, but I'm most likely going to choose to work with biofuel production, as I've found it the most interesting and rewarding in the (admitedly very short) amount of time I've been here. Working towards my PhD, which is obviously 4+ years away.

In exciting news, my first publication, which I happen to be the first author of, recently had reviewer comments, all of which were very minor. I'm making the changes (with assistance from my old lab) and re-submitting it early next week. We believe it'll be accepted without any further issues at this point, so here's to hoping. I'm quite excited, as you can imagine.

Soka, thanks for sharing. I will be starting my PhD soon too, after one that got aborted. Good luck with your studies!

 

[Dennis]

What about a general Molecular Biology textbook?

Molecular Biology of the Cell

It is the Gold standard really, but its quite expensive: $122.99

Link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815341059/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Should I go for Genes X or Molecular Biology of the Gene?

If you want one of these go with Molecular Biology of the Gene

 

[Dennis]

How did I never see this thread the first time?

Anyway, good read so far, I'll start contributing legitmately soon, but I wanted to do a quick autobiography.

In May, I graduated with a B.S. in Family and Consumer Sciences (my "sequence" was in Food, Nutrition, and Dietetics). I conducted research as an undergrad in a biochemistry laboratory studying Leishmania. I've since moved on to grad school, being accepted in the Food Science program at UIUC; I've actually started early this summer and will be doing a rotation between a couple labs that are food microbiology oriented. My research options will vary within them, but I'm most likely going to choose to work with biofuel production, as I've found it the most interesting and rewarding in the (admitedly very short) amount of time I've been here. Working towards my PhD, which is obviously 4+ years away.

In exciting news, my first publication, which I happen to be the first author of, recently had reviewer comments, all of which were very minor. I'm making the changes (with assistance from my old lab) and re-submitting it early next week. We believe it'll be accepted without any further issues at this point, so here's to hoping. I'm quite excited, as you can imagine.

What journal?

I would ask for the article itself but that would obviously make it possible to identify you when the article comes out and you may not want that.

 

[Boozeroony]

Are you looking for a forensics job or a more general research position?

Do you have a PhD? If not, have you considered going for that degree?

Forensics preferably, as a general researcher. I realize that a job as a forensic specialist is very hard to obtain.

I'm not very keen on going for a PhD. Don't think that will make me happy.

 

[Gorgon]

Molecular Biology of the Cell

It is the Gold standard really, but its quite expensive: $122.99

Link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815341059/?tag=neogaf0e-20



If you want one of these go with Molecular Biology of the Gene

Thanks for the imput, but I should have made myself more clear on my project to help you, well, help me. I won't be working with Cell Biology at all, my work will be mainly Genomics, Environmental Genomics/Metagenomics, Gene Mining, Phylogenetics, and perhaps Proteomics and Transcriptomics. I won't be working with cell biology at all. Also, I'll be focusing on prokaryotes and bacteriophages and essentially with environmental samples. That is why I asked about Molecular Biology of the Gene and Genes X as they seem somewhat less geared towards cell biology. You still think Molecular Biology of the Cell would be best?

Sorry for bothering you again.

 

[Dennis]

Thanks for the imput, but I should have made myself more clear on my project to help you, well, help me. I won't be working with Cell Biology at all, my work will be mainly Genomics, Environmental Genomics/Metagenomics, Gene Mining, Phylogenetics, and perhaps Proteomics and Transcriptomics. I won't be working with cell biology at all. Also, I'll be focusing on prokaryotes and bacteriophages and essentially with environmental samples. That is why I asked about Molecular Biology of the Gene and Genes X as they seem somewhat less geared towards cell biology. You still think Molecular Biology of the Cell would be best?

Sorry for bothering you again.

No, then that is not the book for you.

Go for Molecular Biology of the Gene

 

[Raist]

Paper is now sent for actual reviewing. Took them quite some time :/
Oh well, now the hardest part's coming.

 

[Gorgon]

No, then that is not the book for you.

Go for Molecular Biology of the Gene

OK, thanks!

 

[thomaser]

I am no scientist, but I love science anyway, and really enjoy learning new things. Are there great books out there that you guys would recommend to a beginner? I'm mostly on the lookout for the "best" textbooks in maths, astronomy, chemistry, statistics (and sociology and psychology, but I guess not all of you would consider that a science). They have to be both approachable and thorough - take me from the basics and a good way into the harder concepts. Preferably with lots of good diagrams and such... I am, as I said, a beginner. Thanks!

 

[Gorgon]

I am no scientist, but I love science anyway, and really enjoy learning new things. Are there great books out there that you guys would recommend to a beginner? I'm mostly on the lookout for the "best" textbooks in maths, astronomy, chemistry, statistics (and sociology and psychology, but I guess not all of you would consider that a science). They have to be both approachable and thorough - take me from the basics and a good way into the harder concepts. Preferably with lots of good diagrams and such... I am, as I said, a beginner. Thanks!

Most introductory college textbooks are pretty accessible to anyone as long as you really want to go through them. I don't deal with any of the sciences you refered to, though.

And yes, Sociology and Psycology are certainly sciences.

Ever considered going to college? If you're really into reading all those textbooks you could just as well go for a BS.

 

[RumblingRosco]

Soka, thanks for sharing. I will be starting my PhD soon too, after one that got aborted. Good luck with your studies!

You may have already mentioned it in this thread, but I presumably missed it; in what area will you be studying?

What journal?

I would ask for the article itself but that would obviously make it possible to identify you when the article comes out and you may not want that.

JIB (Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry)... once it comes out I can at least PM you to the specific article, but I'm not overly concerned with people knowing my identity, so I may just link it on here if people are curious. We're not talking about world-changing research on Leishmania here, but it's some interesting work with a few new ideas.

I'm currently trying to learn more about genetics, particularly microbial genetics. My adviser loaned me Genes V by Benjamin Lewin... it's actually a somewhat outdated text at this point, they're up to VIII, but it's still very helpful. Learning it all slowly.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Since I keep reading "Cell and Molecular Biology" in this thread, I figured I'd share. I'm taking Cell and Molecular Biology as a class this year. I heard it is quite difficult. Wish me luck!

 

[MrBig]

subbing

 

[Boozeroony]

Since I keep reading "Cell and Molecular Biology" in this thread, I figured I'd share. I'm taking Cell and Molecular Biology as a class this year. I heard it is quite difficult. Wish me luck!

Piece o' cake

 

[thomaser]

Most introductory college textbooks are pretty accessible to anyone as long as you really want to go through them. I don't deal with any of the sciences you refered to, though.

And yes, Sociology and Psycology are certainly sciences.

Ever considered going to college? If you're really into reading all those textbooks you could just as well go for a BS.

Thanks, I'll try to find out which textbooks they use at the universities here. I study language, history and literature at a university, but only part-time and online since there is no university close to me. There's a college, but they only teach maritime and economic courses, which don't interest me. The more scientific courses are not available online in this country, so the best I can do as it is is a bachelor of arts.

 

[Scrow]

Anyone?!?!

Not to discourage more science discussion here on GAF (I'd love to see it become a really strong community here), but if you're really desperate to helpful responses you should check out Reddit and all the science related sub-reddits.

Ones in particular you might find useful:

http://www.reddit.com/r/biology
http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry
http://www.reddit.com/r/genetics
http://www.reddit.com/r/bioinformatics
http://www.reddit.com/r/science
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience

People there are usually very helpful and knowledgeable.

 

[Gorgon]

Not to discourage more science discussion here on GAF (I'd love to see it become a really strong community here), but if you're really desperate to helpful responses you should check out Reddit and all the science related sub-reddits.

Ones in particular you might find useful:

http://www.reddit.com/r/biology
http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry
http://www.reddit.com/r/genetics
http://www.reddit.com/r/bioinformatics
http://www.reddit.com/r/science
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience

People there are usually very helpful and knowledgeable.

Thanks, I'll may use it in the future.

 

[Gorgon]

I'm currently trying to learn more about genetics, particularly microbial genetics. My adviser loaned me Genes V by Benjamin Lewin... it's actually a somewhat outdated text at this point, they're up to VIII, but it's still very helpful. Learning it all slowly.

You may want to check out Molecular Genetics of Bacteria.

Thanks, I'll try to find out which textbooks they use at the universities here. I study language, history and literature at a university, but only part-time and online since there is no university close to me. There's a college, but they only teach maritime and economic courses, which don't interest me. The more scientific courses are not available online in this country, so the best I can do as it is is a bachelor of arts.

Oh, that's sad. Then just get some books and the background by yourself. You can easily go through them if you use introductory texts and slowly build upon that.

 

[Gorgon]

Since I keep reading "Cell and Molecular Biology" in this thread, I figured I'd share. I'm taking Cell and Molecular Biology as a class this year. I heard it is quite difficult. Wish me luck!

Good luck!

 

[Boozeroony]

Fall of the Neanderthals: Volume of Modern Humans Infiltrating Europe Cited as Critical Factor

By conducting a detailed statistical analysis of the archaeological evidence from the classic 'Perigord' region of southwestern France, which contains the largest concentration of Neanderthal and early modern human sites in Europe, they have found clear evidence that the earliest modern human populations penetrated the region in at least ten times larger numbers than those of the local Neanderthal populations already established in the same regions.

This is what I call mass-immigration

 

[thomaser]

Just bought a few books to hopefully teach me some SCIENCE:

Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers, by Jan Gullberg. Looks to be a good choice both for novices like me and for math-wizards. Mathematics is very fascinating to me, but I have only understood it up to a certain point. Perhaps this will make the stickier topics, well, stick. Here's the Amazon review:

What does mathematics mean? Is it numbers or arithmetic, proofs or equations? Jan Gullberg starts his massive historical overview with some insight into why human beings find it necessary to "reckon," or count, and what math means to us. From there to the last chapter, on differential equations, is a very long, but surprisingly engrossing journey. Mathematics covers how symbolic logic fits into cultures around the world, and gives fascinating biographical tidbits on mathematicians from Archimedes to Wiles. It's a big book, copiously illustrated with goofy little line drawings and cartoon reprints. But the real appeal (at least for math buffs) lies in the scads of problems--with solutions--illustrating the concepts. It really invites readers to sit down with a cup of tea, pencil and paper, and (ahem) a calculator and start solving. Remember the first time you "got it" in math class? With Mathematics you can recapture that bliss, and maybe learn something new, too. Everyone from schoolkids to professors (and maybe even die-hard mathphobes) can find something useful, informative, or entertaining here.

Mathematica Cookbook, by Salvatore Mangano. I bought Mathematica 8 in the hopes of using it to learn something about maths and physics, but the learning curve is terribly steep, especially when doing it all by myself. This looks like it will be inspiring, but it might not be the learning aid I'm really looking for.

Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, by Richard Gross. Seems as if it's one of the most used textbooks for general psychology, at least in the UK. I've wanted to learn about this topic for ages. Product description:

500,000 students later Gross continues to set the standard for Psychology textbooks. This thoroughly updated edition is colorful, engaging, and packed with features that help students to understand and evaluate classic and contemporary Psychology. Gross is the 'bible' for students of Psychology and anyone in related fields such as Counseling, Nursing and Social Work who needs a reliable, catch-all text.

All the major domains of Psychology are covered in detail across 50 manageable chapters that will help you get to grips with anything from the nervous system to memory, from attachment to personality, and everything in-between. A final section on issues and debates allows students to cast a critical eye on the research process, to explore the nature of Psychology as an evolving science, and understand some of the ethical issues faced by Psychologists.

My body is ready.

 

[Gorgon]

Just bought a few books to hopefully teach me some SCIENCE:

Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers, by Jan Gullberg. Looks to be a good choice both for novices like me and for math-wizards. Mathematics is very fascinating to me, but I have only understood it up to a certain point. Perhaps this will make the stickier topics, well, stick. Here's the Amazon review:

What does mathematics mean? Is it numbers or arithmetic, proofs or equations? Jan Gullberg starts his massive historical overview with some insight into why human beings find it necessary to "reckon," or count, and what math means to us. From there to the last chapter, on differential equations, is a very long, but surprisingly engrossing journey. Mathematics covers how symbolic logic fits into cultures around the world, and gives fascinating biographical tidbits on mathematicians from Archimedes to Wiles. It's a big book, copiously illustrated with goofy little line drawings and cartoon reprints. But the real appeal (at least for math buffs) lies in the scads of problems--with solutions--illustrating the concepts. It really invites readers to sit down with a cup of tea, pencil and paper, and (ahem) a calculator and start solving. Remember the first time you "got it" in math class? With Mathematics you can recapture that bliss, and maybe learn something new, too. Everyone from schoolkids to professors (and maybe even die-hard mathphobes) can find something useful, informative, or entertaining here.

Mathematica Cookbook, by Salvatore Mangano. I bought Mathematica 8 in the hopes of using it to learn something about maths and physics, but the learning curve is terribly steep, especially when doing it all by myself. This looks like it will be inspiring, but it might not be the learning aid I'm really looking for.

Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, by Richard Gross. Seems as if it's one of the most used textbooks for general psychology, at least in the UK. I've wanted to learn about this topic for ages. Product description:

500,000 students later Gross continues to set the standard for Psychology textbooks. This thoroughly updated edition is colorful, engaging, and packed with features that help students to understand and evaluate classic and contemporary Psychology. Gross is the 'bible' for students of Psychology and anyone in related fields such as Counseling, Nursing and Social Work who needs a reliable, catch-all text.

All the major domains of Psychology are covered in detail across 50 manageable chapters that will help you get to grips with anything from the nervous system to memory, from attachment to personality, and everything in-between. A final section on issues and debates allows students to cast a critical eye on the research process, to explore the nature of Psychology as an evolving science, and understand some of the ethical issues faced by Psychologists.

My body is ready.

Go for it man. I wish you the best of lucks. I think your choice of books is good. Math makes a lot more sense and is far more interesting when taught in a historical framework.

 

[Scrow]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/10/eveningnews/main20090911.shtml

New cancer treatment reprograms immune system

A small medical study out today is generating a huge amount of excitement among cancer researchers. For the first time, scientists have been able to successfully target cancer cells by using cells from a patient's own immune system.
CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPool reports that that the small study produced what researchers call "proof of concept." It's a whole new way, of treating cancer.

Researchers engineered a patient's own immune cells to treat a type of blood cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or CLL.

CLL affects nearly 15,000 men and women a year and more than 4,000 will die from it.

For years, researchers have been trying to figure out a way to kill cancer cells using a patient's own immune system. On Wednesday, Dr. Carl June and his team at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine claimed a victory in that effort.

"This is a form of what I would call ultimate personal therapy. That's a wave of the future," June says.

CLL is a type of blood cancer. The only known cure is a bone marrow transplant, which is risky, and only effective in about half of patients.

In this new approach, scientists used the patient's own T-cells - white blood cells that help fight infections such as bacteria. Scientists remove the T-cells, genetically reprogram them to attack leukemia cells, and inject them back into the patient.

Researchers treated three patients with CLL. In two, the cancer cells were completely gone six months after the immune therapy.

"The clinical doctor involved in this was astonished and so were the patients that a single infusion of the cells could have such pronounced anti-tumor effects in the patients," Dr. June says.

This new treatment does have significant side-effects. The most common is a very bad flu-like illness, but so far all 3 patients - who had incurable leukemia and no other options - are doing well about a year after treatment.

This form of treatment is like giving a scent to a bloodhound. These T-cells have been given the scent of the leukemia cells and go hunt them down. The hope is to give T-cells the scent of colon cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer and train them go out and kill all kinds of cancers.

science. fuck yeah.

another article: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/new...-method-rids-patients-of-advanced-cancer?bn=1

 

[Scrow]

you disappoint me gaf. this is pretty amazing stuff

 

[Gorgon]

That's great! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Zapages]

As I can't make topics. :| ;(

I guess I will just post this here:

http://penncancer.org/penn_news.cfm?ID=1610

and watch this video: http://bcove.me/b8knmsol

Using HIV virus to battle against leukemia (blood cancer).

 

[Gorgon]

As I can't make topics. :| ;(

I guess I will just post this here:

http://penncancer.org/penn_news.cfm?ID=1610

and watch this video: http://bcove.me/b8knmsol

Using HIV virus to battle against leukemia (blood cancer).

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Scrow]

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-ibm-pursues-chips-brains.html

Computers, like humans, can learn. But when Google tries to fill in your search box based only on a few keystrokes, or your iPhone predicts words as you type a text message, it's only a narrow mimicry of what the human brain is capable.

The challenge in training a computer to behave like a human brain is technological and physiological, testing the limits of computer and brain science. But researchers from IBM Corp. say they've made a key step toward combining the two worlds.

The company announced Thursday that it has built two prototype chips that it says process data more like how humans digest information than the chips that now power PCs and supercomputers.

The chips represent a significant milestone in a six-year-long project that has involved 100 researchers and some $41 million in funding from the government's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. IBM has also committed an undisclosed amount of money.

The prototypes offer further evidence of the growing importance of "parallel processing," or computers doing multiple tasks simultaneously. That is important for rendering graphics and crunching large amounts of data.

The uses of the IBM chips so far are prosaic, such as steering a simulated car through a maze, or playing Pong. It may be a decade or longer before the chips make their way out of the lab and into actual products.

But what's important is not what the chips are doing, but how they're doing it, says Giulio Tononi, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who worked with IBM on the project.

The chips' ability to adapt to types of information that it wasn't specifically programmed to expect is a key feature.

"There's a lot of work to do still, but the most important thing is usually the first step," Tononi said in an interview. "And this is not one step, it's a few steps."

Technologists have long imagined computers that learn like humans. Your iPhone or Google's servers can be programmed to predict certain behavior based on past events. But the techniques being explored by IBM and other companies and university research labs around "cognitive computing" could lead to chips that are better able to adapt to unexpected information.

IBM's interest in the chips lies in their ability to potentially help process real-world signals such as temperature or sound or motion and make sense of them for computers.
IBM, which is based in Armonk, N.Y., is a leader in a movement to link physical infrastructure, such as power plants or traffic lights, and information technology, such as servers and software that help regulate their functions. Such projects can be made more efficient with tools to monitor the myriad analog signals present in those environments.
Dharmendra Modha, project leader for IBM Research, said the new chips have parts that behave like digital "neurons" and "synapses" that make them different than other chips. Each "core," or processing engine, has computing, communication and memory functions.
"You have to throw out virtually everything we know about how these chips are designed," he said. "The key, key, key difference really is the memory and the processor are very closely brought together. There's a massive, massive amount of parallelism."

The project is part of the same research that led to IBM's announcement in 2009 that it had simulated a cat's cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain, using a massive supercomputer. Using progressively bigger supercomputers, IBM had previously simulated 40 percent of a mouse's brain in 2006, a rat's full brain in 2007, and 1 percent of a human's cerebral cortex in 2009.

A computer with the power of the human brain is not yet near. But Modha said the latest development is an important step.

"It really changes the perspective from `What if?' to `What now?'" Modha said. "Today we proved it was possible. There have been many skeptics, and there will be more, but this completes in a certain sense our first round of innovation."

 

[Segnit]

Time
What you're seeing above is my years long quest to find out what "Time" actually is. I came up with this term 2 days ago when talking to a good friend. A friend who's dedicated his life to scientific and philosophical thought experiments, as well as a rudimentary system of theorizing.

I came up with the term when we were in the heat of a discussion and he tried to put me on the spot by asking me what "Time" is. Hell bent on not conceding anything in the discussion, quickly and without thinking I said "Time is a relative instance of space".

My response clicked with him but I didn't think much of it and we moved onwards with the discussion. Fast forward 2 days and around 20 mins ago I re-remembered the term and decided to do a Google search for it. To my surprise, according to Google, there is no match for the term whatsoever.

My thinking goes like this: even if it's the wrong definition of 'Time' at least the term should exist out there right? Apparently Google says 'no'.

What's more is that if you do a Google phrase search "" for "Time and Space are intertwined" then you'll find over 5000 matches.

What the hell does "Time and Space are Intertwined" even mean? Now although I don't know if my newfound definition is more correct or not, I do know that it makes things quite a bit easier when thinking of 4 dimensional space as:

- 4D space = X, Y, Z and relative space or => X, Y, Z and Xrelative, Yrelative & Zrelative.

Rather then the currently held view of:

- 4D space = X, Y, Z and time.

This is better because with my equation we have a common denominator or rather the standardization of space across the equation. The elimination of "Time" would relegate it to simply being a byproduct (or residue) of 2 moving or changing points in space. The more change happens then the more instances of relative space exist. Equally no change between any 2 points would simply mean no time.

I’m also interested to see when Google will crawl this page because I’m curious to see if the phrase “relative instance of space” will show up on the internets at large. Because if this page doesn’t show up on search within a couple of days then in hindsight I can safely assume that Google was simply being lazy with my original search and there are in fact a similar theories (including the term in question) out there in the scientific community.

Randomness (Chance vs. Determinism)
Another of my long held discoveries is that of Chance vs. Determinism, more specifically to do with chance or randomness.

Below is my definition of randomness:

- Randomness is the byproduct of infinite complexity.

That being true, to ants we would seem to be random beings because of our apparent infinite complexity to them.

And following that logic to its end destination, one could confidently conclude that to the universe at least, randomness cannot exist because all it would take to destroy randomness would be to match the level of complexity to the level of comprehensibility.

Equally what this would practically mean to us as humans is that for all intents and purposes something’s have and always will have infinite complexity to us. Therefore we will always operate under perceived randomness.

PS: I would’ve preferred a new thread for this post wink-wink, but I’m a junior and have no such rights at the moment.

What say you GAF am I onto something or is it all a load of cobblers?

 

[Gorgon]

What say you GAF am I onto something or is it all a load of cobblers?

Seems to me like it's all a load of cobblers. :/

 

[Segnit]

It probably is. But I ain't losing hope on the theory just yet because when thinking of time as a byproduct of space, then it all suddenly makes sense. Otherwise time is incomprehensible to my tiny little brain. Like what the hell is it, is it a particle, is it a belt force intermingled with space? I mean WTF right?

Also my theory holds true in space if you put it to the test. Take black holes for example, the closer you get to the black hole (a place of massive density and huge amount change in space) in a spaceship the more time would seem to slow down inside the spaceship in relation to those who're on earth.

How could my theory explain this? There are more instances of space near to a black hole then there is on earth. So to someone inside of the spaceship time would be seen as flowing normally because of a uniform slowdown (when observed from outside) in measuring equipment, biological clocks etc. due to the increased amount of relative instances of space.

Think of it like this. We have two cameras. One captures at 30fps and the other captures at 600fps. In this analogy, the frames of the camera are the instances of space. Also lets for the sake of argument say that we humans and our equipment are tuned into the 30fps wavelength.

Now the footage arriving to earth from inside the spaceship that's nearing the black hole is at 600fps. But in realtime we only have the ability to see 30frames per second. The result? By the time we go through a film of 600frames when viewed at 30 fps it would take around 20 seconds. So one second in the spaceship would appear to those observing on earth as 20 seconds.

In other words the video feed coming from the spaceship would appear to have slowed down. And since we know as fact that time slows down close to a blackhole, my theory has stood up to this particular scrutiny.

 

[Gorgon]

It probably is. But I ain't losing hope on the theory just yet because when thinking of time as a byproduct of space, then it all suddenly makes sense. Otherwise time is incomprehensible to my tiny little brain. Like what the hell is it, is it a particle, is it a belt force intermingled with space? I mean WTF right?

Also my theory holds true in space if you put it to the test. Take black holes for example, the closer you get to the black hole (a place of massive density and huge amount change in space) in a spaceship the more time would seem to slow down inside the spaceship in relation to those who're on earth.

How could my theory explain this? There are more instances of space near to a black hole then there is on earth. So to someone inside of the spaceship time would be seen as flowing normally because of a uniform slowdown (when observed from outside) in measuring equipment, biological clocks etc. due to the increased amount of relative instances of space.

Think of it like this. We have two cameras. One captures at 30fps and the other captures at 600fps. In this analogy, the frames of the camera are the instances of space. Also lets for the sake of argument say that we humans and our equipment are tuned into the 30fps wavelength.

Now the footage arriving to earth from inside the spaceship that's nearing the black hole is at 600fps. But in realtime we only have the ability to see 30frames per second. The result? By the time we go through a film of 600frames when viewed at 30 fps it would take around 20 seconds. So one second in the spaceship would appear to those observing on earth as 20 seconds.

In other words the video feed coming from the spaceship would appear to have slowed down. And since we know as fact that time slows down close to a blackhole, my theory has stood up to this particular scrutiny.

And how are those instances of space defined mathematically? How does matter and energy pass from one instance to the other? What is the actual physical model? And how do those instances behave when you add it to the physical equations? The thing here is that to really test your theory you need to go deeper than just talk, or else that's just like trying to know the meaning of life by looking out of the window while drinking bourbon.