Grad students are definitely in a precarious position in reference to their advisors and to ‘notable’ profs working in their area. Working abroad at the pre-PhD stage (especially somewhere where you don’t know the language) sounds like it compounds the issues. I think home institutions need to do a better job preparing and then protecting their students in this respect including creating avenues for reporting and legal protection.
Sounds to me like it's the opposite of how an LED works. Instead of creating a small gap that discharges a photon, the material creates a small gap that collects an ion. The ion is then run downstream to the thing that is being powered, making the gap available for another ion.
In other words, it kinda works the same as clouds do to create lightening, the material just facilitates this in a way that can be reliably consumed and at a much, much lower energy scale.
I don't think there's a lot of value to having the muscle transcriptome of an extinct species, since it's probably similar enough to extant marsupial or even eutherian muscle transcriptomes. And we're not going to be building adult thylacines from scratch using this information.
Very surprising RNA could survive this long, though.
Representative Brad Wenstrup (R–OH), who chairs the House of Representatives’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, says his panel and the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have heard testimony from a whistleblower “who presents as a highly credible senior-level CIA officer.” According to the press release
"presents as"
Jesus Fucking Christ they didn't even verify their single source's background before publishing a press release.
An explanation of how this works from the article:
JWST is able to analyse the light that passes through the faraway planet's atmosphere. That light contains the chemical signature of molecules in its atmosphere. The details can be deciphered by splitting the light into its constituent frequencies - rather like a prism creating a rainbow spectrum. If parts of the resulting spectrum are missing, it has been absorbed by chemicals in the planet's atmosphere, enabling researchers to discover its composition.
Note that they say the identification is ‘tentative’ and not robust yet.
My comments was really made in jest…love the follow-up from everyone though! I also lov ehow science will always defer to “possible” instead of “definitively” no matter how much evidence there may be.
That's because that's how science works. Discoveries are not considered to be statistically significant until they reach what's called 5 sigma certainty which is approximately equivalent to saying that the chance that the discovery is wrong is 1 in 3.5 million.
A lot of scientists would consider it unethical to claim a discover until you had provided enough data to reach 5 sigma certainty. When papers are published, it takes a lot of peer review before the hypothesis of that paper event approaches 5 sigma certainty, but that doesn't mean that reporters aren't happy to pick up the story.
It's just bad and/or unethical science journalism that are picking up on unproven papers because of the sensational title.
This is in the same vein as that idiot that started the anti-vaxxer movement by writing a bogus study about vaccines causing autism. Tbf, his bullshit should've been uncovered while reviewing the study...
I think this is worse, arguably. Don't get me wrong, Wakefield wasn't good. But this is actually worse.
Wakefield wanted to call into question a thing which, at the time, was a relatively small thing: the MMR vaccine. There was no political platform of vaccines back then, it was the fallout from his con years after that created that platform. He wanted to do that so he could sell his own snake oil cure-all for autism. He frankly didn't care about vaccines, he simply knew people were hesitant about shots and overly concerned about normalcy.
So Wakefield really was just a greedy sonuvabitch ready to capitalize on the tremendous effort parents of autistic children are ready to commit for their kids. Bad, but just selfish greed. Not trying to accelerate an already existential crisis for political maga points.
This though, climate change, is already the political platform. This is very clearly an attack on the very institutions of academia themselves. This is trying to discredit the act of collecting data and replicating experiments as real science. And there's frankly a lot to say about that topic today (p<0.05 apocalypse) but this isn't saying any of that. It's simply saying "here's a reason not to trust climate science at all". That's the argument. That's way more dangerous than anti-vax arguments. Thank God this instance was as ineffective as it was.
Silver lining, it took almost ten years for Wakefield to get caught and detracted. This didn't take long to catch at all because the guy who did it was smug about his shitty goal, in typical right winger fashion: he went and published an opinion piece on his own paper, to the surprise of even his co-author.
science
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.