A nice popular science read on the perils of genetic diagnostics
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/27.full
20% discordance rate in analysis is really troubling. For those without genetic predisposition to math (see below), thats getting one in five wrong.
And once we're at it, some genetic traits should NOT be studied of course:
http://www.nature.com/news/ethics-taboo-genetics-1.13858
Why? Because burying your head in sand is the most effective way to deal with potential controversy.
One of the findings in this study is that "People began to sweat slightly on seeing the pictures and smelling the odours, anticipating that they would get a shock."
http://www.nature.com/news/sleep-therapy-can-change-bad-memories-1.13792
I sent you guys enough links to high profile neuroscience papers to write a script for a Sacha Baron Cohen "reality" movie…
A fascinating (but not surprising) read on open access publishing:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
BTW, this really is NOT about open access publishing. It's about predatory publishing. Why would "Science" put "open-access" into sub-headline? Your guess is as good as my :-)
It really should not take a PhD to see a hint of disconnect between politicians cries for "more STEM graduates" and the actual job market:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillypharma/Merck-says-it-will-cut-8500-more-jobs.html
And if you do get a PhD and become a postdoc: you become awesome to the point of invisible and uncountable:
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2013_09_30/caredit.a1300214
Oh, and if you were a postdoc at the NIH? Then you are on unpaid leave until politicians figure out who has bigger balls and can pee further. While collecting their salaries of course.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/27.full
20% discordance rate in analysis is really troubling. For those without genetic predisposition to math (see below), thats getting one in five wrong.
And once we're at it, some genetic traits should NOT be studied of course:
http://www.nature.com/news/ethics-taboo-genetics-1.13858
Why? Because burying your head in sand is the most effective way to deal with potential controversy.
One of the findings in this study is that "People began to sweat slightly on seeing the pictures and smelling the odours, anticipating that they would get a shock."
http://www.nature.com/news/sleep-therapy-can-change-bad-memories-1.13792
I sent you guys enough links to high profile neuroscience papers to write a script for a Sacha Baron Cohen "reality" movie…
A fascinating (but not surprising) read on open access publishing:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
BTW, this really is NOT about open access publishing. It's about predatory publishing. Why would "Science" put "open-access" into sub-headline? Your guess is as good as my :-)
It really should not take a PhD to see a hint of disconnect between politicians cries for "more STEM graduates" and the actual job market:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillypharma/Merck-says-it-will-cut-8500-more-jobs.html
And if you do get a PhD and become a postdoc: you become awesome to the point of invisible and uncountable:
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2013_09_30/caredit.a1300214
Oh, and if you were a postdoc at the NIH? Then you are on unpaid leave until politicians figure out who has bigger balls and can pee further. While collecting their salaries of course.
RSS Feed
